Funny Games U.S.

La terreur psychologique maîtrisée et arrangée de manière magistrale, sans musique, avec une caméra statique et un minimum de montage. Perturbant, audacieux et impitoyable, arrogant, effrayant, désagréable. Michael Haneke est un génie de la réalisation, peut-être même un peu diabolique. Dès la première minute jusqu'à la dernière, j'étais figé. Seule la scène de la "télécommande" et les clins d'œil à la caméra ont légèrement diminué mon impression finale. Le réalisateur met trop ostensiblement et surtout inutilement en avant son savoir-faire qui constitue la base de son œuvre. Pourquoi troubler une course intense et originale du thriller par l'ajout de l'adjectif "expérimental" ? Funny Games restent malgré tout un chef-d'œuvre rebelle et brillamment interprété, dont l'évaluation, après avoir organisé mes pensées, je porte au maximum. (25/08/2008)

An attempt at modern exploitation and in the end we have a psychological drama. On the plus side, the film has a sleazy pair of bad guys and an interesting premise, but it doesn't go to extremes. Naomi Watts is naked out of frame, the blood is missing. How can someone skip violence and nudity in an exploitation film and concentrate only on the psychology of the characters? Once the couple leaves the house there is even half an hour of boredom, no I am not satisfied with this film. 55% (11/07/2015)

Damn! Proper exploitation (it’s not classic exploitation, really, but it doesn’t matter). Utter insanity, not recommended for people of a weaker nature, and one of the most depressive films I’ve ever seen. There were moments when I asked myself why I was watching it, but I was unable to turn it off. The main characters are tortured by a duo of young douchebags, while the viewers torture themselves. Some scenes are intentionally tedious (one is almost lethal), with the camera moving only when it’s strictly necessary and focusing on something else whenever there’s violence. And yet you wish you could see more, but why, really? Funny Games is a satire intended for the people it’s aimed at… evil. The performances are flawless, Naomi is really good in horror remakes. The 5/5 mark is well deserved, but I don’t want to watch it again. And I’m supposed to go to sleep after this? (13/04/2008)

A few good ideas and an appropriately chilling premise, both carefully walled in by self-indulgence. Unexpected winks at the viewer are not a bad idea, but they destroy the built-up atmosphere of unpredictability and absolute fear. And is it satire? If so, then why does Michael Haneke present disturbing scenes and make the heroes suffer physically and mentally in shots lasting several minutes? This unbearably artificial "depth" is just a self-absorbed means to attract attention. Attention from a decent portion of viewers who will enthusiastically talk about a psychologically tense thriller, which actually isn't at all. I don't question anyone's taste, but a film that can literally destroy its story with a bizarre trick involving a remote control and a desperately mundane ending is not worth closer attention from me. (09/02/2009)

Michael Haneke's good creativity, provocativeness, and knowledge of directing craft cannot be denied. Funny Games can be evaluated from two perspectives. From a craftsmanship point of view, it is a highly above-average film that is excellently cast and performed, capable of creating atmosphere and tension - long shots, precise editing, and camera work. However, from a content perspective, it is significantly worse. For a long time, the film pretends to be a suspenseful thriller, but it gradually becomes apparent that it is just an effective and perverse game, not so much with the middle-class family on vacation, but rather with the audience. At least from the key scene with the TV remote control, it is clear that the audience is not watching a crime thriller where the outcome is unknown, but that the victims' chances of escape were zero from the beginning and there is no escape from the bloody game. Haneke ultimately fails as a provocateur because, after the big reveal, there is nothing to address and the brutal game becomes boring. Other films have already spoken about violence and were significantly more critical and deeply affected the viewers. The fact that violence is cruel is banal. Haneke did not make a critical film as much as a game for sadists. The truth is that thanks to the slow pace, certain sophistication, and refinement, when terror is not depicted realistically, but "modestly" only shows the consequences or sound of violence, it appeals to a more intellectual audience rather than ordinary popcorn viewers. Terror in the film rather hypnotically attracts and fascinates, the feeling of superiority over helpless victims is absolute, and there is no catharsis. Overall impression: 35% for the solid craftsmanship. (17/10/2008)