Why is this shit film so highly regarded? It seems like it's just edgy for the sake of being edgy.
 |
 DMT Has Friends For Me Shirt $21.68 |
|
Why is this shit film so highly regarded? It seems like it's just edgy for the sake of being edgy.
Why is this shit film so highly regarded? It seems like it's just edgy for the sake of being edgy.
|
DMT Has Friends For Me Shirt $21.68 |
|
Haneke fricking sucks
I love it. The tension the first time is unbearable. Love the subversive stuff like everything happening off screen and of course, the remote scene.
>oh, wow, something happening in this boring nothing movie
>oh, it didn't because magic
Then why do it?
Such a shit movie. Its boring, there's smoking, the "message" about violence in the media or whatever doesn't work.
And why didn't they use "Now I Lay Me Down To Sleep" for the prayer? It would've been thematic. I assume its because the writer/director us German
>course, the remote scene.
Is the fricking worst.
>the tension
At no point is there any tension in this film. Nothing fricking happens and the guys are always in control. And if they're not they just use magic to fix it.
>At no point is there any tension in this film. Nothing fricking happens and the guys are always in control.
Fricking this
nothing happens theres just a few murders, watch more films, not everything is a videogame with a clairvoyant start and ending, and stop watching the nitpicking autismos like YMS because you sound like that homosexual
Legit if they used "Now I Lay Me Down To Sleep" this could've been good. Its what you expect when he tells her to say a prayer.
>nothing happens theres just a few murders
Yeah, and they're fricking boring. Which I guess is the point, the director saying "violence isn't like in the movies, its actually fricking dull". And the one time something looks like it might happen its just reversed. After that what's the point of finishing it? We already knew they were going to kill all three of them but now it doesn't matter.
>not everything is a videogame with a clairvoyant start and ending
What the frick does that mean?
>no tension
Did you even watch the movie? All throughout the film Haneke is throwing the viewer bones by letting them think that the family has a chance. the boy escapes, the parents try to untie their ropes, the neighbors, the killers play "games" with the family where they're willing to let them go like the prayer, etc. The couple even escapes and makes it onto the street you moron.
The fact that it amounts to nothing is exactly the point. It's emotional manipulation at its purest and the "message" is only the cherry on top.
Wow all this happens but literally none of it is earned and know it won't last. You're right on about the kid escaping but after that it's hard to see them having any chance of getting out of this alive. They leave for literally no reason after the kid gets shot and the couple frequently say "yeah they might come back". The golfball return thing would've been cool if they had any reason to leave in the first place, it's not shocking at all they recaptured the mom. Why am I supposed to think they have a chance when they never truly get the upper hand? The only time they actually get the upper hand is when shes uses the shotgun and it gets reversed so why am I supposed to believe in Chekhov's knife at the end in the boat?
The best bit of tension is at the beginning when she's trying to get this egg dropping autist out of her house and he won't get the message. Then theres a turn and they handicap the father for the rest of the film which everyone underreacts to. You'd think he was holding a double barrel the way they took over that entire family and scared the wife into lying to her friends who could've saved them. Wheres the tension after that? They sit on the couch and play ""games"" like strip or I'll brake your sons fingers. Also they're really nice about it too, don't wanna make the audience think they might just brake his fingers anyway. *winks at the camera*
>know it won't last
>know
Maybe if you spent less time shitposting and more time watching movies you wouldn't have spoiled it for yourself, dumbass.
>Why am I supposed to think they have a chance when they never truly get the upper hand?
All of the tension in the film is built by their chances and the possibility of development - culminating in the shotgun / remote control scene. Any ordinary horror or thriller film would've had the characters actually escape or have had the killer actually die after getting a hole blown in his chest or the characters escaping and the plot somehow developing from there. The victims usually get the upper hand, which is the exact expectation that Haneke wants to frick with. It's making a mockery of those sorts of tropes, in a way, so that by the time you get to that knife in the boat it should be clear that there's no way she's getting out of it alive. There's definitely a satirical element to it as well.
>Maybe if you spent less time shitposting and more time watching movies you wouldn't have spoiled it for yourself, dumbass.
The villain literally looks at the camera and bets you that they're going to die. Every half hearted attempt at escape made them look like they were stupid for even trying. If the villain is constantly winking at the camera and never loses the upper hand how the frick could you think they had a chance to live. And before that, why would you even give a frick? They do nothing to make this family feel like anything more than cardboard cutouts until the kid dies.
>The victims usually get the upper hand, which is the exact expectation that Haneke wants to frick with.
What if you don't watch films with a prewritten script in your head and actually need to see the characters be competent before you expect them to be competent? This didn't play out like an average horror from the very beginning so why would I even be thinking about common tropes in the first place? The mom grabbing the shotgun and BTFOing the villain was legitimately shocking based on everything the film presented before that but the villain having some asspull remote control to rewind everything wasn't because the guy was literally telling us it's his movie.
>why would I even be thinking about common tropes
Because Haneke literally shoves them in your face, jesus christ anon. I'm not going to repeat myself for fricks sake. And why do you keep going on about the killers always having the upper hand as if that wasn't always revealed after the fact? The tension is almost entirely built on blueballing you with glimmers of hope and then - again, afterwards - making a mockery of them, which is why Haneke tries to make their escape more and more likely by the minute culminating in the 20 minute escape attempt and one of the killers straight up getting killed.
Even if you knew the outcome, you can still sympathize with the characters in their fruitless endeavors because of their suffering and realistic, believable behavior and personalities. They're not meant to be "likeable" by making quips or whatever you think they should've been. And of course you aren't meant to predict everything that the film throws at you unless you've already spoiled it for yourself.
>but the villain tells you that they'll die!
Name five (5) movies where the villain says this and it actually happens. Many important moments in thriller films are predicated on characters escaping from seemingly impossible situations. There was never a guarantee that the film couldn't continue after their escape.
>Because Haneke literally shoves them in your face
He doesn't though
> And why do you keep going on about the killers always having the upper hand as if that wasn't always revealed after the fact?
It's revealed when one of them looks at the camera winks and says he's going to kill all of them. At that point it's up to the characters to prove they're not easily disposable and they fail
>blueballing you with glimmers of hope
After the kid fails and they get a shotgun which escape attempt did you actually think would work?
>20 minute escape attempt
Oh you mean the one where the killers leave for literally no reason and the characters say they'll be back? Yeah man I really thought they had a chance that time, they really earned that 20 minutes with their cunning.
>Even if you knew the outcome, you can still sympathize with the characters
I sympathize with them but it's hard to get invested in 1 dimensional characters that the movie itself is telling me are disposable. They don't have to be quipping even if thats the only way you see dialogue. They don't even have to say much of anything they could just react to what the villains are doing and saying in ways that reflect their character being anything more than a cardboard box. You can tell the actors are trying but theres just nothing for them to work with, they're just there to be tortured. Why should I be invested in that?
>Name five (5) movies where the villain says this
I can't name 5 movies were the villain explicitly turns to the character and says it more than once after establishing the amount of control they have. It's not like it's at the end of a Bond movie where you know he'll win because he's James Bond. These are literal who characters getting tortured just for the sake of being tortured and the villains doing so are making you aware you're watching a movie so why should I get invested in these characters?
a lot of missed opportunities in this flick to make it quality torture kino.
like saw or something?
Not quite like Saw, with the elaborate contraptions, but I think they should have raped the mom in front of the kid and father, and done some disfigurement to all of them at varying capacities.
oh okay
stick to Marvel films
I don't say this often but if you don't see the obvious appeal you're filtered
Haneke even has some subpar films but this isn't one of them
If it's so obvious then explain the appeal, because I don't see it. Even most of the negative reviews that say it's sadistic I don't understand either. It's not even that violent either, yeah they kill a kid and a dog which is a nono for Hollywood but they both happen offscreen. The scene after the kid dies and the parents grieve and try to escape is the only time I ever felt engaged with this shitflick.
>even most of [the people who got filtered got filtered]
damn, really makes me think..
>f-filtered!
Ok, I'm filtered. could you explain why you liked this film so much though?
Emphatic tension like holding a family hostage with a golf club? Hard for me to even root for this family when I know literally nothing about them, they give us one scene with the mom getting annoyed at this moron dropping eggs and that's it. From what I gathered in it seems like most people enjoy it just because it's meta and subverts expectations on what you'd normally expect in a home invasion flick.
>most people enjoy it just because it's meta and subverts expectations on what you'd normally expect in a home invasion flick
no shit dude, it's an arthouse horror movie. what did you really expect going into this movie?
>what did you really expect going into this movie?
I had low expectations and the film me that. I'm confused at why it's so highly regarded despite being shit.
it emphasizes the viewer to the extreme, the tension, the acting, the loose ending
The villains are aware they’re in a movie and basically say to the audience “you can make this stop anytime you want by turning off the film but you’re enjoying watching so we’re going to give you want you want”. It places more agency on the viewer than most horror films which makes you feel like a passive watcher
But that's fricking stupid. Its not a choose your own adventure book. There is only one ending.
There is though, you can choose to turn off the movie and the characters won’t suffer and die
>Just don't watch it
Ok then I wont.
What a genius movie.
Yup and here's my review of the film
>The villain told me if I turn the movie off they lived so I did because I want them to not die 🙂
>10/10 I can't believe more movies don't do this
>you can make this stop anytime you want by turning off the film but you’re enjoying watching so we’re going to give you want you want
This is such a confusing takeaway because he starts doing this before they even start """"torturing"""" them. Was I really supposed to turn it off after the Dad got hit with a club and they made the mother strip? The only thing I was thinking was "what's the point of all this?". Turns out the point was just to be violent for the sake of it. Even then it wasn't all that violent.
rich white preppies are the real monsters
>set up that knife in the boat to be an obvious Chekov's Gun
>entire time I'm anticipating the wife to kill them with it
>at the end the two guys just grab it and toss it into the lake when she goes for it
I've never felt a greater mixture of anger and admiration.
How could you feel anything when even if she escapes they can just use the remote to rewind time again? Even disregarding that you know they're going to catch her. The only surprising part is that they kill her an hour early because they're hungry, which did give me a chuckle.
>there are people in this thread that unironically missed how this film was a meta-commentary on horror fans and how they seek out obviously violent films for no other reason than to watch people suffer
They would have had a pretty hard time using the remote with their throats slashed anon.
See
People get it. It's not that hard when Haneka b***hes about horror fans and American films in every interview.
If you have to watch an interview to understand a film then you are a midwit, no two ways about it.
Who said you need to watch the interview? It's just extra proof when its cowardly fans try to hide behind the typical midwit argument "Y-you d-don't understand, it's actually different and nuanced!".
>doesn't like film genre so tries to make a really shitty movie in the genre
congratulations, it's crap
this movie is not about entertaining the audience, the movie is a critic of movie violence and the director wants the spectator to turn off the film when he gets the point, hopefully before the movie is over. however unpleasant and preachy this may seem, it's actually a moral and coherent art film.
“I don't like violence,” says filmmaker Michael Haneke, “and I don't like horror movies. I would never do a thriller or horror film for the sake of doing it, and I would say that Funny Games is a self-reflexive anti-horror film. It's a criticism of violence, because that really makes me angry.”
It's a well made movie but I could never get behind the preachy message
That's because you're too far gone, go back to Tarantino gay
I don't even actively seek violent movies, the message was just homosexual shit
>its not supposed to be good
Well, then he succeeded.
It would've been great if after she killed the one the other one just hung her from the ceiling by her hands and beat the hell out of her. Cuts to her naked body full of knives and covered in wounds. He cuts her down because she "won" but dies anyway.
But something like that is too good for artsy bullshit like this.
Lol you're demented. How does that in any way make for a better movie? Sounds like you just want some fetish shit
>how does every scene actually contributing to the plot make for a better movie?
Okay, how about since continuing from the shooting scene would be "fetishistic" just don't have it. Don't include a scene in your movie just to immediately reverse it.
I don't think switching from dull calculating killer to raging after losing control of the situation is particularly "fetishistic". Its the natural progression from her killing one of them.
Saying its supposed to be bad doesn't make it good.
He was criticizing movies with plots that go from point A to point B? Movies where a scene effects the following scenes? Yeah, those are the worst.
IT ISN'T GOOD YOU ABSOLUTE homosexual
HE MADE IT BAD DELIBERATELY
it IS BAD
SHITHEAD
IT IS BAD
you're thinking in terms of surface-level aesthetics when Haneke's movie is about morality. you're better off forgetting about this movie and moving on to next product.
If a chef brings you a plate of shit and tells you hates you, that's why he brought you a plate of shit, you're not supposed to slurp it up and praise the chef for his brilliant culinary statement
He straight up told you he hated you
FG was Haneke telling audiences he hates them
It's a movie you're supposed to turn off, basically a mean prank. Frick you for falling for it. It's practically an IQ test. If you finish the movie, you're an idiot
Yeah, I get that its a bad movie. Just because it was intentionally bad doesn't make it a brilliant commentary on better movies.
>I'm confused at why it's so highly regarded despite being shit.
Because you see its supposed to be shit. That means it's good.
No, its obviously some artsy preachy bullshit. The problem is if you do an artsy preachy movie it has to also be a good movie.
The trouble is he doesn't go for it. Its really soft and lacking in violence. Its sad, a real filmmaker could've done something with this idea
Brilliant commentary
You stupid fricking homosexual
It's BAD you fricking dipshit, he tells you it's bad, I'm telling you it's bad the whole fricking world except you knows it's bad, and you keep fricking saying everyone's raving about how good it is
You fricking scumsucking piece of shit you fricking mongoloid cumdrinker I fricking hate your pathetic existence
Woah I have empathy for that anon despite him being a bot for all I know. I'm gonna turn off this thread before you verbally abuse him some more
🙁
You're welcome anon I just saved you.
Movie's supposed to make you angry enough to turn it off. It's a literal provocation. That you sat through the whole thing and still don't get that is a problem. It's an anti-movie
what you consider "good" is different than what the director's intentions were. you were expecting exactly the kind of movie Haneke was criticizing.
It's not unpleasant to watch at all though, aside from how boring it is at least.
i meant the attitude of Haneke is somewhat offputting and unpleasant, it's rare a director openly and transparently lectures their audience like this and pulls the rug under them without sweetening or making up for it in any way.
i found the movie watchable but it's more like bitter medecine than entertainment.
Final kill was so lame. They took her for a boat ride and threw overboard. Lame. Previous kills were better.
I liked that. It was just nice non-gore way. They simply throw her out and let her down, they don't even bother to actually kill her. Ironically it's rare to see such kills. The only thing coming close is one movie I saw long time ago where captors throw girl into a pit and fill it with cement. She's killed in non-gore way.
My favorite kill was the child that gets shot offscreen. Almost turned it off because of how pussy the director was.
>return of the repressed vague WW2 allegory
It was ran counter to the puerile Tarantino cartoon violence, mostly.
It's not even edgy. It's zany r-ddit garbage with Saved by the Bell 4th wall breaking. I found it irritating and I hate my friends for making me watch it.
It's a midwit commentary on movie violence + a good heaping Yuro insecurity regarding Americans. He wants to make a "point" about the grossness of movie violence and people who enjoy them(which in his view are mostly Americans) so he made a film that's so violent(in his mind) that the viewer is supppsed to turn off the film. Of course, like many didactic movies of this nature it completely fell flat on its face and most people unironically enjoyed the violence. This made him seethe so much he made an American remake so that mutts could learn their lesson correctly this time which also predictably ended up as a failure.
He's just like Vo Trier. A midwit Euro who for some reason is obsessed with Americans and wants to condescend them regarding morality. Don't see why this is such a trend among European directors? Do they think their populace is morally superior because they haven't committed a mass genocide for a couple of decades?
Europeans have made plenty of pointlessly violent and exploitative films too, it's dumb to just seethe at americans for that
Yeah, the majority of fricked up movies come out of Germany and Japan
Haneke and Von Trier have nothing in common, the fact you keep throwing around the term midwit sounds like pure insecurity. if you actually think that Von Trier and Haneke are comparable simply because they have made one or two "edgy" movies really says a lot about you
>Haneke and Von Trier have nothing in common.
They do. Their seethe towards Americans. Did I say they're similar as filmmakers? Oh wait, there's another similarity. They're both midwits.
Easiest way to tell if an anons stupid if is they use the word midwit lmao
what seethe towards Americans does Von Trier have. are you actually going to take the word of a notorious troll seriously by bringing up Dogville? the film he "wrote" while off a three day coke bender?
Who let out you out of your midwit general /film/tard?
>this pathetic samegay
please learn a new epic Cinemaphile buzzword
>Why is this shit film so highly regarded?
Because post-modernist cream themselves at night when then thinking of this movie.
Do people prefer the original or remake? Shot for shot identical, but the original actors are better and it has better cinematography (more soul, remake looks like grey digital garbage), so that's what I prefer.
the remake because IMO Michael Pitt is better as a serial killer and Naomi Watts is insanely hot in the movie
The little psychopath playing posh dress-up in the original works better because Pitt has no charisma even when trying to act nice and outgoing. Both actors switch the psycho on and off and but Pitt is always on just by the stare in his eyes
it's been a while since i've seen either but I remember Pitts lifeless stares actually kind of working well for the character
I don't see how anyone couldn't prefer the remake. It's simply impossible to look at Naomi Watts as anything other than a hollywood actress, whereas in the original each of the actors looks like actual people.
*could prefer the remake
Most probably haven't even watched the original though
Tim Roth is a good choice. I'd say on par with the original in looking weak/pathetic.
Naomi Watts is too hot.
Michael Pitt looks way too innocent/friendly. I don't get any sinister vibes from him like the original guy and I think that's a bad thing.
Fatso is a lateral move.
Original. It's a sequel to Benny's Video
>make a movie to critique violent American movies
>makes it again in English because he gets butthurt that Americans are ignoring him
He seems kind of an annoying b***h, to be honest. The sad thing is, I don't think anyone watched it and changed their opinions of violent movies. The killers were funny, and the whole thing was kind of goofy. August Underground was a lot more legitimately upsetting, just to name one movie.
>August Underground was a lot more legitimately upsetting
Thats because that was an actual violent movie which is always uncomfortable whereas this was deconstructing "glorified cinematic violence" which only artsy people are really going to notice/appreciate.
US producers were looking to remake the movie in english with or without Haneke.
I wouldn't think it was notable if it wasn't for the fourth wall breaking moments. The movie is addressing you directly and asking you if you've had enough of their suffering. You can turn it off at any time and not have to go through that emotional trauma.
Unless you enjoy it of course. But it's uncomfortable to admit you enjoy watching suffering and requires a lot of introspection on the audience's part. It reminds me of those threads you see on /misc/ of Chinamen being ripped apart by machinery.
>It reminds me of those threads you see on /misc/ of Chinamen being ripped apart by machinery.
That's moreso ubiquitous across the entire site. When I started browsing a decade ago on /b/ I used to spend most of my time in the rekt threads just cause it was stuff I hadn't seen before.
Also some would make the argument that Chinamen are not people.
>But it's uncomfortable to admit you enjoy watching suffering and requires a lot of introspection
The implication here is that enjoying movie violence is somehow wrong. Humans have always found violence cathartic.
I do enjoy it, because it's entertaining. Human psychology seems to work in such a way that we seek out things that scare us, so we can experience them from a safely removed distance. You figure that out, and then tell me why it's bad.
Because the entire premise is flawed. Most horror fans aren't taking pleasure in the kills themselves but the thrill and tension and for that they at least need to care/empathise with the characters. They're not there for suffering porn. The people who enjoy the gore are a very small subset of horror fans and even that gore is so cartoonish that it's far removed from reality. It's like a director watching Tom and Jerry and going "OMG, this is so horribly violent, why are ze kidz enjoying it? I must make a psychological analysis of it!".
>Most horror fans aren't taking pleasure in the kills themselves
The popularity of torture movies like Saw and Hostel in the mid 2000s disagrees with you. I think people do enjoy watching (movie) torture. I don't think that (movie) torture is equivalent to real life torture though and that's what Haneke gets wrong.
>The popularity of torture movies like Saw and Hostel in the mid 2000s disagrees with you
I get the premise of what you are saying; but people always forget that the first SAW and Hostel films barely have any torture in them and concetrate most of their plots on the thriller aspect.
The sequel movies leaned into it more without much of a decrease in popularity. Saw 3 is probably the worst (at least in terms of actually grossing me out) and it's the highest grossing.
That's more due to the franchise getting more notoriety at that point. A lot of people were just going to see "What's so horrible about these films?". The fact even at its height of popularity the highest grossing film in the franchise is 168 million says a lot about how welcoming people are to these kinds of films.
Yeah, because there are about 9 films. The first one which launched it isn't even particularly gorey.
>The popularity of torture movies like Saw and Hostel in the mid 2000s disagrees with you
Key word being "most" big guy which is why I followed it with.
> The people who enjoy the gore are a very small subset of horror fans and even that gore is so cartoonish that it's far removed from reality.
Saw and Hotel films are generally considered niche shlock.
And
> I don't think that (movie) torture is equivalent to real life torture though and that's what Haneke gets wrong.
Exactly and show some irl gorey accident to 99% of gore fans and they would be horrified. Haneke isn't just criticising gore fans though. He even mentioned some very old ass Bogart film as something that he leaves to American filmmakers.
>>Saw [...] are generally considered niche shlock.
>the 5th highest grossing horror franchise of all time is niche
>torture movies like Saw
Saw are death game movies. The best ones are the group ones, the one in the house and the one with the bath tub. The first one is honestly the worst because it has an unwinnable game.
The fun of Saws is hoping the players play correctly and win and lamenting as they are incapable of doing so. They're not "torture movies"
It started with Saw because we actually spent time with the characters which made us care about them and get engaged with the story. The success of that drove studios to explore the torture porn aspect of horror more but theres a reason that fad quickly died out. Why do you think A24 is so highly praised and people are wetting the bed over muh slow burns?
>it's actually a moral and coherent art film.
its not coherent at all, his presupposition that simulated violence has connection to the moral implication of real violence is autistic bullshit. On top of that, its doubly misses the mark because violence in movies is usually in service of morality. The Saw movies are actually the best example of this. The more brutal the torture-porn aspect, the greater the moral triumph of the heroes. And this is not only within the narrative itself but experienced by the audience. It puts the audience in jigsaws shoes of giving the characters their redemption by being witness to their suffering. Its not a perfect metaphor but its more coherent than saying violence is one-sidedly sadistic and evil.
>Yet again American shlock has more Sovl and thought put into it than a Yuropoor "art film".
No wonder their film industry is shit.
it's coherent in the sense that it sacrifices its entertainment value and exposes its artificiality for the sake of its message. it's a thought experiment masquerading as a thriller. a lot of other filmmakers who attempted to criticize movie violence actually indulged in it elsewhere in their filmography. Haneke has violent scenes in his filmography but has never played it for cheap thrills.
The mental gymnastics people take to praise it is ridiculous.
>It's good because it provides commentary on a subset of people who enjoy a specific genre but you would only even think about it if you gave a frick in the first place
Yeah the more I'm seeing how people defend it, the worse it sounds.
>The movie is addressing you directly and asking you if you've had enough of their suffering
Lol the only suffering is trying to get through the dull ass movie until they extend an olive branch and pretend to let the mom and dad escape.
You can't just mess with a random family I know nothing about for no reason and have me care about them the entire time. I'm trying to root for them but it's hard to get engaged with the villain winking at the camera and basically saying "yeah they're gonna die" the entire time. Where's the stakes or the tension in that?
Also what is the point for you that you felt like you had to turn this off because it was too much for you, honestly? There is nothing trauma inducing outside of maybe the parents reacting to their son dying. Was I supposed to be instantly engaged after the poor doggo was killed offscreen?
Dumb homosexual the movie doesn't work
It isn't that it overwhelms you with gore, it's that it does everything wrong
The family gets the upper hand over the villains, so what do they do? They fricking rewind the movie and undo it
The family can't win, there's no point in watching, you're wrong to be watching, there's no tension, there's no point
That's the point
The movie is calling you stupid for not just turning it off, and you were too stupid to not turn it off
The movie sucks and is making fun of you for watching it
Then why is it so highly praised lol
Because it exposes people like you
Ok I'm exposed, but why do you like it so much?
Dumbass
Fricking 30 IPs this thread is a joke
Not shocked you can't explain. I just watched it and I'm already forgetting about it, just be more honest next time, kay?
honestly i'm not that much of a fan of the film, but I'll give it points for exposing you as a total dumbass
It's a legitimate observation. Is it good, or is it bad on purpose?
You've had that question answered a dozen times stupid
Well, which is it?
It's bad and tells you it's bad
You're stupid because you think it's supposed to be good
The movies a prank that you keep falling for
So is everyone who gave it a good review an idiot?
Yes, stupid
I don't think it's supposed to be good though. It's bad and I agree it's bad, I'm confused why people like it at all and want to see what they like about it.
your thinking is too shallow and binary, i'm not trying to explain anything to you anymore, there's no point. how old are you? if you're 13 or 15 i'll give you a pass.
It has mixed critical reception and is a boxoffice failure. Who praises it? morons on Letterboxd and /film/?
It's a critical success on every aggregate reviewer site and is part of the criterion collection. Even if it were just mixed I want to know the appeal because every positive review I see makes it seem like I'm watching a different flick.
> criterion collection
just gonna point out that the CC has tons of garbage and it's not a mark of the films quality.
fair
It's 69% and 51% at RT. So I won't call it a critical success but alright.
>It's 69% and 51% at RT
What are you on about m8?
Also like I said even if it was just mixed reactions I'm still curious on why anyone would like this piece of shit.
51% is the critic score for the remake blud.
Well as the OP suggests I'm talking about the original. Are you moronic or just pretending?
>You can't just mess with a random family I know nothing about for no reason and have me care about them the entire time.
Most people have empathy and generally don’t want to see an innocent family get tortured and killed
>I'm trying to root for them but it's hard to get engaged with the villain winking at the camera and basically saying "yeah they're gonna die" the entire time. Where's the stakes or the tension in that?
They aren’t going to suffer and die if you turn off the movie though, which the guy basically tells you. It’s a commentary on the audiences enjoyment of violence. If that’s not for you then so be it but don’t pretend like it doesn’t offer an interesting philosophical question that people enjoy
>Most people have empathy and generally don’t want to see an innocent family get tortured and killed
So when you watch films you don't really need them to develop characters then? You're just instantly invested and when the guy you can't even remember the name gets injured you weep? I don't want to see them get tortured but I'd care a lot more if we spent some time with them first instead of them feeling like cardboard cutouts for 80% of the film
>They aren’t going to suffer and die if you turn off the movie though
What are you a fricking moron? Who the frick turns off a movie even when they start feeling uncomfortable? Also yes the frick they will since the movie is already made I'm only watching to see if it's got anything else to say despite just being gratuitous for the sake of it.
>don’t pretend like it doesn’t offer an interesting philosophical question that people enjoy
You're right I'm now wondering if I should just give up on shit films immediately instead of watching the whole thing. I don't see how that deserves high praise though.
Should i watch the 2007 one or the 1997 one
Neither
It's a movie you're supposed to not watch at all
It's a movie that tells you not to watch it
2007 one is a shot for shot remake just made in English because the director finally had the funds to film there. It just comes down to how willing you are to read likely inaccurate subs.
imagine being filtered by haneke
you should off yourself OP
Explain why you like it
I unironically think it would make a better video game than movie. Give the audience some agency and then let them fail repeatedly at escaping.
That would be interesting
A video game it's literally impossible to win
How many dipshits would devote their lives to proving you COULD beat it
Not many. People know a meme game when they see one, and it's been done. Steamshovel Harry.
t. Phelous
this fat frick shows up at your house asking for some eggs
y/n?
>haha! Exposed! You like horror movies!
Okay, what if I do?
Then Haneke thinks you're a bad person
You do realize movies are made by people, they're not commandments sent down by God, right?
Then he's a needlessly judgey person who needs to get off his high horse, and stop insulting all of the artists who've worked on good horror movies.
Duh
Idiot
How am I wrong? The man exposes himself as an ass. Great film maker. He really showed me.
Moron
Yes
Imbecile
Are you actually Michael Haneke?
Haneke is a rapist and has reportedly molested multiple children in asia. Won't take any judgement from him.
Great meta thread on a meta film
Only true intellectuals like me get it.
bougie horror.
I watched it with my mother expecting a comedy, boy were we in for a surprise!
Did you have sex afterwards?
I mistook it for that Jason Bateman movie and watched it with my GF.
She wasn't happy.
Funny Games is the cinematic version of the double bind.
Funny Games is the cinematic version of the schoolyard bully who nasally asks you the question "Does your mom know you're gay?"
Funny Games is the cinematic version of "The only winning move is not to play"
Funny Games is a terrible movie and the only way to beat Haneke is to not watch it and, for the most part, never comment on or bring it up because there is literally no way to legitimately criticize it without fart sniffing arthouse mental gymnast gold medalists to combat any verbal tactic you employ with some variation on "you just didn't get it/that's the point"
I've never watched Funny Games and I don't like it and I will never watch it and after I've posted this comment in this thread I will do my damnedest not to contribute to any further conversation about either version of the movie, because the best way to actually demonstrate my distaste for it and effectively communicate why it's bad is actually to just ignore it and hope more and more people do so as well until it becomes as irrelevant as it possibly can be.
>I've never watched Funny Games and I don't like it
mega based
>Yes, I did read the plot summary on Wikipedia and decided I didn't care for the film based on that, how could you tell?
Sounds like that's unironically the big brained way to enjoy it.
>I did look up the scene where the wife shoots the one guy on youtube and immediately stopped the video before his sociopathic companion could use the remote to rewind, thus perma-killing the intruder
>This movie is so great and genius
>You should never watch it to truly get it
Thanks for saving me the time I guess.
Glad I get this movie more than the chuds who watched it.
No you have to watch it and then turn it off right when the violence starts to truly understand it. Then rinse and repeat for every other movie after.
>why do you keep watching? it's because you are sick that's why, you like this don't you sick boy? you like this huh little b***h? say my name b***h say it
>edgy for the sake of it
>chadmeme.jpg Yes
It's horrific and the performances are fantastic, the unbroken shots harrowing, and it thumbs its nose at you the entire time. The choice of depicting an effete family as the victims was very deliberate; they are not the type to garner immediate empathy. It develops over time but the film is essentially a realistically gruesome slasher film. It's delightful and punishes us for our enjoyment. As an earlier anon put it, if you can't see the appeal of this you were unironically filtered.
How can it be delightful but also punishing?
Are you some kind of masochistic gay?
Nice trips but yeah this paradox is like the whole point of the film. Consider the intro which juxtaposes a cute guessing game of classical composers with the completely atonal and horrific death metal music
This is basic psychology. You root for a character who has suffered hardships. It's a common trope that villains are rich, or spoiled. This slasher film depicts a rich (perhaps detestably effete) family suffering extreme hardship, and it is hard to watch due to the gruesome nature, but there are few attachments otherwise. The film straddles a very fine line.
>This is basic psychology. You root for a character who has suffered hardships.
I don't know which part of the world you're from but people tend to have inherent empathy for a family even if they're relatively well off. The idealistic family is, in fact, viewed upon kindly unless shown otherwise.
No you're being intentionally obtuse. Films don't often (or ever) depict characters who have zero problems, like the family in Funny Games.
>Films don't often (or ever) depict characters who have zero problems, like the family in Funny Games.
One of the most empathetic families I've seen was in Easy A. They had no family issues.
Did any of the characters have a struggle as part of the plot of their character arcs? I haven't seen that but I'm pretty sure there is a discernable plot.
The most struggle they have is their daughter having a thotty reputation. Fairly, a first world problem. The parents barely "stress" about it. Think of it like Juno.
I don't know why you think it has to be the entire family for the plot to qualify as featuring characters enduring some kind of struggle or hardship
The point is that in funny games we're shown a family with zero problems to speak of who are the targets of completely random violence. They are given no backstory, we know nothing about them other than their privilege. That is a very intentional choice
The film doesn't just hinge on you being neutral or be simply unsympathetic to the family but have some outright dislike for their bougie lifestyle.
> They are upper-class ciphers who stock onions milk in the refrigerator, feed their dog expensive Wellness brand kibble and keep a Tivoli radio in the kitchen. The attention paid to the details of their conspicuous consumption may or may not express the film's attitude: that these cardboard caricatures somehow deserve to be humiliated, tormented and killed for exhibiting Eurocentric yuppie tastes, including implicitly sinful predilections for golf, boating and classical music. Or maybe the movie is simply suggesting that you give yourself permission to feel that way.
Which is where your slight enjoyment that you yourself admit that the audience is supposed to have at their peril comes from.
The word you're looking for is "sadistic", you absolute moron.
masochistic is the one who enjoys being punished. sadistic is the one who enjoys inflicting punishment on others.
absolute moron is you.
I'm sitting at home watching a movie where others are punished
But I do see your point, it's a bit of both
>they are not the type to garner immediate empathy.
Can you tell us why an "effete" family is less likely to garner empathy? Let me guess it's because they're "bougie". It says a lot about the person who views such a family as unsympathetic.
>not the type to garner immediate empathy. It develops over time
Kek when? When you're already aware that everything is happening for the sake of violence?
>punishes us for our enjoyment
That assumes I'm enjoying it in the first place. Also if someone only liked violence for the sake of it they would also be bored by this. Are you only capable of enjoying this if you're up on a high horse?
>if you can't see the appeal of this you were unironically filtered
That's fine because if that's the case it's only because it quite literally unironically insists upon itself
Kek when?
It happens because the actors are performing their hearts out. If the filmmaker didn't want us to care at all he'd dispose of the characters quickly, and perhaps comedically like true slasher films do. Instead their toil is drawn out, with extremely long unbroken takes and passioned performances full of anguish and desperation. There's a scene like this with the mother, after the child has been killed, and another scene like this with the father. I've watched both versions, equally spellbinding.
Your other comments are just bad faith arguments because you're a moron
So you liked the characters just because the actors playing them gave a great performance. I think we view characters in film differently bud, if the actor is doing a good job I don't even think about them at all. The long scene where the mother and father grieve was good and it was nice to actually see them as 3D people for the first time in the film but it was too late because at that point the villain has already told us they're going to die. I want to see them escape but I know they won't because the villains have been in full control the entire time. That's the opposite of giving us tension.
Also you don't know what arguing in bad faith means dipshit.
>I liked the characters
Where did I say that? I empathized with the characters because the director made a deliberate choice to highlight their pain.
He then dares you to hope for them as they appear close to an escape. There's plenty of tension as you see those headlights slowly turning back, and first you think it's a rescue but dreadfully realize it's the killers back for more.
Maybe you're not arguing in bad faith but... actually, no you definitely are.
>He then dares you to hope for them as they appear close to an escape
Had me in the first half ngl but heres where I gotta push back. FREQUENTLY in this film the villain winks at the camera and says these characters are going to die. The only time I can realistically see some tension is when the kid escapes but after that it's just hopeless. The gates are locked, the 1 phone they have doesn't work, and on top of that the villains leave for literally no reason with the characters saying "yeah they might be back". I would've been legitimately shocked if the car that picked the mom up was some actual help. The shotgun scene works so well because it's literally the only time in the film they get the upper hand on the villains in any way.
Listen if you were somehow able to invested in these cardboard cutouts getting tortured I could understand where you're coming from but just showing people suffering doesn't do it for me. There's not even any interesting dialogue or actions shown that would make them stand out even if they were getting tortured the whole time. They don't feel real until the kid dies and by that point the villains have already made it apparent that you're watching a movie with disposable characters so there's no incentive for you to be invested in them in the first place.
I mean I was invested inasmuch as one is invested in watching a train crash. That's what the movie was, a drawn out slow-mo train crash. But it was a train crash shot to make you consider all the individual bits of carnage that occur, which makes it compelling IMO. Like it's not a static shot of the event, it zooms in on the twisted metal and failing structural components. That's just me, anyways.
You just described a fairly generic home invasion movie but with meta commentary. Jorden Peele makes these films but his message is wypipo bad instead.
Most of the thread is people being bored of the film or being outright annoyed by it(aka issues with delivery). I don't see a single person here who wanted to turn it off because they couldn't handle the violence being inflicted on the family.
>it's generic
Ok, cool opinion bro!
I enjoy the films of Michael Haneke and it’s funny to see how many people in here got worked by this movie
They're arguing in bad faith and it's hilarious.
What's your favorite? Mine is White Ribbon. Time Of The Wolf is very underrated
White Ribbon is my favorite too, it’s such a great movie. I haven’t seen Time Of The Wolf but I’ll probably check it out next because of this thread. I also really liked The Seventh Continent
I'm not fond of Seventh Continent. Way too slow for me. Check out Haneke adaptation of Franz Kafka The Castle. It stars the husband and wife from Funny Game. It's really good for a tv movie
>worked.
Well, Funny Games doea have a pro-wrestling tier psychology.
I'm fine with the movie, it's the people who enjoy it that I get worked by. I'm used to people explaining why they like shit films, especially with the horror genre but it's rarely ever the dogshit mental gymnastics the people in this thread are using. It's not every day you see someone post "filtered" unironically about a shitty 90s horror film.
Maybe it's because the thread is full of clueless homosexuals who are unironically criticizing the film for not being graphic enough or singlemindedly criticizing their idea of what the message is without even touching on the movie itself (read: the delivery).
The message is stupid, and finger wagging. No one cares.
Black person, what? Lmao
>abloobloobloo violence is bad
No one cares, man.
You're simple, man. If the director actually thought violence was bad he wouldn't have made the film. It's more nuanced than that. You can't make a film outright denouncing a topic which takes up the majority of the screentime. If you sincerely think that's what he was doing then you didn't get the film.
Then explain it.
I already have.
He wants us to both delight in the violence but also feel guilt for doing so. It's sado-masochism in film form. I'm sure you're ready to reject this notion so I won't argue it further.
I don't feel guilty. I feel mild annoyance at his presumptuousness.
I mean yeah, the fourth wall breaks are meant to cause irritation and annoyance. It's condescending.
No, I thought they were funny.
That too but they are deliberately thumbing their nose at you. It's like you just want to disagree with me, you're fricking annoying man.
You are exactly correct, anon.
I wish I could stay and chat more but there's a girl who loves anal at my local bar so I kind of have to go meet with her. Toodle-ooh.
I refuse to feel guilt for watching a movie that was at best mildly provocative. It was cheeky, and funny, but if I'm supposed to feel remorseful about something, then the movie failed.
You're supposed to feel bad for characters that are suffering in any way. Even if the person doing it is making you aware you're watching a movie and their deaths are already written.
>You are exactly correct, anon.
Well that's the issue isn't it? There's a slight nuance in not being sympathetic like a working class family and actively earning your dislike. To me they're just another family, I don't particularly hate them or even dislike them. As Roger Ebert says, they're generic cardboard cut out characters. I didn't enjoy their suffering, I was somewhat sad at certain moments but for the most part the whole experience was numbing.
Have fun with the girl. Hopefully, you're compulsively checking this thread out.
I enjoyed it because I thought the killers were funny, and the scene where they make the mother strip is a fetish of mine.
I don't think I watched it right though, lol. Haneke sounds like a moron.
I mean, to be fair I don't think a filmmaker would fill a film with stuff he truly hates.
>it's the people who enjoy it that I get worked by
I honestly love this movie and I don't even care about the meta aspects of the film. I get it, i just don't care. I like horror movies and I thought this was well directed and has some real gut punch moments. people getting ass blasted because they don't want to accept the films message is very weird to see. so many weird arguments going on in here. I enjoy all of his other films too, I think he's a great director and has a lot to say, but even if you ignore all of that, I still think its something worth watching. I'm very puzzled that people would watch an arthouse horror film from a director who likes to challenge his audience and they are getting upset about it. I guess Haneke played a "Funny Game" on them.
I honestly don't care about whatever message the film has to say but a lot of anons are saying they like the film because of it's message and then go on to explain an absolutely moronic message.
but you have just as many people in here who get the message but absolutely hate the film for it. why not just ignore the message you don't like and enjoy the film as a horror movie?
Violent media about violence in media is the ultimate midwit hack crap.
Cool dude that's a totally valuable opinion
Oh wow, just saw this thread. Si should I watch this movie or Jack Lemmon in Days of Wine and Roses?
tastelet got filtered. story at 11.
Explain why you like it
I also like it because that guy kind of looks like Leon Scott Kennedy from Resident Evil.
Literally everybody talks about the remote scene.
That means it's remarkable.
No movie has done something like that and with the effect of the rest of the movie.
Every other shitty movie you feel like the MC can't die because he has to be alive at the end or they do shitty things like the shot of the weapon falling down a cliff.
The family gets the upper hand and you feel good because the good people are going to win and they undo it. They snatch that security from you.
Even after she shot the guy I still thought she would die, but was just happy that she'd taken out one of them frickers. It's exciting because not only is it the only interesting thing that happens in the entire movie but it's the only time the victims actually get the upper hand on the villains, it subverts everything that was expected based on what the movie presented. The contrived remote thing made things go back to what you expected. The villains were always in control, always aware they're in a movie, and the characters still don't matter because they never did so why care when she gets unceremoniously tossed at the end?
This is the most uncomfortable film ever made. You just FEEL the tension especially at the start which is what makes it KINO.
In a way it's among the scariest movies of all times because of how they break social conventions slowly but surely. I feel like a lot of people with autism wouldn't pick up on it.
Sorry forgot the pic
Sorry forgot the pic
If your average Milwaukees can understand this film why can't anybody else