So a fairly nice upperclass family (Tim Roth, Naomi Watts and standard child actor) are staying at classy estate on a lake. Well unless you go into this movie blind (That would be better) you'll know that things won't be a quiet weekend. Two golf-caddy looking mild mannered boys show up and they bring trouble. They are Paul (A dastardly evil Michael Pitt) and Peter (Brady Corbet), white glove wearing (symbolism for clean hands seems appropriate) boys looking to play some games. Too bad their games are sadistic and cruel. Anyway the movie takes you to the limit and WILL make you feel uncomfortable (albeit bored at others).
The 7/10 comes from straight film making. Looking at it's acting, camera shots, plot and innovation it fits the 7/10 bill. The problem is that at the same time I want to give this movie a 1/10 or maybe a 9/10 (won't give it a perfect score though). Michael Haneke, the director, has made a shot for shot remake of his German 1988 original (RIP Ulrich Muhe). His purpose, to show us how sadistic as people we are. I watched the original not knowing much and was confused, but I knew I watched something special and unique. After two days I figured it out. Haneke just slapped me in the face and gave me a middle finger. I then asked for another sir. Watching the remake was the same, actually I got distracted because it is identical to the original. I wanted to reexamine it for a review so I gave this new one a shot. It sucks because I failed the test by going back. Haneke wants you to turn off his movie and in that way you pass the test. To watch it in some ways makes you a bad person. Seeing as how I've watched both versions I think Haneke is kind of of a dick. Why can't I just watch your movie to simply watch based on merit? See Haneke made his original in response to the stream of bloody horror movies that came out in the 80's. Ones that celebrate mindless violence over story telling. To mock those who watch these horror movies loving the bloodcurdling screams and in Haneke's mind I think getting turned on to it (not entirely wrong). So in a post 9/11 world (I hate using the phrase but it's true), Americans and most people have come to love the torture genre. The genre is stronger now then ever, shown by "Saw 7" or whatever number they're on now. Maybe it's about wanting us seeing people hurt but this is all opinion (I've read a review that the final battle in "Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen" was a poetic analogy about fear of the Middle East, you can think what you want but know I cringe to the thought). So this movie is giving us a torture movie that will make you either regret watching this dark movie or love the suspense and cruel thrills it gives us. I don't hate the torture genre personally. I think most should collect dust on the shelves, but not all. There is a certain driving force behind "Hostel" and "Saw" that made me happy that I've seen them (at least once). It gives you idea what you would do in these situations, it's not a bad feeling when watching movies. However "Funny Games" looks to bring us to a breaking point or atleast see if we have one. It still follows classic torture patterns though, so in a way I think Haneke is hypocritical in making this movie as well. Breaking the fourth wall in the movie was actually a really nice touch, made it more of a impact on audiences psyche."Funny Games" is a torture movie for people who hate (and also love) torture movies.
7/10
Recommendation: It's artsy and smart for that crowd and will get your blood going for the other. Either way it's more a statement than film, but something interesting in the end.
No comments:
Post a Comment