MovieChat Forums > Funny Games (1998) Discussion > Do you agree with THIS review of this mo...

Do you agree with THIS review of this movie?

posted 4 years ago by TheMan18 (13052)
14 replies | jump to latest

https://www.imdb.com/review/rw0416765/?ref_=tt_urv

Written by at the time especially, in 1999, quite knowledgeable film enthusiast and reviewer "Matthew Wilder", do you agree or at least understand where he is coming from?

Also, having read it, and several other of his reviews, do you often understand what he says or what he thinks of the films he reviews, cause he often writes in a way that is too clever?

And do you also agree with some of the statements he makes, such as "the only time we consume violence as entertainment is in films of this ilk", that Haneke makes "the victims as dull and uninteresting as the villains" etc etc etc?

Thanks.

[–] jhodess (84) 4 years ago

He seemed pissed off, that's for sure. This point of his is actually shallow "Why would any sane family entertain for a minute two young strangers wearing fingerprint-proof gloves in the middle of summer?"

The same way Daniel Craig's character in Millennium accepted the invitation of the man he had just figured it out to be the serial killer.

[–] TheMan18 (13052) 4 years ago

So in the case of the "Millennium" series, Daniel Craig's character didn't invite that serial killer to his home or even accept his invitation, right?

Also, even if a lot of people can be pissed off, why do they have this tendency to get pissed off at the victims often INSTEAD of the perpetrators? Are they just mean and stupid or somehow flawed psychologically or maybe they raise their expectations a bit too much about stuff like "self preservation" and in the case of movies, how realistically or not it is presented and portrayed on screen?

[–] samoanjoes (57049) 3 years ago

I think there's a reason only "58 out of 116 found this helpful".

[–] TheMan18 (13052) 3 years ago

Haha, as it REALLY divided readers by LITERALLY half (58 X 2, lol).

[–] TheMan18 (13052) 3 years ago

What I also find interesting and also perplexing is that, the guy brings up works of Ruggero Deodato, "Cannibal Holocaust" and all, and has proven that he really does have taste for disturbing and often exploitative cinema yet he complains that he found this film, one way or another, not just dull and unsuccessful (and possibly overrated also) but also "repulsive" and "off-putting" and often says stuff like "watching a video of a rabbit killed may cause similar sensation" (but then, real life and its acts and fictional movies, regardless of some similarities between certain feelings they may stir up at least in SOME audience members, are overall NOT the "SAME" thing, bear in mind there is MORALITY attached to stuff like real life violence including animal killings, which by the way, Cannibal Holocaust also had for REAL, and that guy rated that movie as a MASTERPIECE) and other similar stuff.

And in same breath feels compelled to state how the director makes victims uninteresting and therefore hard to root for and that they were "entertaining" those two psychopaths (Jesus Christ, isn't that guy a bit too old as well as mature and intelligent to stoop rather low and indulge in outright victim blaming?) and that Susanne Lothar maybe "terrible" in real life for taking on the "degrading" role of a victim?

And he also states that the movie is "phoney baloney provocateur" but at the same time writes how it rather succeeds in disturbing audiences - wasn't that was what it set out to do?

[–] samoanjoes (57049) 3 years ago

Sounds to me he actually liked it.

[–] TheMan18 (13052) 3 years ago

Except, haha, he didn't. He would've at least given it some credit then if that was the case.

Point also was - he was kinda inconsistent in his review and given his taste and admiration for other films from Extreme Cinema category, I was also a bit surprised and baffled that in his criticism of this one, he didn't so much as find it dull, boring and ineffective as repulsively off-putting.

And his statement about how "the only time we consumer violence as entertainment is in movies like this one" as to point out a flaw in Haneke's logic, is, well... Also a little off. Because in Hollywood horrors, blockbusters etc, are the films in which audiences really consume violent cinema as entertainment as for the most part, no matter how successful such films can be, they are not meant to make us think and see the potential and de-facto real life like horror of what we see. But in movies as this one and several others, it is at least in some or other ways INTENDED to make us think and horrified, and we often see victim suffering and lack of glamour and ease to which in other movies we have become so accustomed to.

And many audiences who appreciate those blockbusters often even tend to dislike films like Funny Games, Man Bites Dog, I Stand Alone etc and sometimes even, because they find them boring and uninteresting etc and those who DO appreciate them see them often as something at least far MORE than mere, however violent, "entertainment".

[–] TheMan18 (13052) 3 years ago

Read also that guy's review for "The Piano Teacher" (2001), another Haneke film.

Also, in that review, he makes one particular controversial and far from pleasing statement, and if you see that film, you'll know what we mean.

And also, even IF in that film her character was far from "likeable", there are just some things that even people who are perhaps not mentally well, disturbed, not too nice and even potentially dangerous to others, don't "deserve" and I myself CANNOT stress this point enough - with one matter at least, I was told many times even from childhood about how there are NO excuses for it whatsoever and that if anyone pulls it off on anyone, they deserve punishment and our contempt, and I for one simply CANNOT fathom thinking otherwise and just living normally and getting on with life with nary a second thought or an appeal to my own conscience.

[–] samoanjoes (57049) 3 years ago

Maybe he just really hates Hanneke. I know he has spoken out against Hitler so maybe the guy is a Hitler supporter.

[–] TheMan18 (13052) 3 years ago

Lol indeed, and how would one indeed come to such a conclusion, if it isn't a silly little joke, from a reviewer of films on IMDb of over two decades ago.

Plus, I don't think he has seen ALL films by Haneke by that point but yeah pretty much his films seem to be mostly not for him. But seriously... And I don't think it has anything to do with Hitler, and to be called like that a "Hitler supporter" is actually quite a strong and damning statement, people in real life who were suspected as such got into trouble for it.

Its rather, and if you've seen Haneke's other earlier films like Benny's Video, The Seventh Continent, 71 Fragments of a Chronology of Chance, he has quite a bleak style that may not be to everyone's taste.

Although I checked a lot of his reviews and Mr Wilder does NOT seem like your average Hollywood loving blockbuster and action movie watching type of film fan and viewer. He has seen and greatly appreciated foreign films from arthouse to drama and exploitation, horror films, classic exploitation and otherwise cinema etc.

And I don't think he would dislike a film director and his movies based on director's ANY views including controversial ones. I'm sure he's a Roman Polanski fan for one. And Matthew Wilder to my knowledge hasn't had any controversial political views himself. Although he can be cheeky at times too and flirt in reviews with potential political incorrectness. Or maybe he has a dark sense of humour also.

[–] TheMan18 (13052) 3 years ago

Not to mention, if you read most of his reviews, and bear in mind that this mostly took place in 1999 and early 2000s, when internet for one wasn't quite what it was today, you'll realize he is indeed a very clever guy and he is far from being, should I say, overall shallow or dim witted to be of "support" of Hitler and hold grudges against a filmmaker who doesn't share such views of admiration.

No seriously, if you look at his profile, reviews and film knowledge, Matthew Wilder is a very clever but also somewhat weird guy.

A lot of his reviews seemed to be steeped in mystery. And he sure DOES admire the art of film and use of clever English vocabulary in his reviews. And his grammar, spelling, obscure references etc, gives even some adequate modern day folks a run for their money.

[–] TheMan18 (13052) 3 years ago

Also, aren't essentially ALL gloves "fingerprint proof" and does the fact that people come into your home to borrow eggs etc wearing gloves necessarily meant to be an indication that they are about to do something criminal to you, and would and should naturally catch any family like that off-guard? Isn't his comment there a bit too vain?

[–] TheMan18 (13052) a year ago

Not to mention, MAJOR SPOILERS ALERT:
It was strongly implied towards the end that Peter and Paul antagonists in this movie were actually supernatural beings.

[–] Kippito (117) a year ago

I disagree with the reviewers' sentiment that Haneke is being contradictory with Funny Games. He says that Funny Games is the exact same type of unsettling torture that the director is trying to take a stand against. Funny Games has a legitimately saddening and sickening effect on the viewer. The stereotypical Hollywood slasher/torture movie just makes you shake your head and wonder what's wrong with whoever wrote it. But when we watch Funny Games we think "This is terrible. This could and does really happen to people."