Search


About Me

Kyle Smith (Twitter: @rkylesmith) is a film critic for The New York Post and the author of the novels Love Monkey and A Christmas Caroline. Type a title in the box above to locate a review.

Buy Love Monkey for $4! "Hilarious"--Maslin, NY Times. "Exceedingly readable and wickedly funny romantic comedy"--S.F. Chronicle. "Loud and brash, a helluva lot of fun"--Entertainment Weekly. "Engaging romp, laugh-out-loud funny"-CNN. "Shrewd, self-deprecating, oh-so-witty. Smith's ruthless humor knows no bounds"--NPR

Buy A Christmas Caroline for $10! "for those who prefer their sentimentality seasoned with a dash of cynical wit. A quick, enjoyable read...straight out of Devil Wears Prada"--The Wall Street Journal

Rotten Tomatoes
Search Movie/Celeb

Advanced Search
  • Recent Comments

  • Categories

  • « | Home | »

    Review: “Funny Games”

    By Kyle | March 16, 2008

    funnygames1.jpg

    THE OUTER LIMITS

    Kyle Smith review of FUNNY GAMES

    112 minutes/Rated R

    35.gif

    “Funny Games” is a nasty piece of work. Extreme is too mild a word. So is disgusting. This psychological thriller makes “No Country for Old Men” look like “High School Musical 2.” It’s black, bleak, ugly, brutal, inflammatory and brilliantly devious.

    Michael Haneke’s film, a remake of his own 1997 Austrian movie of the same name, isn’t for everyone. I wouldn’t recommend it to most of my friends. Exactly how far would you like to be pushed this evening? If your answer is, “Not really to the psyche-shattering point, thanks,” stay well clear.

    “Funny Games” isn’t about violence per se, and though you’ll swear horrible things are happening before your eyes, they are being pushed offscreen, making it much less violent than the average slasher movie. Yet it goes gleefully to places it knows it shouldn’t, if it wants to have an audience. Many films claim to challenge the bourgeoisie while sending them the cinematic equivalent of a fruity Chardonnay; this one is, like the song that inexplicably interrupts the opening credits, the cinematic equivalent of death metal.

    I won’t reveal what happens beyond the setup, in which a carefree and well-off couple (Naomi Watts and Tim Roth) and their little boy drive to their summer house for a nice little break. A couple of nice young men (Michael Pitt, Brady Corbet), near lookalikes with floppy tousled hair and angel-of-the-country-club tennis whites, stop by to borrow some eggs. Then things take a turn for the inappropriate.

    Haneke is an Austrian director who has made such French films as “Cache,” which similarly ensnared a well-to-do couple in inexplicable intrigue and made heavy use of an chillingly nonjudgmental surveillance-camera feel.

    Cameras are parked in strange places for long, disturbing stretches of “Funny Games.” We don’t see the principal actors at first; instead, the camera swoops far overhead, making the humans seem like distant objects of curiosity, playthings of more intelligent forces. So riveting is Haneke’s vision that he can shock you with things you don’t see, or with things you think you’re about to see. The single most memorable, most sickening shot in the movie is that of a golf ball rolling on the floor. Even in that case, you don’t see the golf ball at first, and don’t need to. The sound it makes enough to make you run screaming for the exits. This is twisted but skilled filmmaking. “Funny Games” is one of the most perfect horror films you’ll ever see.

    But mere horror is not quite the point. Haneke has a satirical point to make, or rather that he wants you to make. “Funny Games” is a meta-thriller that questions the assumptions behind the horror genre. Is it playing by the rules to show a child suffering? Are we being cheated of our lust for violence if we don’t get to see someone being made to bleed? Can we be denied a good look at the climactic moment? One character keeps breaking the fourth wall to hint at these sorts of questions, and there is also another trick element that takes us away from the realm of the possible. So why does the film feel so shatteringly real?

    Possibly it’s because we, the upscale moviegoing audience, are so much like the beautiful family on the screen. Haneke has some disgusted comments to make on that, about our relationship with our baguettes and our Subzeros and our cozy entertainment choices. At one particularly awful moment, someone struggles mightily to simply turn off the NASCAR race that roars out of the TV. People, the film says, can be literally trapped by their most expensive possessions.

    So the film is an acid satire of consumerism and E-Z entertainment. Facile? Predictable? Maybe, but there’s a third element that Haneke brings off with aplomb. With darting, elliptical language reminiscent of Harold Pinter’s, Haneke skewers the language styles of the rich and careless, the light hostility baked inside softly nonjudgmental words like “appropriate,” the way “sorry” and “nice” can mean not particularly sorry and really not nice at all. Underneath such polite words Haneke finds flaming pits of suffering.

    Topics: Europe, Movies, Theater | 8 Comments »

    8 Responses to “Review: “Funny Games””

    1. Yankeefan Says:
      March 16th, 2008 at 7:29 am

      Haven’t seen the film and won’t. But the more I read about it — no doubt, to satisfy some bloodlust; or, per your review, lack-of-blood lust — the more I get the sense that Haneke is acting out like some sort of of sophomore home on winter break, trying to shock the straights at the club with his first-semester video project. I can just hear mum, nibbling on her baguette, gently and patronizingly chastising, “Oh, Michael, what ARE they teaching you at Bard these days?”

      I don’t doubt Haneke’s talent —Cache was brilliant. But sounds like this picture is rather over-indulgent. And what balls, by the way, to do a shot-for-shot remake of the first film — who can improve on a masterpiece?

      Anyway, I’ll take your advice and stay away, and stick to my own bougie and non-threatening pleasures. Oh, and pass the latte please…

    2. K Says:
      March 16th, 2008 at 6:20 pm

      Kyle,
      In your personal critical algorithms, is it possible for something to be too violent, sickening or pornographic if it is also hugely brilliant? IOWs, is there an absolute limit of your appreciation of an arbitrary “great” work of art given by the scale at which it is morally offensive?

    3. Richard Kinkead Says:
      March 17th, 2008 at 9:39 am

      Will wait ’til it comes to Netflix, but I’ll give it a go on the off chance that the girl in the poster gets naked. The story sounds like what everyday life is like to some of us.
      I like Naomi Watts and I can’t recall Tim Roth in a bad movie (esp. liked him in “Rob Roy.”)
      RNK

    4. kyle Says:
      March 17th, 2008 at 10:55 am

      @K, the film exists to get a reaction out of you and it does it very effectively. I don’t find it any more morally offensive than “Friday the 13th.” I judge based on whether the film does what it is trying to do, which in this case is to shock, unsettle and enrage the audience while questioning the assumptions of the horror thriller. I freely acknowledge that my opinion is unlikely to be shared by the average viewer, which is why I put about 150 disclaimers in my review.

    5. K Says:
      March 17th, 2008 at 1:37 pm

      Kyle,
      .” I judge based on whether the film does what it is trying to do, which in this case is to shock, unsettle and enrage the audience.”

      So, in a general sense, not concerning this movie in particular, you would judge a film based on the quality of its mechanics and never on it’s moral content?

    6. Stuff White People Like: Pretending to Make Fun of Themselves | KyleSmithOnline.com Says:
      March 19th, 2008 at 10:27 am

      […] what white people don’t like: unpolite stinging jokes at their expense like, say, “Funny Games.” I don’t put myself above white people, by the way. I was freaked out by the movie […]

    7. lauren Says:
      March 20th, 2008 at 9:31 pm

      so i literaly just saw this movie a couple hours ago and it was fantastic. just that fact that you couldn’t see what was happening made it all the more terrifying. im a huge michael pitt fan and i thought he did a superb job. i also liked how it showcased how american’s and people in general lust for blood and i know that’s why some people won’t enjoy this. i did though and i recommend this to the other weirdo’s like me.

    8. Al Kane Says:
      April 7th, 2008 at 10:15 am

      Critics don’t get it.
      Nobody wants to see a film about an innocent 10-year old child being shotgunned to death. Even Hostel and Saw didn’t go that far.

    Comments