FUNNY GAMES (1997) - Movie Review -

FUNNY GAMES (1997) – Movie Review

Views: 7805
Like: 452
Support me on Patreon:
Follow me on instagram:
Follow me on twitter:
Like my Facebook page:
Email me: [email protected]
#funnygames #haneke #deepfocuslens


  1. I’ve seen stuff that I definitely didn’t think would be able to handle, only to come out fine. There’s only been two movies to make me stop watching due to not thinking I would be able to take it and that’s this and Come and See

  2. Wow, possibly your finest review yet. Such passion and insight into such a divisive work. Thank you for your commitment to championing the handful of provacateur filmmmakers (Zulawski's Possession, Gaspar Noe, Haneke, Jodorowski, Bunuel) without apologies. THESE are the films that will always come around in discussions of longevity and influence, NOT what film critics/historians try to convince us matter most. Keep the banner flying for these underdogs/misfits. Much appreciated.

  3. Are your videos mirrored? The letters on the books on your bookshelf are backwards in every video and it kinda bugs me.

  4. Michael Haneke's movies tend to come off as these overly serious, overly bitter, overly harsh philosophy thesis on the world to me. He clearly has things he wants to say, but the guy seems jaded and condescending to the point that it ruins the appeal of his films. Most other directors who make thought-provoking films seem to want to challenge, but also invite the audience in to their works, but Haneke seems often more interested in punishing us for enjoying the medium of film and all its artificialities more than anything and in doing so, he has lost me and plenty other people here. What's the point of liking him when he so clearly hates us?

  5. My first viewing of the (2007) version was at a friend’s house when we were about 9-10 years of age. I remember watching, but only bits and pieces because my friend’s mom fast forwarded through practically every section and that she felt were “so stupid”. Even through the infamous remote scene in the movie. You can probably imagine how confusing it was to the mom when her fast forwarding was really fast backwarding at that point. Lol. Anyway, Funny Games scarred me for the rest of my early teens and actually was a huge reason for my continued interest in voyeuristic-type films. Great review as always!

  6. watching Funny Games is inviting a terrorist into your home. Sure, we can all stand to crack a few eggs for a story but this is really experiment than plot, and you are the patient. Haneke studies our somewhat arbitrary loyalties to fictional characters like a cat batting around its live prey, waiting for its adrenaline to peak before devouring its skull for the short rush. Our spoiled expectations for happy endings are mercilessly mocked, but at least he reminds us that remote controls exist if it really bothers you.

  7. Can you give some examples of the other movies you alluded to which explore a similar philosophy regarding the relationship between audience and cinema?

  8. The remake is a damn near identical film. The only thing I could see you arguing is better is the acting and even that's very debatable, IMO both versions the actors played the roles VERY similarly. If anything, I genuinely believe whatever version you watch first will be your preferred. It's the first viewing that has the impact.

  9. I watched this film when I was too young to fully appreciate it; when I was expecting a popcorny home invasion thriller like Panic Room, and was totally blindsided. I need to rewatch it now, but you're right when you describe just how extremely heavy it is. I'm a little afraid to revisit it 😮

    And I agree with what you said. I feel like the discourse about it is always very closed minded: "We get it, Haneke! Violence bad." But I think it's much more interesting and thoughtful than that, and looking at Haneke's other films, it's clear that he doesn't believe that. Cache has one of the most horrific, sudden acts of violence I've ever seen on film, and it's fully on display for us all to see. Funny Games isn't about "scolding" us for liking violent thrillers. It's about self reflection. Why do we enjoy watching things be destroyed? What do we gain from seeing someone else's (fictional) suffering? Why do we find this cathartic?

  10. Just finished watching it, at the first 5 minutes after the film I hated it, but then I started to think about the movie and got the whole idea and fell in love it.
    I liked that at the beginning the villain helps them with the boat, and the lady makes food and is talking over the phone and then she is talking with that guy about the eggs and it is all very slow, and the director is teasing us to think "ok let's go, unleash the carnage" and by the end of the movie the director is playing with you in a sense that he says "so this is what you really wanted!" in a cinical manner.
    I actually liked the film, the acting was great, it was painful to watch but in a good way and I liked the massage of the film and it's interactiveness.

  11. I read somewhere that Haneke made this movie as a response to the violence in Pulp Fiction.
    He recalls seeing Pulp Fiction in theaters and being disturbed when the audience was amused at the scene when Marvin got shot.

  12. Beny's video Is better in my opinion, is darker and fucked up, that's because of.the character of benny who is flesh out unlike the 2 killers in funny games

  13. When you quoted that Tarantino interview that made my day
    This film changed how I look at most films

  14. Excellent review! A multi-layered film that every time you watch it you discover something new. An attempt to portray not so much the violence but the concept of Evil and especially the "Banality of Evil" (I think there is a strong influence of Hannah Arendt on Haneke). A unique masterpiece, dark, claustrophobic, with no way out or hope … (And there is no salvation even in … remote control!😜). Greetings from Greece!

  15. you can tell Hanake’s main goal w this movie was to take the audience’s expectations and COMPLETELY DESTROY THEM, and he very much succeeded at that!

  16. Interesting analysis. Certainly not Haneke's masterpiece, but essential viewing for anyone interested in film as art. I think the mysterious "X" quality (alluded to by our lovely host) that sets Funny Games apart from a dozen similar exercises is this: The screen surface captures the extra-diegetic fact that the writer-director and actors are, in a weird way, having fun with the project. We can SEE, somehow, that they're aware not only of the conceited nature of the project, but also that they're conscious of its fascination and brilliance. I recall years ago hearing Haneke say that when he was directing the actors, he told Peter and Paul to play as if they were in a light comedy and the family to play as if they were in a psychological thriller, giving the movie a bicameral tone.

  17. Michael Haneke in 97 making FunnyGames:
    “Fuck you. Here’s a horror movie”

    Me, a horror fan:
    “Thank you 🙌”

    “…no, that’s not—“

    “Omg it’s amazing, I love it 😍”


  18. Another slight difference between the two films which you may not have picked up: Peter consistently wipes sweat from his face in the Austrian version while in the US remake he is never shown to be sweaty. It adds an interesting detail that is missing in the US version, as Peter appears nervous about something while he's standing in the kitchen which makes him more suspicious to the audience. However, Peter in the remake is a bit more calm, collected and calculated. It's subtle but it's definitely one of the more significant differences between the two films.

    In an interview, Brady Corbet mentioned that Haneke's explanation for the shot-for-shot remake was due to his experience directing a stage play in two different countries noting "the only difference was the performances". I suppose Frank's Peter is a bit more anxious about committing these horrible acts while Brady's Peter seems a bit happier to be going along for the ride and a bit more calculated in his actions.

  19. I think, you have a fantastic grasp on this movie. Like, I needed to pause the video at 9:00 minutes in in order to tell you, how impressed I am by how intelligently you discuss and dissect the material!

  20. If I could only give 1000 thumbs up per month on Youtube, I would waste them all on this review. This was something else! Great detail and I agree with 100% of what you´re saying here. And I´m quite used to review and reaction or other film/tv related channels, you can check my subscriptions…….. <3

  21. A little bit unsettling that 3 of the actors died within 5 years..

  22. I saw the one with Naomi Watts, but I didn't see the original. I would like to. I saw the DVD at Amoeba in H'wood but didn't buy it. The Naomi Watts one was one of my favorite movies. After seeing it, I dressed up on Halloween like the killer guys in white tennis shorts and white gloves. I had to meet a lady I contacted in the personals at a restaurant, and she told me to dress up. It was quite cold that night for that outfit. She was shocked when I walked in, as she wanted me to wear a "coat" and tie. The reviewer is quite charming, I must say.

  23. Definitely agree that it helps watching it in terms of a thesis work or something more academic given the subject matter it critiques. But damn the medium and way in which Michael Haneke binds the audience to the film makes it feel impossible not to be fully immersed

  24. Meh, was underwhelmed by this.

    Was ok but dunno why its got such a good reputation.

    The parents act totally illogically and dont seem that upset over their son being gunned down.

    Just meh. Was waiting for the end tbh.

  25. I have seen both the original and the remake – both are made with great skill and are infuriating to watch. But if I had to pick one, I actually think the acting and quality of the remake makes it very slightly more effective and are harder to watch. I therefore would give the edge to the remake, but just barely.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.