MovieChat Forums > Funny Games (1998) Discussion > Just spent an hour on these boards...

Just spent an hour on these boards...

posted 12 years ago by geekeh
17 replies | jump to latest

After all that time, what I have gathered from the fans of this film is that they will jealously defend it against anyone who dares to dislike it. I have also come to the cautious conclusion (cautious because I don't know him personally, only what he projects) that the guy who made this film thinks he's quite edgy and interesting. He and the fans of his film have something in common, too, which is that they all think people who watch horror films because they want to see horror are just silly little weirdos. Their idea is something like this: Why watch a regular movie when you could watch a movie that reminds you that you are watching a movie and that you should be expecting this but you're getting that instead? Why apply logic to any situation in the movie, I mean the movie is just telling you that it's a movie after all! And someone even TALKS to you about it...THROUGH THE SCREEN.

Something like that. Anyway, that's what I've learned from these boards. I watched the movie because I had heard good things about it and I will give just about any movie of any genre a chance if it's got a good following. But of course I have learned if you do that often enough, you'll wind up with some stinkers. That's the chance I take.

I didn't enjoy this film because I thought it was going to be a good movie, not a lesson from some guy who thinks he is the ending word on what every single movie watcher in the world is thinking. I didn't enjoy it because I don't like pomposity, and this film has a lot of it, along with a lot of very boring, pointless moments that contributed nothing to the all important "message" you all keep raving about. I'm sure it was supposed to be surprising to some viewers, and I'm also sure that it WAS surprising to some, I just wasn't one of them.

It's so cool, the villain just spoke to the camera. Oh my gosh, he did it again. He's SO RIGHT, I can't believe I was so blind to the way people watch movies before. Oh look at this, he got the freakin' remote control and REWOUND the other dude's death.

No, really. My mind was blown. That's why I only clicked 1 star. This movie and others like it should have their own category: Condescending Director/Fans. Then I could make sure I never end up watching something so annoying again.

[–] RaidenPLS 12 years ago

He and the fans of his film have something in common, too, which is that they all think people who watch horror films because they want to see horror are just silly little weirdos.

I'm a fan of this film and I like horror films.

And you will know my name is The Lord when I lay my vengeance upon thee!

[–] Piperson 11 years ago

Geekah, I agree completely. I ended up watching this on TCM by accident (I woke up in the middle). I watched it because I knew that Mark Cousins had included it in his "Story of Film" and I was curious to find out why he would recommend it. It was because of the "innovation" of the villains breaking the fourth wall and rewinding the action. Mark Cousins is too easily impressed and sort of a sadistic creep himself if you ask me.

[–] RaidenPLS 11 years ago

Hmm, I' m not sure why you are responding to me. However, I will say that you completely missed the point regarding Mark Cousins. He is clearly a very thoughtful critic, and very knowledgable about film history. The Story of Film is nothing but a documentary on the cinematic innovations of various films, and through that lens, Mark Cousins is attempting to tell the history of the medium. He isn't recommending films because of their content or how much he likes them, but only because they are innovative in his estimation. To him, these films are important solely for their contribution to cinematic language. So, it's no surprise at all that he is impressed with the innovations of this film and others. I'm not sure why you would characterize him as a sadistic creep, or why the OP would suggest as much regarding Michael Haneke and fans of this film.

And kudos to TCM for showing Funny Games, in what could only be characterized as a very ballsy programming choice. I have to say I'm really amazed at the hostile response to this film on these boards. I can only assume that people don't like the questions raised by the film, or that they misunderstood those questions completely.

And you will know my name is The Lord when I lay my vengeance upon thee!

[–] Piperson 11 years ago

You make some valid points. I'm sorry that I called him a sadistic creep. I was responding to losing a night's sleep because of his inclusion of this film. I realize that HE thought the film was innovative. That didn't mean I had to watch it.

I am surprised that you are amazed at the hostile response to this film. I didn't like the questions raised by this film or I misunderstood them completely. So true.

[–] RaidenPLS 11 years ago

Fair enough.

When you say that you were "responding to losing a night's sleep because of his inclusion of this film", do you mean because it is so disturbing, or just because you found it repulsive? It is a shocking film, and I can understand why people wouldn't want to experience it.

And you will know my name is The Lord when I lay my vengeance upon thee!

[–] Piperson 11 years ago

I guess it was because I found it disturbing. I don't see the difference between it being disturbing or me finding it repulsive. I was disturbed and repulsed.

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Freudz_Wet_Dream 10 years ago

This film was marketed as a horror/violent film, so I don't think anyone who made a conscious decision to watch it feel they are on any kind of high ground compared to anyone else. I know there have been comments made by people in the steam of being ashamed for enjoying violence as entertainment, but in my opinion the trailer to this film and its remake was extremely violent with aspects of horror, so I find such people to be either hypocrites or are making comments on a movie they have not watched.

Haneke's films are usually dramas, sometimes mysteries, but what he made here was a very effective horror film without using conventional horror formulas. The viewer is left to his own devices. He also uses psychological warfare in that the monsters, in this case, are very plausible and their personalities are disarming. As well, the situation could be anyone's given any degree of the worst possible luck. If you require the creepy music, traditional horror jump scenes to get you off, I can understand why you didn't enjoy this film.

You ain't got a license to kill bookies and today I ain't sellin any. So take your flunky and dangle

[–] whineycracker2000 10 years ago

I agree with you 100% Freudz_Wet_Dream.

I think it's interesting that critics and audiences have bashed the film for the exact same reason that other films are praised:

For instance, I have read many reviews by critics that have expressed the sentiment along the lines of:

1. "The fact that the film is SO well made and acted only makes it more offensive and condescending".(Roeper is one of many who I can recall stating this).

-my response: Okay, so if the film was poorly made or simply made like your standard Hollywood fare, it would be LESS offensive? Please explain.

2. The point of the film is to show how "insipid", vapid, and "degrading" horror films [and fans] are.

-my response: If you took away the "4th Wall, remote control scene" and all the other predictable complaints that this film's naysayers quote as being pretentious and condescending, this film would STILL be effective as a horror film. That's why bashing the film, from ANY angle, is a moot point. Haneke's mastery of his craft is undeniable, the film is extremely well made in EVERY way, with or without the "self-awareness/Meta" element.

It's completely hypocritical when people get on their own "High horse" and call a film pretentious and condescending when, by doing so, they are also responding in a manner that is pretentious and condescending.

As I always conclude, Funny Games-haters need to realize the joke is on them when they consider the film's original tag line: "You have to admit, you brought this upon yourself".

When one really thinks about it, that sums up the brilliance of what Haneke accomplished here.

[–] franzkabuki 9 years ago

"If you took away the "4th wall, remote control scene"/-/, this film would STILL be effective as a horror film".

I would drop the word "still" from there because as it stands, the horror is considerably diluted by the Haneke's relentless in-your-face didacticism. Which IS kind of condescending in its obviousness.

"They are also responding in a manner that is pretentious and condescending".

How is that?

"facts are stupid things" Ronald Reagan

[–] halbian 9 years ago

I'm not a Haneke fan, but the scenes where he talked to the camera as well as the remote control scene were some of the most surprising and most original scenes I have ever seen in a movie. I will never forget those scenes until I die. One star for this movie? No way.

[–] travisj48 9 years ago

I agree with you completely. This film is moralizing garbage.

My film collection: http://6travisjohnson.filmaf.com/owned

[–] halbian 8 years ago

Huh? How is this movie moralizing? It's actually exactly the opposite of moralizing. That's why the killers' backgrounds and motives never got revealed.

[–] franzkabuki 8 years ago

The whole purpose of the movie, the only reason it even exists, is to lecture the audience about their supposedly decaying morals.

"facts are stupid things" Ronald Reagan

[–] Bantam_Storm 9 years ago

I enjoyed this and horror movies too. It's perfectly fine to dislike it. However, what you're doing is the same as those who vociferously defend it. Two wings on the same douchebag bird.

[–] reciprocates 9 years ago

I love this comment. True!

[–] prplayer 8 years ago

@OP

agree completely with you, you perfectly summarized the movie and this board

so many movies, so little time