Funny Games U.S. Review

In 1997 Austrian filmmaker Michael Haneke made a movie called Funny Games.
The movie had a big anti-violance moral. People are, according to Haneke, way to postive about violence.
In movies, this is regulary shown as funny and/or cool. If it is neither cool nor funny, it usually is portraited as righteous, or there are at least understandable reasons behind it, like a bad youth or something like that.
None of that in this movie, because Haneke showed most scenes in 'real time', which makes it a hard movie to watch. The movie is about two young man torturing a family in a house. Every torture scene is shot in 'real time'. No glorification of violence, nothing funny about any of it, and very painful to watch. The movie was loved by some people, hated by others, and pretty much nothing in between.
The only problem with it, was that it was in German. So 10 years later, in 2007, Haneke decided to do a remake of his own movie, simply called 'Funny Games U.S', in English of course. Some critics call it a waste of time, lack of creativity, and nothing new.

I disagree. While I must admit that I hadn't heard of Funny Games before I saw Funny Games U.S. and hated the movie while watching it, until probably the last 15 minutes, it is very good the movie was remade in English.
The movie is a scene-by-scene remake, with every line exactly the same, but translated. Then why do a remake in the first place?
Well, because the people for who the message is important, would not watch it otherwise.
The audience that saw the original Funny Games was 99% European, and consisted mostly of arthouse lovers.
Now that the movie is in English, it is also watched by Americans, and non-arthouse fans. Even though half of the people stop watching the movie halfway, the reached audience is still a lot larger than it was in 1997.

As I stated already, I personally only liked the movie during the last 15 minutes, mostly because I didn't understand the concept at first. In the end there comes a kind of twist, that, to me, was really surprising and makes you understand the whole point of the movie.

As for the actors, my guess is that Tim Roth and Naomi Watts are chosen, of course because they are good actors, but also because they attract a relatively big audience. Their play is good, but in my opinion, they could have been replaced by any other good actor.
Micheal Pitt and Brady Corbet, who play the two young men who take the family hostage and torture them in their own cabin, play their parts really good as psyhotic and scary.
And then the child, who is played by Devon Gearhart. He plays it very convincing. I hope Gearhart didn't see the movie, and will not until he is at least 18, because it will probably leave him scarred for life.

The music plays a big part in the movie too. The contrast between the composition of Handel on one hand and the metal song  Bonehead by Naked City, really powers the film, and fits the theme of the movie.

Even though Haneke himself has stated (about the original version) 'if the film was a success, it would be because audiences had misunderstood the meaning behind it.' The movie has become a succes, and I believe it is because people did actually understand the meaning behind the movie.
The movie has, since the 2007 version, become more than a movie against the glorification of violence, it is almost a study about violence. It also sets people to think about themself. 'Why am I even watching this, or any other movie for that matter?' is a good question during the movie. And you will have, I assure you, a similair question after watching it.

***
3/5 stars