Funny Games

→ in

A wacky movie, thoughts?
Anybody want to explain the ending of the film? I only saw the movie once a few months ago, I understood it and then while reviewing what I thought it meant, I got lost again...
But I, being poor, have only my dreams; I have spread my dreams under your feet, Tread softly because you tread on my dreams. W.B. Yeats

I clicked on your link which is what I have found to be a place to listen to music, am I missing something? Is there a review on your link?

Thursday Next's Avatar
I never could get the hang of Thursdays.
Darkrose, that link is his signature, it has nothing to do with the movie.

There is a thread discussing Funny Games and Haneke in general here.

Adi's own assessment of the film can be found here.

I don't want to be one of those meanies who shout 'use the search function' every time someone starts a thread, and we don't have a thread for this movie in the review section yet, but if you're interested in people's thoughts on Funny Games, that's where they can be found.

Ah, thank you
(I didn't find you to be mean at all, (plus I'm usually one of those people too, I'm just new to the whole internet forum)).

I had this movie on the other night and was multitasking throughout the first 40 minutes or so and I'm thinking I just missed part of the dialogue. What made Ann want to throw the guys out of her house? I know she was frustrated by the mess the one guy made and for destroying her phone, but she said something along the lines of "How dare you," and "I want you to leave now," and unless I missed something, it seemed like they were just being irritating, not doing anything bad...did I miss something in between the broken eggs and her attempt to throw them out?

No I was talking about why the boys threw her out of the boat, not her throwing the boys out of the house. (I might not have conveyed what I wanted to say right)

Different movies have different goals and Haneke's Funny Games is very special on this issue.
The story is simple, rich family: father George, mother Anna, and their son George Jr., goes to vacation in their weekend cottage. Their social status is accentuated during the film through expensive car, large cottage, classic music, boat, golf, their rich friends etc. It's one of the ways in which Haneke attempts to give viewers a reason to justify suffer of this family during the film. Once we get familiar with this idyllic family, Paul and Peter enter the story. They are psychotic young men dressed entirely in white with white gloves that we notice at the beginning of the film in a neighboring house in a strange conversation with the owners. Interaction with family starts with innocent asking for egg by two of them that quickly turns into irritating farce after which Anna and George try to force the duo out of the house, but that attempt ends with George's broken leg and the torture begins.
Story continues with 'games' that psychotic duo 'plays' with family, like hide and seek with the body of a dead dog and the main 'game' is a bet with the family that none of them will survive the next 12 hours.Haneke's main goal is to make viewers reject violence in film industry that became main plot of entertainment. He tries to do that with putting the same senseless violence, that they enjoy on film, in a home of normal family and his desire is that the viewer stops watching the film before it ends. The main moment in which viewer should stop watching is scene after the first death which lasts for few minutes in which absolutely nothing happens, just shows the horror of violence and its consequences.
The film also serves as a kind of experiment in which Haneke is trying in various ways to give excuses for terror that the family goes through, and even in some moments one of young men looks into the camera, winks and speaks to the viewer with a sad statement that he is surely on the side of the victims.There's small chances that anyone would enjoy the story, which ultimately is the whole idea. The technical part on the other side is well done. Acting is also at a high level, especially from duo Giering-Frisch who embodies Peter and Paul. The objection goes to the failure to use the high-capacity Ulrich Mühe who plays George and spends most of the film lying on the floor.
This is a special film with film as a main theme, specially the violence within it and in most of cases it fulfills it's purpose, at least in short terms.


I don't like Funny Games very much at all. It starts out interesting, but quickly devolves into violent and sadistic mayhem. Haneke has a noble purpose; he wants to re-sensitize his audience to the violence that has become so prevalent in modern culture and media. But there's an irony in solving this problem with even more cinematic violence, almost as if he's trying to shake us of our numbness. But for a film this disturbing, I wonder if the ends really justify the means. Right now, I'd say no.
"Puns are the highest form of literature." -Alfred Hitchcock

28 days...6 hours...42 minutes...12 seconds
I've only seen his American remake and I dug it well enough. I thought it was a social satire on the entire genre itself and him having total control over the audience. When the protagonist gets the upper hand and we start to root for her escape, only to have the rug pulled out from under us by the breaking of the fourth wall.
"A laugh can be a very powerful thing. Why, sometimes in life, it's the only weapon we have."

Suspect's Reviews

I agree much with Hitchfan, Tarantino's Death Proof was along the same vein partly, but I think they were also making a point about even trying to make a point, at what that itself means, that it might also in itself be sociopathic callas?

Gangster Rap is Shakespeare for the Future
Funny Games is interesting because it seems to be Haneke's biggest failure, but he's repeatedly stood by it. He says its relevant now more than ever because American culture is becoming increasingly violent still. The only problem is that whether that be true or not, Haneke's film doesn't paint a good enough portrait of an extreme version of America's culture of violence to work in satire or in horror. He doesn't seem to understand why Americans love the violence, only that they do, so he's less able to shock or really make us look at our culture anyways.

Disturbingly enticing. There was something about it kept kept my eyes glued to it, but I'm not sure if I'll ever sit through it again.