FUNNY GAMES Pre-Release Discussion

I haven't seen all the promotion but the one commercial I saw made it out to be a rollicking Home Alone-style romp.

Well, in all fairness, if you've seen the original, then you have to ask, how could you sell the thing?

The full length trailer certainly made an impression on every audience I've seen it with. Probably not a "I gotta see that!" impression, but more of a "that's just fucked up" kind. Which, of course, means I gotta see it.

I haven't seen the original, but I did watch the red-band trailer. Big mistake since it was pretty spoilerrifc.

I still want to see it.

I can't imagine this hitting more than 1000 theaters.

Spoilers really aren't an issue with this movie. It's not about what happens, but how you look at it.

And it is a near exact remake, as advertised. Same Naked City song, same devices, many near identical shots. Roth and Watts are terrific.

No one is going to see this.

I took my folks to see No Country and this made me incredibly uncomfortable.

Yeah, I saw this trailer attached to There Will Be Blood in a sold out theater and most of the audience clearly shuddered and murmurred their discomfort to those around them after it was over. Looks pretty twisted and both Michael Pitt and Brady Corbit look incredibly frightening.

In other words, I can't wait to see this.

You can't. At all.

I just saw three or four ads for this while watching Jackass reruns, I haven't seen my father squirm like that in a long time.

Is that the same piece of music from the Clockwork Orange trailers? It's similar to say the least.

Does the remake break the fourth wall like the original?

www.rif.org

Hey Russ, does the remake use the same Naked City song?

If only I could remember.

I saw the remake at the Dublin Film Fest recently. I think it's the same song used, but I'm not 100%.

It's a rivetting film, but I don't really see the point in a shot for shot remake. I think it's aimed at the Saw crowd in a confrontational way, but I also think it'll be too odd and confrontational for enough people to see it.

Oh, awesome performances, incidentally.

I'd tell you how you can be 100% sure, but I think I'm gonna let you figure that one out for yourself. It's a lot more fun that way.

What if it doesn't? If this movie does boffo box office, does that invalidate Heneke's aim for the film? It seems to me that the original was an indictment of the audience's cinematic bloodlust, and he made the the film as off-putting and realistic as possible to show the audience what an actual home invasion/murder would look and feel like. In effect he's saying: "You like sadistic killing. Fine, here's sadistic killing," and I think he does this to show what brutality is really like, perhaps to get the public at large to re-examine why it desires these kinds of films.

If this remake goes through the roof, then it would seem that Heneke failed, since the public would be saying: "Yes, we love brutal killing. Give us more."

Even if the Saw crowd does find it they won't get that it's confrontational I think. It'll only encourage them if anything sadly.

Honestly, as I've seen the original, I can't imagine wanting to see this one. Especially if it's a shot for shot remake. I can't really imagine anyone who would want to see it.

I went to see the original in theater when it came out. I was fresh at university then, and could still be intimidated by that kind of oppressive PC attitude, which deluded me into thinking I liked it & thought it confrontational. A few years after I began watching it again with a girlfriend at the time, and I had to agree when she told me after 30 min that she wasn't enjoying it- at all, and furthermore there was no point to the discomfort it brought instead. We stopped the tape & watched something else.

That remains my main gripe with this movie (and its ilk): if you belong to the crowd that would go see a Haneker movie, you're probably already aware of the complex audience-illusion-reality triangle that concerns violence in movies. So what's your point Mike? I get my kicks watching ultra-violence? You bet I do, precisely *because* it's staged and fake and I realize it being so. In real life I loathe it in any form. But onscreen it can invoke a whole variety of emotions, from getting seriously disturbed (NCFOM) to laughing my ass off (Bad Taste). But if it continually points to itself, it simply becomes annoying soon. And Funny Games does just that, and nothing more.

I really liked the Haneke stuff that came after FG, Caché & all- same themes, much better movies. So I don't get why he wanted to revisit this.. especially since the whole question of media & violence has become so infinitely more complex, it just isn't up with the times at all.
So fuck it, skip this. Go see Rambo again instead. But try to find that Naked City track first, that whole album's the shit.

I couldn't wait.

But I'm not the gayest.

Your loss. Funny Games will be too.

I'm really looking forward to seeing this as well, but I'm only somewhat familiar with the original. I don't revel in violent or sadistic image, but if it's part of a good film I certainly have no problem with it.

Because of the violence or because there's an original version? If it's the latter, I can understand your point and will make an effort to find the original instead. If it's the former, am I right to assume that the nature of the violence in this is similar to something like Irreversible or Straw Dogs? Those are both great films that rise above the violent images within them and are worth seeing, even if it's only once.

I meant it as the former. Don't get me wrong, the original is very successful at what it tries to accomplish, and if you dug Irreversible, you'll like Funny Games, in all probability. What I meant to say with my poorly worded post is that not only will mainstream audiences avoid this by and large, but the ones that do go in expecting some sort of thriller will HATE it. I can imagine the robust Irreversible crowd digging it fine. Personally, the original made me sick to my stomach, so I'm sitting the remake out.

I disagree that this movie is impossible to spoil, by the way. In fact, I think the way it resolves is essential to it's power and it's point.

Making me sick to my stomach is precisely why I won't be sitting the remake out. I don't think any film I've ever seen has given me quite the gut (literally) reaction that Haneke's Funny Games did. I felt extremely distrubed and almost guilty after I watched that movie and although I don't quite agree with what Haneke was trying to do with it any film that causes me to have such a reaction I admire in some way. I'm interested if the remake will have the same effect.

I really don't understand people who were disturbed by the little tricks Haeneke pulled in the original. To me it felt like a director trying desperately to be disturbing and failing at it every step of the way. So yeah, I'm with The Gayest: no need to see this, aside from the performances.

My review after a screening: Ho-ly-shit. I haven't seen the original, but I can't see myself viewing this again in any form. Not because of the film itself, which is a slick piece of filmmaking, but because of the feeling I had during its running time, which was akin to having my stomach in a slowly clamping vice.

I dug that A CLOCKWORK ORANGE-inspired TV spot.

Well, I've never seen the original, but I usually like to before I see the remake, though this is by the same director and is apparently more or less the same thing. Is it better to see the original first or will it make virtually no difference?

P.S.> Is this film more shocking than the alternate ending to Die Hard: With A Vengeance?

It is, apparently, a shot for shot, moment for moment remake, so I don't think there is a difference if you see the original or this one. But, make no mistake, this is a brutal sit.

EDIT: Now that I think about it, it might be the most disturbing film I've seen since "Salo, or the 120 Days of Sodom."

Well, basically my question was is it worth seeing the original for the different actors. I liked Ulrich Gonnamessuphisname in The Lives of Others. Do the original actors give a perfomance that makes seeing both versions worth it?

P.S.- Michael Pitt has grown on me. I used to dislike him based on his lips alone, but I like his choice of rolls. He looks fucking detestable in this, a real sleazebag. Can't wait.

The trailer merely scratches the surface of Pitt's sleaziness. He's downright unsettling.

Well I'm definitely going to see it this evening with a buddy of mine who has not seen the original. Depending on what time he gets out of work we're either going to the local independent theater for a showing at 6:50 or the Regal Multiplex at the mall for a 7:45'er. Two wildly different crowds. Either way it should be pretty interesting to see the audience reaction.

Either way, it won't even matter which group you see it with. You'll be beside yourself the whole time wincing, you'll miss everyone else's reaction altogether until the credits. And by then, some will have walked out of the theater.

I don't think it'll have the same effect on me, as I've seen the original and know what to expect. One of the reasons I'm going is to see how the audience reacts to this.

This sounds like a Count-The-Number-of-Audience-Members-Before-The-Lights-Go-Out-and-See-How-Many-Are-Left-At-The-End film. Should be interesting.

So I was emailing back and forth with a friend of mine about this flick and after I told her what it was about she said "Nice!! I love those type of movies!"

After explaining to her that it's not really "that type" of movie, she sends this: "it's all the same to me....movies are movies...it's all pretend regardless of the torture and shit like that...I saw Hostel - all the same to me...same as Resevoir Dogs and the torture of the cop..."

So I invited her along to the screening tonight.

I want to hear the follow-up story to this.

I haven't seen the original, don't know much about the story, rarely go to the theater at all, but for some reason I have a strong desire to go out of my way and see this film, alone, tonight.

Jesus, I had no idea what this was until I opened this thread. I've seen the trailer many times and it seemed like some kind of standard thriller, but nothing exciting. I wasn't even planning on seeing it.

It's very hard for me to be disturbed by a movie now days (same goes for most people, via being desensitized), so I'm interested in seeing what all the hoopla is about.

Seconded.

Thirded.

I'm not a fan of the original but I like Naomi Watts and her quest to cry and suffer through miles of celluloid. I think the point might be simple, but it is important point to make, as Devildoubt said, "what an actual home invasion/murder would look and feel like," and it isn't fun.

Someone mentioned seeing the trailer for this in front of NCFOM, and if the original is interesting in any way to me, it's because it makes me think I should feel guilty for enjoying NCFOM so much. Compare this scene to similar scenes of Chigurh in No Country [SPOILER]:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pdplHwx3q7M

You repeat and imitate the dialogue in No Country, study it for meanings and characterization. But here, what's going on is vile. I don't want to see the (implied) violence again, or the suffering, even for the black humor.

Even if the remake doesn't work, that poster is beautiful, a paperback novel version of Watts. Crying and sexualized. The Village Voice review claimed the only real change in the U.S. version was that her character was in her underwear more often.

To me, No Country for Old Men is a condemnation of violence as well. By going the way that they did I think the Coen Bros. are throwing these people's inherent violent tendencies back in their faces, they won't even give them a resolution, because a way of violence is only going to lead you to a confusing and dark world.

I see what you're saying Felt, I just think you chose the wrong film to use as an example.

But I suppose upon seeing Funny Games I may be proven wrong. I might come back here in two hours with a different view.

If you enjoy the violence in NCFOM then I think you've kinda missed the point.

The second half of No Country may be a condemnation of violence along with a lot of other things, but the first half is a really well-made thriller. And the implication of the Haneke film is that you shouldn't enjoy well-made thrillers, or dialogue of the killers in them.

But, yeah, I probably should have chosen a better example.

It just came to mind because it's an incredibly fun movie to rewatch, as opposed to Funny Games.

I am glad you mentioned this, because it allowed me to make a connection I haven't seen mentioned. The poster for Funny Games '08 seems very 'Roy Lichtenstein' to me. If I remember correctly, weren't a lot of Lichtenstein's paintings replicas of pre-existing comic panels? Pretty cool.

I couldn't recommend this movie more. I saw it for a second time today because I love the movie...and to see how Burbank would react to it.

Someone brought their young kids.

Awesome. How old?