Funny Games

(2008)

Directed by

Michael Haneke

Review by Todd Plucknett

The 2008 Michael Haneke film Funny Games U.S. is a remake of Haneke’s chilling 1997 film Funny Games, starring the late Ulrich Muhe. It is a complete failure on all levels, and whenever the original film worked, this one seemed off and almost unwatchable. Why was this film even made?

The film is about a family going to vacation at their lake house. Ann (Naomi Watts) is a classic housewife. Her husband George (Tim Roth) and son (Devon Gearhart) are most looking forward to getting in their boat and spending time on the lake. Some of the neighbors stop by to help the guys with the boat, one of them being an instantly suspicious Paul (Michael Pitt), wearing all white clothing and even white gloves. Later on, Peter (Brady Corbet) stops by to borrow some eggs. After breaking almost all of them and dropping the phone in the water, Peter leaves. He comes back with Paul and start to mess with Ann��s mind. They ask for more eggs, and following the killing of their dog with George’s golf club, Ann tries to force them to leave. George comes in and wonders what is really going wrong. Ann is offended and distraught, and when George starts to get forceful and protective, they smack him in the leg with a club, completely restricting him from being able to walk at all. They begin to play some sadistic games with the family’s life, even betting that they will be “caput” in 12 hours. Interesting, right? Maybe the first time.

The first downfall of the film is that it offers absolutely nothing new. It is literally a shot-by-shot remake. There is not a single original part to this film. Worse even than that is that not a single shot is as good or feels as authentic as the original one. There are certain elements to this film and some character development that are completely not relevant in today’s standards. These people do not react like any logical person would, though they do the exact same thing in the German version. It worked there, but not here. Maybe it was the language barrier that made these characters seems distant enough to believe that this family and these two strange neighbors would actually react the way they do to certain gimmicks and characters. Nevertheless, never does this film seem valid or believable.

The performances here are good enough in most cases. Watts is superb in here role. If something actually possesses anyone to subject themselves to the torture of seeing this awful movie, she is seriously the only redeeming factor. Roth is not that good, and neither is the annoying Gearhart. Corbet is fine, but is less believable than his counterpart in the better version of the film. Pitt would have seemed great if it weren’t for his counterpart Arno Frisch playing the part twice as good the first time around. The visual stimulation is non-existent. The only real technical achievement was in the filming of the extended scenes focused on Watts’s broken-down tear-filled face, which is shot with an excellent mix of shadows and glow that really made that one scene stand out. The obnoxious music was just annoying this time around, when it actually added a certain mystique and interesting quality to the original. Really, there is very little that compares to the quality of the first version.

Again, why was this film made? There are so many other ways that Haneke could have gone with this. I understand his point to the film is as relevant as ever, with films like Hostel, Saw, and both of those films’ sequels being such hits now, but why a shot-by-shot remake? I am not one to condone sequels to great films, unless it is following a book series or something of that sort. However, this was a time where that would have been perfectly fine. He wanted to break into the American movie scene, so he could have made a sequel, one that could have stood on its own, due to the probable lack of familiarity with Haneke’s previous work. A sequel would have been interesting, since the end obviously leaves that open like every other movie of the genre that Haneke is criticizing here. If he was indeed completely sold on the remake thing, then why shot-by shot? He could have made a completely original and relevant take on the film that could have been more accessible and appealing to audiences, making someone actually want to see this film. So many times remakes fail, most notably the Psycho remake by Gus Van Sant. That was also basically a shot-by-shot remake, and that is the level of quality we are looking at here. There are some extremely talented people involved, but the film never breaks new ground, which was inevitably the downfall of Van Sant’s picture as well. With all the new resources and technology that have been developed in the past ten years since the original came out, you would think that Haneke could have improved on the film somehow, or at least give it a new setting or some kind of distinction. He could have easily done what The Departed, Cape Fear, 3:10 to Yuma, or even A Perfect Murder did, which is bring about a new take on the film, restoring the impact and storyline, but rehashing the structure to make it more modern and pertinent. The original’s bleak camerawork and fresh ideas worked, but here it just seems like a poor imitation and basically a karaoke version of what was a great film. The original felt genuinely horrifying, while this one felt nothing more than cheap and irritatingly pretentious. It is supposed to be a conversation-starter, but the only conversations being started here are why the film was made and if we can get our money back.

The only reason my rating of this beyond pointless film is a generous half-star is because Watts really gives it everything she has. It is too bad that she was not given anything to work with. She throws herself at this role, but she is brought down with the rest of the film’s ugliness and close-mindedness.  If Haneke really wanted a shot-by-shot in English, why didn’t he just dub it? It would have saved them some money and saved me two hours of my life.

Rating: