Funny Games (1997)/Funny Games US (2007): Side-by-Side -

Funny Games (1997)/Funny Games US (2007): Side-by-Side

Matt Skuta
Views: 129794
Like: 1622
See more at:

A side-by-side, shot-for-shot comparison of Funny Games (1997) and Funny Games (2007). Usually, the videos in this series are intended to illustrate the the unique vision of filmmakers and the variety of choices possible when creating motion pictures adapted from the same written work or historical event and remakes from their original counterpart. However, the remake and original featured in this video are both directed by Michael Haneke.


  1. Senātus Populusque Rōmānus 🇺🇦 says:

    FUNNY GAMES 1997

  2. Yeah it's eerie and shit but what annoys me is the stupidity of the husban and wife. Why didn't she tell the boat people to get help or just push that dude in the water. There won't be a movie then I guess.

  3. I was told these games would be funny

    Note: this is a joke y’all

  4. they are in the same house for the original and the remake movies

  5. The '97 version is superior overall and comes across as much more authentic because it casts unrecognizable faces rather than well-known stars. In the remake the fear and discomfort generated by these physically unimposing visitors seems watered down, and the dialogue was a bit too witty. I was, pleasantly surprised, though that the ending was altered in favor of the "Hollywood" treatment.

  6. The U.S. one is just a shot for shot remake, that’s no fun

  7. you should do side by side comparison between
    death game (1977)and the remake version knock knock(2016)

  8. After watching both of the original and remake I feel like there is no comparison which is better because for me both version work together as one!

  9. I could have SWORN there was one, the original, made in the 70s? Then the remake was the 97 one 🤔🤔🤔

  10. The original one makes you feel more bad for the family and want them badly to survive. because of their acting I guess which is so realistic but in the remake their acting is more dramatic, maybe bcz of the generation gap like actors today act but in old days they used to make it look so real!

  11. I completely understand the idea that they want more audiences to see the film and it being in German really stops that. but seriously just remaking the movie in English is so disgusting and such an insult

  12. I mean what's even the point of remaking a movie if you're just gonna redo it shot by shot

  13. ‘tHe oRiGinAl iS bEtTer’
    They’re literally the same movie

  14. It's kind of disgusting that a remake exists which is only worse in every way. Why would you make a shot by shot remake of something so original

  15. in my opinion, Haneke tried to show how different US films with US actors and possibly crew members, US films feel staged and dramatic compared to the more realistic and organic approach of foreign films, that's not to say that US films are bad because of that

  16. this is a copy paste of his own movie but it is the same problematics in two different culture and context and it's very smart and interresting to watch.
    if you watch a Haneke's movie, that's not for having fun, it's to be chocked an disturbed and this is why he's a great director.
    Sorry for my bad english, i'm not a native speaker. peace

  17. I feel like this movie not only condemns the audience that wants to see atrocities for the thrill, but also the "artsy" audience that likes to be avant-garde for watching a disturbing film. I mean, 1/3 of the audience at Cannes walked straight out of the 1997 showing. Maybe the 1997 version's for highbrow people who think that foreign-language equals artistic tastefulness and the 2007 version is for the "mainstream audience" we all so think ourselves to be "holier than thou".

    Both versions of Funny games are in a different time, but are the same in essence. They both make the spectators realize sadism when telling a story that deals with violent subjects. No matter how you slice our sadism as "an interest in dark subjects told in an art form" or "I watch it for the thrill/curiosity since it's said to be disturbing", it's still sadism.
    Perhaps, Haneke is a hypocrite, and he's aware of it. I'm a hypocrite too, I was aware of what the movie conveyed because I accidentally spoiled myself on the wikipedia page, but I still watched it anyways for the spectacle.

    Is any dark subject delved into in any storytelling art simply intellectual masturbation? Easily-consumable violence (what Haneke would label as porn) for us to consume, and then try devising how we could think "deeply" about it? Having and justifying the pleasure of being a "deep" person for having viewed it? I don't know, I haven't thought enough about it yet.
    What I do know, I think, is that Funny Games mocks all the actors, all the crew, the director himself, and the onlookers, us.

    Take a look at these articles to see more longer analyses, but make sure to take everything with a salt shaker.

  18. What a waste of time to watch because of the ending?…… absolute rubbish

  19. Haven't seen the remake, but people need to watch more foreign films outside of hollywood. The cash grabs are boring already and we have enough superhero films and remakes. Making hollywood remakes of good foreign films just buries their potential to have more influence and takes credit away from the talented people involved. I say this as an American.

  20. The remake was made shot for shot because the director of both films said he intended this movie as a satire of American cinema. Also the acting in the remake is far superior.

  21. I watched 1997 yesterday. It was so tough. And I felt so weird about the tv remote.

  22. I was about 8 years old back then in 2007 when this movie came out

  23. v͓̽o͓̽l͓̽p͓̽e͓̽ ͓̽m͓̽a͓̽r͓̽r͓̽o͓̽n͓̽e͓̽ ͓̽v͓̽e͓̽l͓̽o͓̽c͓̽e͓̽ says:

    i think there was certainly a point about america's addiction with violence that permeates their culture. but making this a metalinguistic movie is just as pointless as raping someone to prove that theres a rape culture. We all know something this level of bad is happening, but increasing by releasing another piece that works as a statement is not going to help exactly.

  24. I didn't like that they hid the child's head in the remake, in the original it was so disturbing having it in the scene like that.

  25. Imagine the amount of negative criticism if China did a remake like that.

  26. To me the remake is kind of pointless because I know Tim Roth is TIm Roth. I didn't really know the German actors. This allowed for complete suspension of disbelief. Having a star in the movie, no matter how talented, takes something away, and certainly in such a movie, where the sense of inescapability is the core premise.

  27. I loved the original. The remake didn't gel with me anywhere near as much. I genuinely have no idea why this is. Maybe the performances were more naturalistic in the original. Maybe it's just a case of my seeing it first or that it was in a foreign language and with unfamiliar actors. Who knows! Either way, if you haven't seen this movie please try the original first. Especially the case with Let the Right One In too

  28. Just noticed the gun shot at 4:49 seems far more realistic and unnerving in the original, than it does in the remake. I may be wrong but in my mind the original feels far more realistic. Apart from the Desperado type flying backwards – I don't believe a shot gun would create that effect in real life.

  29. the original is good, now this remake is horrible, because it doesn’t change anything from the original. this remake could at least have a different ending.

  30. They really did a great job recreating the movie and yet the acting and feel of in the original made it a lot better.

  31. well I guess there's no point in me watching the remake then seeing as I've already watched the original. If it's the same movie then it's unnecessary.

  32. Didnt the director make the 97 version tgen remade it

  33. I like the atmosphere of the original more… but the 2007 film is so aesthetically pleasing

  34. When you can't have a single original thought as a director/writer, just steal someone else's work and copy it shot for shot… Why actually try right? This film did not need to be remade just because the average person in the states reads to slow to watch a movie with subtitles.

  35. The attention to detail is extraordinary.

  36. Film Theory: Both Funny Games movies actually take place in a Westworld kinda Park, where you can live out your imaginations in a suburban area.
    The family and everyone except for the killers are in fact androids, who get reset by the next morning (That's why they have only one night).
    While seeing most of the events from the perspective of the androids, the movie is actually about the two park visitors (Paul and Peter) who start to lose track of what is actually real and what's artificial.
    Also everytime Paul is breaking the forth wall he's actually communicating with some form of streaming/social media community that he's sharing this whole experience with, but hence we're seeing this entire movie from the perspective of the androids, we can't see the camera/device and really don't understand what's going on. The same applies to the playback-scene, since the android gets reset, because she attacked the park visitors (what really surprises Peter and Paul, who start to wonder if the androids do really have a real soul)

  37. 2007 better come on now i know better than you just look at 1:35 why would the dog fall down if he's on the seat also in 2007 at 2:15 he looked like realy going to kill him unlike the top one also 5:17 better in 2007….
    I'm not Us type fan but you gotta talk facts
    Like in martyrs you know damn well that the french one is superior than the remake

  38. The director prefered 2007 you can all sleep now

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.