Michael Pitt is great in everything he's ever been in.
Bully, Delirious, Boardwalk Empire, Last Days all have brilliant performances.
I liked Funny Games
Last Days? Urgh, God no. I'm with you on Boardwalk Empire, though, brilliant performances, especially by Michael Pitt.
bully is a shite film
Plenty of bad films have great performances.
true i thought bully was all round poor though ,the actings very inconsistent, as it is in most of larry clarks overrated movies imo ,the film 'kids' for fuck sake that wannabee nigga lingo all the way through is so annoying ,i dont care if its true for some american kids ,base the film on kids that aren't annoying idiots!
Kermode's response to this film is totally juvenile. Was Picasso calling everyone fascists when he painted Guernica?
didnt enjoy it but i liked it m(if that makes sense
no mark! its a tough thought provoking horror fillm! that does what was intended , i dont think of this film as just a slap on the wrist ,its a well done horror film ,with no cliches , kind of a satire , with thought provoking ideas, great film imo
was looking forward to kermodes response to this film….. not a great response
Mark Kermode would make an ideal boytoy for Christopher Hitchens. Both are giant wastes of flesh.
Why does Michael Pitt play the serial killer in almost every film he has ever been in?
Horrible film, just horrible.He must of hated the world and more specifically film when he made this. The arrogance he must of felt to patronise the audience and say its wrong to watch and make violent cinema so I am going to make a really horrific film to tell you off with. Maybe he thought its like catching a kid smoking so ill make them smoke the whole pack in one go. The real arrogance is he charges you for the pleasure of telling you off. Worst of all what Haneke tried to do hasn't worked
I broadly agree with Mark but he misses out that it is really quite a boring film
Having spent half the evening listening to Mark Kermode's review's, I have to conclude the man is a fucking idiot without as much cultivation as that of of a Canon Tatoo'd Arsenal fan.
What Haneke is trying to say is that glamourised violence in cinema is pointless. Haneke uses mild violence in his films but makes it look obscene rather than glamorous. We arrive to see a movie where we know what awaits the protagonists, and feel this lust on viewing it. Funny Games makes you an accomplice in murder, where (we) the viewers, are the real torturers.
I agree with Mark Kermode. I watched the original film last night, and near the end, I was drifting off to sleep. Another film like this is Pasolini's Salo (120 Days of Sodom). I got the lecture in that one, too; that Fascism is bad, mmmokay?Haneke's effort just seemed it was a paper I had to write in Grade 12 Film & Television, that even violence on its own is evil, evil, evil, and Haneke wants to rub my nose in it. Interesting too, is that Mosman's own Naomi Watts (for it was she) had a hand in the production side of things, and gets her own production credit to boot. As I said, that's evil, evil, evil.
So your a film critic, and your objection is the film does something rare, and makes the audience feel really uncomfortable watching the violence, makes them go through an emmotional rollercoaster and subverts their expectations. Yup I can see why you hate it so much.
If David Cronenberg had made this film, Mark would've called it a work of genius and praised it to the heavens. I didn't love Funny Games, but this "review" was over the top.
This review is spot on. This movie is tendentious garbage in both incarnations.
(a) Any movie that can be summed up in one sentence doesn't deserve however many minutes of screen-time(b) I don't enjoy being lectured. I particularly don't like being lectured by people who have nothing worth saying.(c) As Mark points out the concepts of audience complicity and vicarious on-screen violence will have already occurred to any thoughtful movie-goer and have been dealt with much more effectively in significantly better, spectacularly more entertaining and vastly more nuanced films(d) This is technically well made and well acted which is in fact why I consider it the worst-conceived film I have ever seen. Other films achieve awfulness through some combination of ineptitude or misconception. In this case the film-maker has deliberately decided to make his audience suffer and then blames them for their pain. It is deliberately, wilfully offensive, most especially since it treats a facile, superficial theme as though it's some sort of profundity. It isn't. It just seems clever to Haneke because he's an idiot.
Yeah I didn't realize until reading a review on this film,the guy said it pretty cut and dry,if you like the film their is something wrong with you.
Funny Games: a boring and pretentious film that occasionally succeeds in making its audience feel uncomfortable or annoyed. It's a shame because it's very well acted, and there are moments when it looks as though the film might go somewhere. Instead it's one big attempt to guilt trip the audience for watching it. But if I'd known in advance the film was going to be that dull and vacuous, I wouldn't have.
I hated the remake but liked the original, mostly because of the brilliant acting. I suppose it's more of an artistic statement than a typical horror film, but I still found it tense and I liked the two antagonists. Mark seemed to take the movie way too personal, like it was a personal attack on him or something, kinda unprofessional.
The issue, which Richard Ayoade described very well on his episodes of The Adam Buxton Podcast, is that Funny Games is an arthouse film, and so its only audience is those sensible enough to realise the point it's making. Simply remaking it in English still won't remove it from the arthouse circuit.
It's not saying watching graphic violence in films is wrong, it's analysing and exposing the nature of horror and all fiction
Oof, this is not a great review. I viscerally hated the movie (I watched the German language one), yet I find it masterfully made and thought provoking beyond the first thoughts but actually in many of its details.I would watch it again to pick up more, but I actually actually don't want to because it upset me. But there are so many layers to it that make it interesting and ask us as viewers questions because they actually reflect on our participation in this fictional world of the film. And it asks questions about what is fiction and how is it made, how do we interact with it. All of that is really, really interesting and should not be dismissed like this.
This rant feels like someone just picked up on one thing that might be applicable and made his entire perception of the film about this one single thing that rubs them the wrong way.
I didnt feel lectured at at all really.
Agree with Kermode pretty much of the mine. With "Funny Games" I have to disagree. A superb film. It's an adrenaline ride, visceral. Like all Haneke, it is manipulative, but with an emotional core, and explores the human condition in all its facets.
FUNNY GAMES U.S. and Austrian versions which were both well-done and I found the disturbing, dark humour and provocative satire to be the assets of this work.
This movie is the worst piece of artsy farsty garbage I've ever seen. I love slow films. I love disturbing films. I love all sorts of films, but this film is fucking stupid. I get it. It's a movie about villains who know they're in a movie and that's dumb. Fuck this movie.
I think the movie is more about the callousness of the author than the audience.
I empathise with the 'taking hanekes point and turning the film off', I did it the first time I saw it, but this review is funny as imo the films thesis is correct and struck a nerve with self-proclaimed horror nut kermode
I strongly disagree with Mark this time. I think he misunderstood the entire message of the movie. I think it is a masterpiece and ranks with one of Haneke's best.
Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *
Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.