|
Showing all 31 reviews...
|
|
 |
Worst movie ever. The only thing that could make it worse is if Lohan was in it. I would not even recommend renting this crap.
1/10
10.7.2008 -
mcneil@ - age: 36-49
After reading some reviews of this movie - people are reading way too much into it. There was no motive/purpose as to why these 2 men were doing what they are doing - the story might have at least been interesting if there was background detail. No twists, no surprises, all predictable. I guess the only real message is that if you act like victims you're going to be terrorized and killed by a insolent, conceited, sociopaths. 1 hour and 46 minutes I will never get back.
1/10
9.7.2008 -
quillsinc@ - age: 26-35
| | | | |
This movie was so strange I loved it! I honestly went to see it for the cast. I enjoy Naomi Watts and Micheal Pitt is HOT! If your expecting a Hollywood big budget movie with a happy ending please refrain from this movie. It's an independent like film and a bad acid trip all rolled in one.
7/10
11.4.2008 -
c,lazare@ - age: 26-35
This movie was very good. There is some phenomenal acting, some fun twists, and it has something to say. I think it is very accessible to the mass audience and I don't know why everyone is having so much trouble with it. Maybe they should go see college road trip a third time? I strongly recommend this movie. Just know it is a little bit different but nothing to outrageous. It's even funny at points, but you may feel bad for laughing its o.k. I did too.
9/10
6.4.2008 -
singro02@ - age: 18-25
Funny games is an extremely interesting movie. It will make you have endless conversations. You can't relate to this family. They make stupid choices and they could have save themselves, but they didn't because of their social status, and how it would be unacceptable to kick out two gentlemen. I think at first they are just in denial or they don't really believe what is happening to them. The ending is awesome. The music just lets us know what is happening in the mind of the killers. Will it just keep going on? I strongly suggest this movie.
8/10
4.4.2008 -
m_maria_m@ - age: 18-25
| | | | |
I can appreciate both low and high scores on this film. For those who stumbled in hoping to be entertained, it was disappointing. I for one, felt the trailer was misleading. For those who were interested in the social commentary and the intellectual point of the director, it provoked and stimulated. However, I personally found that for those who "got it" Haneke was preaching to the converted. In the end, after all the analysis, the film turns on it self and eats it's own tail leaving you realizing that you have just sat through an intellectualized couple of hours of psychological and physical torture which fails to entertain.
3/10
31.3.2008 -
ahonsinger31@ - age: 36-49
Oh My God! I love those types of movies that keep you thinking for days. But this was a little too much ( and I am never or rarely disappointed) I was shocked and disturbed yet glued to the screen. I think they exaggerated a little...
5/10
30.3.2008 -
guccirushgirl@ - age: 26-35
This movie is brilliant. I couldn't stop thinking about it for days after... which I'm sure is what the director wanted. But, it is disturbing. The people who gave this movie bad reviews obviously had no idea what the movie was about before seeing it (and they quite obviously don't know what great film making is if they gave it a 1 out of 10) At least watch the preview first so you know what you're getting yourself into.
10/10
28.3.2008 -
jleslie@ - age: 18-25
I don't know where to start. The openning credits sum up the entire show. Be scared. Be very scared to see this "movie" as it is about the worst excuse for a film as I've ever seen. Can't believe they got "A" list performers to read this script, let alone sign on. I can't believe I stayed until the end. Be very scared.
2/10
28.3.2008 -
wes_sutherland@ - age: 36-49
| | | | |
[ATTENTION: This review reveals content of the movie.]
Excluding his last film "Cache", which I loved, every other Michael Haneke film I have watched ("The Piano Teacher"," The Time of the Wolf") has burned horrific images into my head that I have been unsuccessful at erasing. Yet I continue to subject myself to the abuse. Why? I'm not sure really, maybe it’s just the curiosity to see what madness Haneke will think of next. Maybe its because I know he is one of the few directors to constantly evoke some fierce reaction out of me."Funny Games" seems to take this voyeuristic curiosity to heart. Although I am not sure that this a good thing. The film is almost, so I am told, a shot for shot remake of his 1997 film of the same name. I have not seen the original, so I can only go by what is in the latest version. The remake stars Naomi Watts and Tim Roth as a couple who, with young son in tow, go to their lush vacation home for a week. Once there they meet two overly polite young men (Michael Pitt and Brady Corbet) who are apparently visiting their neighbors. Things quickly turn south and the couple is held hostage in there home. They are forced to endure hours of physical and psychological torture. It is at this point were the film tries to achieve two things at once. On one hand “Funny Games” is a tense thriller reminiscent of the 1971 Dustin Hoffman film “Straw Dogs”. On the other, Haneke wants the film to be a scathing commentary on how America is obsessed with violence in cinema. As a straight thriller, the film hits all the right notes and keeps you hooked for the first half. The acting is top notch. Watts is outstanding as the terrorized mother who must find the inner strength, Roth plays the role of the spineless husband perfectly, and Pitt and Corbet are creepy enough to make their characters somewhat unpredictable. I should also mention that Devon Gearhart brings some of the best suspense to the film as Roth and Watt’s son. As a social commentary, the film falters greatly. There is a point in the second half of the film, were Haneke plays with what the audience wants to see versus what he wants, that ruins the whole pacing afterwards. Haneke also incorporates devices, such as Michael Pitt breaking the forth wall to talk directly to the audience, to get his point across. The problem is, Haneke’s point is really nothing more than “shame on you for watching” and ”this is the stuff you like, isn’t it? ” It is one thing to write an essay and deconstruct the topic of violence in cinema. It is another to make a disturbing piece of art, ask people to see it, and then wag your finger to those who came to see what you have made. If you really think about it, the majority of Haneke’s audience/fans are not the same people who made films like “Hostel” and “Saw” huge successes. To be honest, I find Haneke’s films far more violent and disturbing than the “Saw” and “Hostel” films combine. The only difference is that some of the violence in Haneke’s film is off-screen. As a result, the mental images he conjures up are far more frightening.
6/10
28.3.2008 -
smallcourtney@ - age: 26-35
| | | | |
I personally think that those people who liked it had great imaginations, maybe they thought more than the director did. Anyways, after the movie (a complete waste of time), we felt we were being played by the whole group of people who produced it."you must admit, that you bought it on yourself."... How ridiculous!!
1/10
27.3.2008 -
notlikingit@ - age: 18-25
People who didn't like Funny Games can wait for the Incredible Hulk movie that comes out soon... and leave the real movies for the grown-ups.
10/10
27.3.2008 -
smoked_meat@ - age: 26-35
This was one terible movie... I saw it with my friends because we were late and missed the other movie we were hoping to see. In fact, the manager even told us not to see it. The one 'up' side to this movie that we were all stoned, very very stoned, which made this movie at least, somewhat entertaining. Instead of being in a sense of suspense. I found myself laughing and making fun of the movie. See it if youre high.
1/10
26.3.2008 -
joe24@ - age: 18-25
Sure to be one of the great films of 2008. Haneke has created a meditation on the ills of modern society and our participation in them as film/media consumers. He turns the table on viewers and forces us to look in a mirror at our thirst for and consumption of violence on our terms and without consequences. The "disturbed" young men are nothing more than a composite of our collective psychopathology. The family has become impotent against this intruding force because (like us viewers) it is an unconscious participant in its development. A near masterpiece of filmmaking.
9/10
22.3.2008 -
cbpersel@ - age: 36-49
This is a masterpiece, as all the Haneke movies. This is one of the absolutely best directors we have around today.
10/10
22.3.2008 -
wilhelm@ - age: 26-35
Quite close to brilliant. I can understand why some people couldn't sit though it, though, as it can be very hard to watch at times - but in the best possible way. The movie's sense of detachment and brutal emotion combine to make a thriller that's cold, calculated and ruthless. If you have ever been a Stanley Kubrick fan, you will be a fan of this movie.
8/10
22.3.2008 -
thegradient@ - age: 26-35
This is the worst movie that I'd seen in ages. I wanted to walk out of the theatre 40 minutes into it, but I stayed in hopes that it would pick up, only it never did. It doesn't go anywhere and drags on. It tried very hard to be different, to break the fourth wall and involve the viewer, which didn't help at all.
1/10
22.3.2008 -
blissbydesign@ - age: 18-25
I gave this movie a 10 for a couple of reasons. First, this isn't about entertainment, this movie is a statement about our relationship to violence, in movies, games, music... The point to take away is - recognize the effects violent media has on our perceptions and attitudes toward ourselves and each other. Second, the movie is a masterpiece in its own right. The acting is top notch, the villains are dark and sinister, and is a perfect illustration of human and moral frailty.
10/10
21.3.2008 -
philogos82@ - age: 26-35
Absolutely brutal. I would have given it a 1, but at least once they realized it was trash, they tried to save it with a "fictional universe." Complete crap.
2/10
19.3.2008 -
ehtomaz@ - age: 18-25
I would have selected a 1 out of 10," avoid at all costs", but there is a kick I get from watching something this bad. At times I felt like throwing my popcorn and drink at the screen. I say if you're contemplating seeing the movie think again take that $10 plus the price of goodies and donate it to some charity. I'm shocked.
2/10
19.3.2008 -
joetednena@ - age: 26-35
I would give this movie a zero if I could. But one is as low as the scale goes unfortunately. But the recommendation "avoid at all costs" is still appropriate. It amazes me to read on this site the other reviews of this movie, people who liked it, trying to explain why this is a good movie and how the people who don't like it "just don't understand". there is nothing to understand. This is just a BAD movie. It's dumb, poorly constructed and poorly directed, and uncomfortable and boring to watch. It is just a complete waste of time. I don't care if there are some people out there that are really like the bad guys in this movie. So what? Does that mean a movie has to be made about it? There is no sense in that logic at all. And this is not just a bad movie, it is a HATEFUL movie. Hate mixed in with violence, which is really the only new twist the movie has to offer on conventional slasher pics.
1/10
19.3.2008 -
josephine,hedges@ - age: 50+
The movie is good in terms of techniques, scene, and even the performances of actors. But the movie is the same annoying as the two freak killers. Sometime it is torturing the audiences and exactly like what the freak kills do in the movie. After watching it, ppl will become to hate violence for sure.
7/10
19.3.2008 -
leeable@ - age: 18-25
| | | | |
For the people who claim that this is a complete waste of time are completely missing the point of this film. The characters in this film are representations of bloated soft and privileged nuclear American family who are unable to act in adversity They have everything and are paralyzed by their status in the world."How could this happen to me!!" is what their attitude is. They are frozen by it. Similiar to how Americans reacted to 9/11. The two brothers are the embodiment of evil. Pure evil. Calculated, manipulative and challenging It is so very human to understand WHY people do what they do. We need to know WHY Hitler for example was evil. This film plays on that theme of that where you see these boys play with their captives about WHY they would do this. This film challenges the viewer to answer why we do evil things without packaging it and putting someone in a black cowboy hat.
7/10
17.3.2008 -
mad_b_99@ - age: 36-49
This moving was so disturbing that it should have been a "walk-out" one but unfortunately it was so riveting and one could not take their eyes off it. The final frame of the close-up image of that vile sadistic killer is a real haunting image that is burned in my mind.
8/10
17.3.2008 -
blgraham2@ - age: 50+
|
