Funny Games - Movie Reviews - Rotten Tomatoes

Funny Games Reviews

Page 1 of 310
½ December 2, 2016
A pretty good thriller that does slow down an hour in or so but picks up a little bit latter, also this movie is surprisingly meta.
½ November 2, 2016
Relying solely on physical torture and emotional distress rather than character motivation, Funny Games is a cruel, unnerving, pointless waste of time, delivering nothing more than a depressing exercise in pain and suffering.
October 27, 2016
An unflinching excercise in subversion of American violence in comtemporary cinema that sets up novice audiences in the first half with witty and charasmatic performances - only to spend the rest of the film taking all that we think we know about invasion thrillers, horror films, and just bout 'horror' in general, before it delivers the casually grim final blow.

Ciao, bella.
½ September 26, 2016
This film is insult defined. Funny Games presents sadism as evenly and monotone as the local news reports death, destruction and inane violence, without concern or productive thought. Creating anything requires some level of rationalization and purpose - not necessarily value. As such, I am at a loss here.

I believe the director and producers of this film have taken for granted our intelligence as an audience. What is their rationalization, or need to make this insulting film? How would Naomi Watts, one of the producers, describe the purpose of this film to her family - in particular her children?
September 12, 2016
Really stupid premise - and stop addressing the camera. Also - shot soooo slowly
½ September 2, 2016
Horrible movie/plot line one of the strangest movies I've ever seen not scary at all would not recommend watching this waste of time
September 1, 2016
The most sadistic film i have seen, directed at both the characters and the audience. Incredible performances all around. Haneke says he wanted to make people feel disturbed by this film and i think he accomplishes that, but not to the exact degree he wanted. Instead of being repulsed by the horrors i was captivated by how well crafted they actually were. I think this is a great deconstruction of what makes horror appealing and questions the audience's motives in participating. I can't recommend this to most people, but i sure enjoyed it.
August 29, 2016
Why a shot for shot remake by the actual director of the original foreign movie is beyond me. However, as far as home invasion movies go it's a really good one. Tense and totally willing to dive into the most depraved parts of human violence. Not for the faint of heart, but worth a while for fans of exploitation films everywhere.
August 19, 2016
I almost favor the original version than this remake, but there were some moments i enjoyed in this version.
August 15, 2016
Completely pointless violence and plot. From the very beginning I was thinking the two boys must be un-human beings, i.e. ghosts, evil spirits, etc.
If that would had been the case one might try to think better of it.
But they were just two teenage boys, who spoke to the camera at times, being violent for no apperant reason and without the need of doing it covertly. And being obsessed with politeness to the boot.

Just a waste of time. When it became obscenely obvious that this was a trash I fast forwarded bits, like the woman jumping around for , maybe a full, four minutes or so, or when her boy was hiding around the neighbours' house, moving from a room to another room without nothing else was happening.
Avoid. If not use fast forward button liberately.
½ August 14, 2016
If you've already seen the Austrian original, there's really no point in watching this shot-for-shot American remake; unless you want to relive the hellish nightmare, but are too lazy to read subtitles.
July 17, 2016
Kind of a creepy movie. While the story was a little weak at times and there is a really big plot hole or two, it can be an amusing film. Its scary in a weird way and definitely not predictable, it ended far differently then I though, though I was dead on for one event. The acting is OK, Naomi Watts was pretty good, Tim Roth seemed like a bit of a waste to cast for this, I hated Michael Pitt and Brady Corbet. Simple movie that was somewhat effective though.
½ July 12, 2016
"You just don't get it." I can imagine someone saying this to me about this film if I told them I didn't like it. I don't really get how this movie is made with "great skill" like the critic consensus says. About the only good thing was the acting, which cannot carry a movie at all. Everything else was terrible. The long, drawn out camera angles, for one thing, were absolutely boring and excruciating. I assume they were going for an "unsettling" feeling, but that didn't work. And of course the rewind scene made the movie about 10x worse. I mean, something satisfying finally happens, and then it's just ruined. I guess "that's the point" since Paul controls the film or whatever, but that still doesn't take away the fact that it was just plain stupid. It's not even that scary of a movie either, so it doesn't have that going for it. The 4th wall breaking and the rewind scene just made it feel silly. And then it's topped off with a terrible ending, which is tradition for horror movies, of course. They went with the old classic "the cycle continues" approach. Genius. Anyone who likes this movie is most likely extremely pretentious and thinks it's "art" or something. I get what it's trying to do, but it's still a bad movie.
July 8, 2016
Maybe you'd like to see Naomi Watts in her underwear. Maybe you'd like several really good reasons to scream "give me the last thirty seconds of my life back" at a screen in terror. Whatever your reason, it must be a really good one to compel you to write anything positive about this film. The movie's DVD case is covered in blurbs promising one hell of a scary ride. The people who wrote those blurbs were either paid to lie or the scariest thing they've ever heard of is one time some person took a ride in an ice cream truck. Either way they watched this movie and lied about it. It's not scary, it's absolutely fucking boring and it's a waste of film. Cheap writing, cheap fourth-wall-breaking tricks, cheap thrills, and not a single character does anything to make you care about them. I'm really, really pissed that I wasted an early morning watching this. 1/5
½ June 25, 2016
Has a message that desperately wishes to talk down to you and chastise you, yet never really establishes its high horse. Not to mention, the message is terribly mundane and unoriginal.
June 3, 2016
esse filme me deixou tão mal e esse era o seu propósito então 5 estrelas
December 30, 2015
wow; talk about a remake -- i think the only thing different is the length of Paul's shorts! oh, and it's in English so i didn't have to read subtitles... maybe that's why they decided to remake it; because otherwise, this was very unnecessary. see my review for the original -- everything still stands.
½ December 26, 2015
Terrible movie. The plot is way too formulaic and unoriginal, even as it tries to both follow the trend of the genre and break its tropes, the suspense is not there, the violence (even though most of it is off-camera) is too brutal, and the performances are pretty bad, Watts and Pitt delivering the better.
December 22, 2015
A tense, taught haute-US-version of A Clockwork Orange. But with golf clubs.
Page 1 of 310