Review of Funny Games (1997) by Gareth M — 25 Jul 2009

Initially Funny Games reads as a terrifying home invasion nightmare, as two rather strangely presented youths intrude upon a families vacation and forces them to play sadistic games in order to stay alive, having made the bet with them that they will all be dead within 12 hours. Working on this premise alone, the film is a success, with the performances real enough to involve the viewer as the drama unfolds, and the introduction to the characters is paced out so the viewer is as in the dark as the hapless family. Not that any motivation for the sinister Paul and Peter's (Tom's?) actions is ever revealed.

But, of course, there is more to this film than edge of the seat, nail-biting suspense. The movie riffs of audience expectations of cinematic conventions of plot and character, with the antagonist Paul seemingly aware that he is a character in a movie. Beginning with smirks and winks to the camera as he forces the family through his sadistic paces, he further breaks the fourth wall by directly challenging the viewer and their expectations with comments about how we, the viewer, expects the family to survive.

Whilst this approach is dotted throughout the film, it never directly gets in the way of the principal narrative (except for the scene with the remote, obviously), allowing the film to be enjoyed as both a terrifying hostage thriller and a satire of audience expectations of plot. It allows the viewer to take a few unexpected surprises, such as when the knife, focused on in the opening scenes in a gosh-that-must-be-important-later kinda way, comes into play towards the end.

It's easy to see why this movie divides audiences so much. If you're in it for the thriller aspects, then it does peter out towards the end as the movie shifts into its principle theme - defining the line between fiction and reality. As a result it could easily be read as pretentious. For me, it pushed all the right horror buttons in the opening acts, and left me with something unexpected and mildly thought-provoking after the credits rolled, a rare treat in the studio run movie industry.

Edit - just took a look at the trailer for the shot-for-shot remake that was released last year, same writer/director. Suffering the same problem that the all shot for shot remakes do - the actors all look to focused on making sure they get things spot on to allow room for any natural performances doesn't seem to be it's biggest problem. No...the biggest fail on display here is the god-awful hamming, glaring, pseudo-wacky performances from the actors playing Paul and Peter. Looks terrible, no wonder it bombed. Maybe I'll watch it just for the pleasure of taking it to pieces in a review.

Oh, and ripping of the trailer for A Clockwork Orange? Shame...