Rating: 
Summary: C'mon, I Dare You to Watch This...Brutal, Visceral, & Funny
Review: Why watch Godfather for the 27th time? Haven't you seen the Matrix enough times over the last year? Both great movies but here's something interesting... Buy this video for a heck of a visceral ride. In the same disturbing vain as Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer, Man Bites Dog, Santa Sangre.The director uses "real time" in some weird and effective ways in this movie. One small example: (Don't worry, I'm not giving anything away here by describing this scene), but there's a scene where the family is forced to lay still on the floor as the bad boys go away and you watch in real time, in tension filled agony, with one eye open and teeth clenching, as the family is terrified and afraid to move for a good 5-10 minutes before they slowly get up, instead of the usual hollywood tension-less time-warp cut to the next scene. The director is a bit indulgent with the whole viewer-as-part-of-the-crime-rewind scene, but there is a strong voyeuristic charge you get from watching this uncomfortable and tense movie, very much like rubbernecking at the scene of a violent car crash -- it's base and aweful for you to look, but you just can't help yourself... The acting is top-notch. No formula actors here. The plot/situation is pretty simple, but intelligently executed. Some great super-dark humor here. They could have done a better job with the subtitles (sometimes hard to see). Keep the kiddies and the Romantic-Comedy-"Pretty Woman"-lovers away from this one. One of the more interesting foreign films to come around in the "Disturbing" genre.
Rating:
Summary: Content often makes it hard to see the subtleties.
Review: I saw this movie one night on the independant film channel. I had missed the first 20 minutes. I hate coming into the middle of a movie I've never seen. But this time I watched the rest and quickly researched when it would be on again so I could record it.
This movie is utterly terrifying. It shakes you down and, like I've read in other reviews, makes you stare blankly at the screen well after it's over.
The things that make this so shocking are not easily noticed. It wasn't until I tried describing this movie to a friend that I realized that the reason the anti-heroes were so effective in their reign over the victimized family, is that, with all their brutality, the two youths were extremely polite.
They asked politely for everything- using words like please and thank you and, at least initially, most of the brutality happened when the victims didn't comply with the antagonist's relatively simple requests. After several easy requests, the orders become more and more difficult and traumatic. But never do the two antagonists scream, yell or otherwise verbally assault their victims. In fact, they often ask why the victims drove them to cause such destructive results.
These character were not cardboard cut-outs that are typical of most movies of this sort. They show thought, as demented as it is.
A lot of people have problems with some of the cinematic gimmicks that are employed in the film, but this is a commentary, not a mockumentary. And, while not perfect, these techniques are to show the viewers that they themselves are part of all this.
The viewer has as much power as the killers. They may turn it off at any time. They may stop the _movie_ that the two antagonists fully realize they are a part (proof shown by the rewind scene). Yes. These characters realize they are in a movie. The victims, however, do not. The viewer is as much under attack as the victims. As much power as the viewers have to make it stop, they have no power to alter the outcomes if they choose to continue watching.
It's a tough accomplishment to play both sides as a filmmaker. Hitchcock employed techniques not unlike this. Hitchcock made his villains sympathetic. You wanted them to get away with it. In Psycho, every tenses up when the car won't sink into the river. Why do they tense? Because they want it to.
Haneke does not make his villains sympathetic. But he does make you the viewer want to know what they are going to do next. The villains know you are watching them. At one point he even winks at you. They know that you are curious as to what is going to happen next.
They are there to entertain you.
They are there to torture you.
Michael Haneke is pulling the strings of the audience and when the show is over, you feel it. You feel played. Like someone has had their way with you. That's what Haneke wanted. He accomplished his goal and therefore has made a very effective film.
Rating:
Summary: A unique and well-orchestrated thriller
Review: Foreign films have always had an intrigue to them that has kept a small, loyal audience begging for more. Small treasures like "Funny Games" is what holds that loyal audience so strongly. Absolutely captivating with its innovativeness, "Funny Games" takes you on a disturbing journey that certainly makes you think twice letting a neighbor's congeniality make you invite them in. Beautifully directed by Michael Haneke, "Funny Games" is the strange tale of a pair of teenage rebels who invite their way into a family's home -- only to torture them relentlessly. Graphic in its depicition and utterly captivating in its grip, the story unfolds into a shocking tale of violence. The film's most honorable trick is that of manipulating the audience. While not showing any direct violence (considering the actual graphicness of it), it makes the audience want to peek around the corner. "What happened? What did they do?" The viewer is, ironically, just as guilty as the murdering party -- a strange twist that Michael Haneke choreographed so well that it is impossible to notice he even did it in the first place. "Funny Games", as mentioned before, is just one of those small treasures that needs to be experienced by oneself. No, it is not for everyone -- but no movie is. It is graphic, disturbing, and utterly enthralling. A movie most certainly not be missed.
Rating: 
Summary: Not so funny
Review: This is the sort of film that keeps you in attendance from the moment it starts to the moment it finishes. You can almost feel it for the poor bastards who are victamised, it makes Hannibal lector and Henry seem like a copuple of pussy's. If you enjoyed Silence of the Lambs or Henry portrait of a serial killer then don't watch this movie it will be too intense for you. From the moment our family are introduced there is a sense of unease and a waiting game that we have to know what is going to happen to them. 10 out of 10 for a really nerve racking film with the only advice, never open the door to strangers.
Rating: 
Summary: Zero star ... Boring movie
Review: This was the stupidest movie I have ever seen. It is so ... dont by this film.or else you would have just lost money.
Rating:
Summary: The worst movie I've ever seen.
Review: Yeah, I get it! The intention of the filmmakers is to attack the audience for wanting to be entertained by a thriller (i.e., violence against innocent people). The problem is, that is not a big enough idea to support this movie. The picture has the intellectual depth of a snuff film. This movie isn't even in the same universe with Clockwork Orange because it is all audacity, with nothing intelligent to say. This subject matter could have been handled better in a mature film about violence (only In Cold Blood springs to mind at the moment) but this film exists within the genre of the thriller, and it does not rise above it. Even though the director shows some talent by torturing the audience in showing the after-effects of violence, what ultimately makes this movie fail as art is that he is so smug in his style that he is constantly seeking the audience's approval while simultaneously attacking them. Characters constantly break the fourth wall, and he uses other cinematic tricks, as if to say, "am I not cool" or "don't worry, it's only a movie." He ends up by defeating himself: he wants to make his movie unpredictable so he simply does the opposite of what's expected. As soon as the viewer catches onto that, he knows every turn the movie is going to make (right up to the red herring of the knife in the boat at the end). Ultimately, the film becomes the last thing it ever expected to be: boring. The final closing chatter about alternate realities just makes it seem like what it really is - an aggrandized film school senior thesis. It's all right for a film to want to hurt you...I just want to hurt this one back!
Rating:
Summary: What's so funny?
Review: I can't claim to be a total naif in regards to this movie. I had read a bit about it well before I ever saw it and knew that it would be strong stuff. But I came to it as someone who is interested in German language cinema and not as hardcore thriller fan. For that reason, I think, I found not only the film's brutality but the assumption that viewers are "complicit" in the violence all the more bothersome. Simply stated, I did not feel "complicit"--and felt a little resentful of the notion that I should. What I did feel was horror and a sense of compassion for some perfectly average, reasonably likeable people who fall victim to vicious young sadists. I just wanted it to end, in other words, and I wanted some justice for the victims and punishment for the perpetrators. I guess that may be one of the reactions that director Michael Haneke was actually aiming for. Actually, however, it's almost impossible to state conclusively just what he hoped to achieve with this film. If he wanted to make a statement that horrible crimes are just that--horrible--and should not be the basis of our entertainment, well, I'd have to agree with him. But I also tend to agree with numerous reviewers both in Amazon and the IMDb, that Haneke seems to want to have it both ways, coming up with a film that is supposed to be simultaneously an effective thriller and a scathing critique of the genre. The movie may be accurately termed as "devilishly clever"--with all that that phrase implies. Although the Amazon reviewer above is certainly justified in referring to the two young murderers as being like Leopold and Loeb, that is only an impression. The two characters remain cyphers throughout--no psychologigizing a la "Rope" or "Swoon"--and one can't help feeling that's deliberate. We don't even ever really learn their actual names ("Peter and Paul"? "Tom and Jerry"? "Beavis and Butthead"?). Of course, we aren't told all that much about the victims either, but as stultifyingly middle class as the family seems, they become almost endearing in their averageness. There is no way in God's heaven and earth that they can be said to deserve their fate. When he breaks down the fourth wall, as he does in a couple of key scenes, Haneke actually provides the viewer with a sense of relief. As others have noted, you can actually catch your breath at these moments and remind yourself, "It's only a movie." After the "remote" scene, the film's power is considerably deflated. Thankfully too, since it was probably the only way that I could watch the film to its end.
Rating:
Summary: Clever, effective and disturbing
Review: It is a good idea to know something about this film before watching it. On the surface it is that familiar thriller where strangers terrorize a family. But really it is about how you, the viewer, are complicit in on-screen violence. This is the film's priority and it is not afraid to abandon its original, more traditional plot line - however bizarrely - whenever it feels right to emphasize this. Remember. All these horrible things are happening because you won't switch off. Overly violent films only get made because people keep paying to go and see them. The skill of the director of Funny Games is that he makes his point without resorting to hardly any on screen violence, unlike many of the films he parodying. I strongly recommend this film but be warned - it is not a "date movie". See it on your own because it is impossible to know how people will react to it. If you like this film your friends may think you are SICK. You are not. But Funny Games brings home to you just how many films are.
Rating: 
Summary: Starts good - gets tiresome
Review: I was struck by the brutal realism of the first half, but then was highly disappointed by the time it was over. The problem with this movie is as follows: the family that's being terrorized is left with NO options and NO way out. Frankly put, this gets boring. Even if you are a sadist that simply wants to see graphic violence, there's not much of it, and nothing is what I would consider 'graphic'. This movie plays on the terror of a husband, wife, and small child being held captive by two "psychopaths", which is VERY scary and disturbing. However, when one of the psychopaths "rewinds" the movie to change an outcome, or when he stops to converse with the viewer, I felt the director ruined a perfectly good film to try something "different". I condone experimentation and breaking away from the norm, but it does NOT work in this film. Prepare to be disappointed.
Rating:
Summary: Superbly Shocking Entertainment
Review: Unimaginable subtle terror. Violence. Death. A hideous message for people vacationing in isolated country cottages. You may have become sensitized to the usual Hollywood rampage, but not to this. So if you want to upset your lofty sensitivities, watch it.
| 
