Sadly Over-hyped

I don't have all the words right now but this film is a work of art.

The film makes a home in your brain and the only cure is to see it again.

Blistering performances.

This is not just a remake of the old film, but a trivial exact copy. Up to the poses and replicas. So, in my opinion, does not deserve to be rated higher than just for the work done on the film's shooting, not for the film itself.

Awful movie! I could not watch the hole movie so I skipped straight to the end and was hoping that those annoying guys would been killed. That never happened. Anyway, how someone can be so nasty and out of his mind that would create this kind of movie. I was scared nowhere in this movie, because this movie was kind of boring. And so disgusting. Definitely big NO for this movie!

The original Funny Games - German, made in 1997, written and directed by Michael Haneke - was great. Haneke decided to remake the movie for US audiences, and promptly screwed it up. Instead of thought- provoking, this is pretentious. Instead of innovative, this is second hand. Instead of suspenseful, this is boring. Maybe it was because I had seen the original so knew where it was going, but the plot was slow. Direction was ponderous and listless.Worst of all was the casting. Michael Pitt spells disaster for any movie he is in. Wooden, pretentious, irritating. Brady Corbet follows his lead. Naomi Watts does her usual over-acting. Tim Roth is a superb actor but had nothing to work with and deserves a lot better than this.

Why does this film exist? Michael Haneke re-adapts his 1997 German film of the same name. This version of Funny Games is essentially a shot for shot remake of the original, much in the same way Gus Van Sant re-shot Hitchcock's Psycho. It offers absolutely nothing new, except for better quality visuals, as this film had a higher budget then the original.Funny Games sees a family being sadistically tortured for no reason by two young random psychopaths they come across during their holiday at their tranquil lakeside holiday home. Now I wasn't a big fan of the original film, whilst it wasn't terrible I just couldn't get into it. I also don't buy into the films 'subtext' at all. I found Haneke's argument that the film is supposed to be an indictment of medias increasing obsession of violence to be incredibly flimsy at best. However what I did like about his views on the original film, was the complete and utter pointlessness of it. It makes the events far more scarier when there are no reasons given as to why the these horrific events are happening.The same goes for the re-make as-well, I've given both films the same score as they both do the same thing. The original definitely felt more visceral and raw. The only thing this film Improves upon is the cinematography, and that's about it. Naomi Watts and Tim Roth do a good job in their roles of the two abused parents. Michael Pitt and Brady Corbet are terrific as the two unhinged psychopaths Paul and Peter. So to answer my original question, the only reason I can give for this films existence is: it was made for people who don't like reading subtitles.