Thoughts? I thought it was a masterpiece.
>>70984625
How does it compare to the original?
>>70984708
supposedly a shot for shot remake
>>70984708
Literally shot for shot, the cabin used in the film was made with the blueprints from the cabin in the original, and the director is the same.
I prefer the remake, personally, although our audiences aren't used to films that stray away from "Boy meets girl --> Boy gets girl after drama/action/scary/romance) so the rating was actually lower than the original.
>>70984625
It's the ultimate "fuck you" to anyone who sits down to watch it. Take that as you will
>>70984625
It's fucking dogshit. Michael Haneke spends the entire movie blaming the audience for having made the movie, while assuming absolutely no culpability himself.
I guess if you're a masochist cuck it comes across as deep and profound to be told you're a horrible person for choosing to watch a horror movie.
I think I'm the only person who preferred the original, even though I'm a native English speaker and generally like all the actors cast in the English version.
>>70984625
I will never EVER understand the hate for this movie.
>>70985989
Everyone prefers the original who have seen it. Most people don't even watch it though because they need a movie in english to enjoy it.
The scenes where Naomi Watts is degraded are so hot they gave me a fetish for crying tortured Naomi Watts
I adore the film. I think it is somewhat clever and smart, but I think the message of the film, exposing you to truly heinous and awful violence afflicted against innocent people and mindlessly, giving you exactly what you horror film/gore-porn lovers want, is ruined and made pointless by having made this film twice.
The director's remake is better imo, just cause I adore the actors in it, but it seems like he just wanted to cash-in on the Saw/Hostile popularity. If that had been his first try at the film I'd have no complaints but poking fun at people for wanting what they think is "gore" or "violence" and then giving them something much more serious pays into that game more than comments on it the second time through.
>>70985905
Why is it so awful to be called out? Are you really that ashamed?
>>70986756
>wanting to cash in
you clearly know nothing about haneke
>>70986847
Call it whatever you want, it was clearly made because he felt that it was more appropriate when "gore-porn" was marketable term.
>>70986785
Shame is what makes cucks like you revel in this movie. Having pride is about recognizing that Haneke is holding me to a higher standard than himself for what is ultimately his creation.
But you're free to wallow in his contempt of you if you want, and to feel morally enlightened for doing so.
>>70986883
i agree, he made it in part due to its increased relevance, but you look at his filmography and listen to him speak and cashing in is the last thing on his agenda
>>70986899
Or perhaps you could see his message and just like, walk away and not be a bitch? Did Heneke do something more to you than create this movie?
You can tell us.
>>70986931
Yeah I doubt it was really fiscally driven. Perhaps "cashing in on the moment" is a better way to say what I meant.
>>70986957
Does being a Heneke fan also entail being a passive aggressive faggot? You seem really agitated that I think Haneke was full of shit here, and you can't let it go.
>it's a director explicitly states that media violence is the cause of all the worlds problems episode
>>70987029
I've only seen these two movies, I'm hardly a Heneke fan. I just don't understand the level offense you could possibly derive from a film or message like this.
What do you think is the actual message Heneke is sharing here? Maybe you don't understand, maybe I don't understand.
>>70987051
I don't see that in this movie. I only see that violent films are a reflection of the audience who seeks them in that they would not exist if people did not want them. And if you really wanted them, wouldn't you want to see this family tortured?
The scene where the guy rewinds the film is teasing anyone who may have had enough, and is to mock them as they deprive them of a happy ending as that would not be in-line with what they came to the theater for. I don't see any grand accusations in the film personally.
>>70987083
>What do you think is the actual message Heneke is sharing here?
That you as an audience member are responsible for all the fictional violence in Haneke's movie because you chose to see it, and that you should personally feel guilty about it. Haneke has straight up said as much. In fact, one of his quotes on the subject is something to the effect of "If you chose not to walk out of the film, you needed to see it".
For him, it's a Sunday school lesson about how media violence is bad. No better than Jack Thompson or Anita Sarkeesian railing about evil video games, but people think it's sophisticated because it has a liberal art house veneer.
>>70987242
Do you think it is portrayed as bad? I mean, it is clearly entertainment and it's made as a craft to be respected so it has value and thus cannot be all that bad; especially as he made the film and is clearly proud of it as a film aside from whatever agenda he may have.
Unless he has said that violence is bad, but I just think this is displaying the cycle of violent media.
>>70987349
>I mean, it is clearly entertainment
It's clearly not though. Haneke makes a point of rubbing in the audience's face just how entertaining it ISN'T meant to be with the remote scene. The movie exists for the good people to die and the evil people to live, and for the audience to be blamed for it.
>>70987496
If you are coming from the idea that good must win, evil must fail and that you must feel good being the only qualifiers as entertainment....
seems like shallow thinking
>>70984625
>Thoughts? I thought it was a masterpiece.
I "got it" early on, which just made the rest of it boring.
It's an idea you can convey in a sentence, stretched out into a movie, the problem is once you get the idea, there's nothing else in the movie.
>>70984625
>masterpiece
when's your 16th birthday party. its an ok movie
>>70987535
>If you are coming from the idea that good must win, evil must fail and that you must feel good being the only qualifiers as entertainment....
I'm not. Chinatown is an entertaining movie where evil triumphs and good people die for nothing, for a variety of reasons. It's a well crafted period piece, it has cool noir characters, a good plot about political and corporate corruption, etc, etc.
Funny Games has none of these things. It exists to do nothing but set up a world wherein good exists to die and evil exists to triumph, and the remote scene exists to remind you that the family never had a chance at all. That's its purpose, and the movie's purpose. That makes IT shallow.
