Funny Games - Movie Reviews - Rotten Tomatoes

Funny Games Reviews

Page 2 of 311
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.
½ December 5, 2015
Stunning performances from the entire cast that helps drive the film with consistent intensity and keeps you thinking about it for days to come.
December 2, 2015
Fairly pretentious and slow, but it's an extremely suspenseful and intense horror mocke
November 15, 2015
What's the point of an American shot-for-shot remake?
Super Reviewer
November 4, 2015
A shot-for-shot remake in English of the brilliant Austrian thriller that Haneke himself made ten years before - which makes me wonder what the point is, since it is the exact same plot. At least it is worth checking out for Naomi Watts' spectacular performance.
October 31, 2015
controversial provocative but ultimately disappointing as the filmmaker tried to be too clever and overdid it. Without the 'rewind' it would have been at least a 3stars. And the exploration of violence in movies has been done much better before and after.
October 30, 2015
It wasn't bad, but I wasn't amazed by it. The performance by Naomi Watts is awesome along with Tim Roth, Michael Pitt and Brady Corbet. Michael and Brady play excellent characters who have a couple screws loose upstairs. It was cool how they broke the 4th wall at times. What killed this for me was the ending. Felt it was kind of half assed and just thrown together and could have been so much better. Not a bad watch still at all.
½ October 25, 2015
We start off this week of halloween with Michael Haneke's second attempt for his passion project movie : Funny Games
A great assemble cast greets us with flawless acting. We dig deep into a family's vacation trip gone very wrong after we are introduced to one of the weirdest title screen i have ever seen wich we will come back later. The family gets interupted very quickly as two disturbed young mens invades them with only one intention in mind : play a twisted game. As the movie progresse we see that Michael Haneke wants to messe with audience by not letting see them violence and breaking the fourth wall with the antagonist. For some moviegoers it works but for the average moviegoer it sometimes won't. And by avoiding what most normal characters would do in the given situation just to not go in familiar territory,some of the audience will be detached from the movie and won't care for the lead protagonists in the end. It goes against all odds and it misses the great premise the movie built up in the two first acts by giving in the gimmicks that won't work half of the time. I understand the mixed reviews and it's why i rate it 2.5/5 I suggest strongly people to see this as it appeal more to people who wants more toughtful narrative over focused plot
Page 2 of 311