User Score
4.8

Mixed or average reviews- based on 166 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 79 out of 166
  2. Negative: 79 out of 166

Review this movie

  1. Your Score
    0 out of 10
    Rate this:
    • 10
    • 9
    • 8
    • 7
    • 6
    • 5
    • 4
    • 3
    • 2
    • 1
    • 0
    • 0
  1. Submit
  2. Check Spelling
  1. JonathanF.
    Mar 15, 2008
    5
    Good writing, good filming, superb acting (especially from Watts and Pitt). I just didn't like it much. the first 30 minutes or so are enjoyable - comfortably tense... but then it gets excruciatingly difficult to watch. it is a good movie, just hard to enjoy.
  2. VictorM
    Nov 19, 2009
    10
    Beautiful and brilliant. Cinema as an art, at its best. Not for the close-minded.
  3. fredfl
    Aug 21, 2009
    3
    This was actually a scifi film. "Grand Theft Auto 2200". That's why the boys (players) didn't care about the victims and why rewind worked. That's the only sense I can make out of it. Otherwise, it was a waste of time.
  4. Mar 13, 2011
    5
    ... its not enough to make a movie mix every kind of violence possible and find that - because violence tends to be shocking - the movie itself will have some impact ...

    the plot of this film is an empty sequence. No point is madeâ
  5. EnzoM
    Jun 1, 2009
    8
    Apparently, not everyone got it. A worthy remake of the 1998 version.
  6. KrisB.
    Jun 20, 2008
    10
    The fact that people are giving this a movie completely proves the point of the film. They walked into this movie wanting it to wrap up into a nice neat little package. I'm sorry it didn't give you just the right amount of violence and then wrap up with the good guys winning. Sorry guys, but you're just gonna have to go jerk off to hostel for that.
  7. Shawn
    Jul 13, 2008
    1
    *CONTAINS SPOILERS* I actually had high hopes for this movie. It started out reasonable up until the father slapped the kid in the face then gets hit with the goal club. It went downhill from there. It was long and boring mostly all dialogue, i waited for something to happen the entire time and nothing did, especially the ending, talk about dumb, I watched the clock timer on the DVD *CONTAINS SPOILERS* I actually had high hopes for this movie. It started out reasonable up until the father slapped the kid in the face then gets hit with the goal club. It went downhill from there. It was long and boring mostly all dialogue, i waited for something to happen the entire time and nothing did, especially the ending, talk about dumb, I watched the clock timer on the DVD player and they spent 15 minutes with the camera on Naomi Watts on the living room floor and her husband, nothing happens, nothing's said, my eyes met in the middle and I started falling asleep, I was waiting for SOME kind of suspense sequence or action sequence, it didn't happen, the closest to it was Naomi casually running on the road. And the whole "rewind" thing after she shoots the 1 guy with the shotgun? Then the other one says "WHERE THE REMOTE CONTROLLER and rewinds?!? WTF!! LOL And the big finale of the whole hour and 45 minutes of life i wasted, Naomi struggles the entire movie and well....they casually push her into the water to drown...the end :-) LOL Give me a break, This movie was terrible!!! Expand
  8. RebeccaB.
    Jul 4, 2008
    10
    Finally some harsh reality instead of a ridiculous happy ending.
  9. HootchieMama
    Nov 8, 2009
    0
    In most horror/thriller/whatever movies, the characters being 'terrorized" or chased usually piss you off. It is a fact that if most of these people made even one smart decision while being chased around the house by a maniac, they would survive. I love the horror genre, and know this is how "movies work"... however, THIS MOVIE has to be the most frustrating f*cking example of this In most horror/thriller/whatever movies, the characters being 'terrorized" or chased usually piss you off. It is a fact that if most of these people made even one smart decision while being chased around the house by a maniac, they would survive. I love the horror genre, and know this is how "movies work"... however, THIS MOVIE has to be the most frustrating f*cking example of this aspect I've ever seen. ***SPOILER*** - Hey Naomi, how about on one of your multiple trips to the kitchen that these jackasses let you take ALONE, you grab a weapon? A knife perhaps? And Tim Roth sits there completely out of commission from getting ONE LEG whacked with a golf club.. I don't think any husband, not even the biggest pussy panty waste of a man, would be this useless in any similar situation. These wuss-ass kids would not be very hard to fight... And why is everyone calling this movie disturbing, perverted, "hard to watch" ect ect.. The only words to describe this movie are: Boring, slow, frustrating, poorly acted, unrealistic, and wasteful of your time, money and patience. THIS MOVIE IS TERRIBLE - and people who think they "get it" and convince themselves they are smart by thinking that it's good, can go to hell! Expand
  10. JackS.
    Mar 27, 2009
    0
    After seeing this film, I couldn
  11. DomP.
    Apr 1, 2009
    2
    Another piece of predictable, boring, American comercialism!
  12. Aelieas
    May 5, 2009
    8
    This movie is a success. Not a success in an everyone will love it kind of way, but a sucess in that the writer and director created a movie which conveys what they wanted to convey. This movie was not meant to entertain, so much as instill a large range of emotions and happiness or entertainment got missed. Right from the start the movie gives you an unnerving suspensful feeling that This movie is a success. Not a success in an everyone will love it kind of way, but a sucess in that the writer and director created a movie which conveys what they wanted to convey. This movie was not meant to entertain, so much as instill a large range of emotions and happiness or entertainment got missed. Right from the start the movie gives you an unnerving suspensful feeling that something is going to go wrong here. This isn't achieved through blatant hinting that common movies generally resort to but by a subtle undertone of eeriness in the storytelling and direction. Unsurprisingly, like all horror movies, things do start to go wrong but it is done in such a way that you don't feel like you have seen this all before. This movie presents you with common horror movie stereotypes and shatters them right in front of you. An example of this is the lack of music, which means that an terror or suspense you feel is completely due to what you are seeing. It is artistic and brilliant at what it does, which is make you wonder why you are watching it and finally make you hate it. This is why some people will give this movie a 0 without a second thought and it is because this movie requires a second thought. If you want a movie that tries to break the mold and suceeds with terrifying fervour, if you can see the artform behind movies, the underlying message, if you want a movie that will be unforgettable for better or for worse, then you should experience this movie. I can't say you'll like it, but hopefully you will appreciate it. Expand
  13. DH
    Aug 6, 2009
    0
    This is undoubtedly one of the worst movies of all time. Apparently the point of the entire film was to convey the idea that "demonstrating violence is real and what occurs for entertainment happens in reality, however rising above the odds and becoming a hero only happens in fiction." Firstly, no one gives a rat's ass about what these two douchebags pretend to think, and the only This is undoubtedly one of the worst movies of all time. Apparently the point of the entire film was to convey the idea that "demonstrating violence is real and what occurs for entertainment happens in reality, however rising above the odds and becoming a hero only happens in fiction." Firstly, no one gives a rat's ass about what these two douchebags pretend to think, and the only possible entertainment for a reasonably sane individual to experience would be gained from watching the two boys get killed by Anna or George taking revenge. But you know what. Even then, this movie would still be a wet, stinky, foul smelling piece of sh*t, and I hope the director and even all the other cast members, including the fictionally innocent ones, get d*ck slapped in the face by Ron Jeremy at 327 mphs. The severely mentally retarded director must have thought that the film was being clever, because the "bad guys" win. Oooo what an outrageous and entertaining plot to convey. NOT. Everyone knows it wasn't. It was just a violent, boring waste of time. The only thing I have learned is that this film is ultimately a swirling vortex of mental retardation conveyed by idiotic actors who should've realized the ridiculously unentertaining garbage they were a part of, and they should all be ashamed of themselves. Expand
  14. Mr.Bean
    Jan 17, 2010
    1
    What the hey? Where are the 'games,' where was the 'funny'? This is false advertising, worse than when Fargo was set in Brainerd! Shame on this director for making me watch this boring movie!
  15. JamesC
    Oct 22, 2008
    2
    This movie will appeal to the sort of pseudo-intellectual viewer who thinks they're above enjoying a summer blockbuster simply because it is a summer blockbuster. It's an essay on gratuitous violence, not subtle, above average intelligent but mostly annoying and preachy. The actors are talented but how hard is it to either act like a cliche psycho or the person being terrified This movie will appeal to the sort of pseudo-intellectual viewer who thinks they're above enjoying a summer blockbuster simply because it is a summer blockbuster. It's an essay on gratuitous violence, not subtle, above average intelligent but mostly annoying and preachy. The actors are talented but how hard is it to either act like a cliche psycho or the person being terrified by the psychos? Expand
  16. DeeR.
    Mar 13, 2008
    0
    What's there is uselessly cruel. When it runs out of it inflicts cruelty on the audience by breaking the fourth wall in a way that is not profound or disturbing or clever -- it is insulting. Ask yourself this question before dismissing what I've said: Would you sit there and smile as the concession attendant at the theater spit in your popcorn? No. This director more or less What's there is uselessly cruel. When it runs out of it inflicts cruelty on the audience by breaking the fourth wall in a way that is not profound or disturbing or clever -- it is insulting. Ask yourself this question before dismissing what I've said: Would you sit there and smile as the concession attendant at the theater spit in your popcorn? No. This director more or less does this to his own story, and thus the people watching it as well... are you sure you want to sit through it? Expand
  17. NickL.
    Mar 14, 2008
    10
    I am positively shocked at the number of reviewers who are completely missing Haneke's point. Having seen both the original as well as the American remake (at Sundance), I must say: Both films are utter perfection, they aren't meant to be entertaining, they are meant to call into question the artifice of modern torture-porn horror filmaking as well as our penchant for voyeurism. I am positively shocked at the number of reviewers who are completely missing Haneke's point. Having seen both the original as well as the American remake (at Sundance), I must say: Both films are utter perfection, they aren't meant to be entertaining, they are meant to call into question the artifice of modern torture-porn horror filmaking as well as our penchant for voyeurism. If you are trying to choose which version to see, I might recommend the remake because, as Cinematical's James Rocchi points out, "this new iteration isn't merely intellectually faithful to the original but also, in some ways, even more emotionally fearsome. You don't get to, as you did with the original, blunt the fear and terror of the movie by filtering the dialogue through your rational mind as you read the subtitles; instead, with every whimpered plea for mercy and sobbed demand to know why, the panic and fear leaps right into your reptile brain." Expand
  18. ChristianC
    Mar 15, 2008
    9
    Disturbing & brilliant! The entire cast is excellent! Naomi Watts, who is also credited as executive producer continues to show great range and Michael Pitt is also quite effective. Why isn't he used more? Sure it's a bit manipulative, but after the recent onslaught of forgettable Hollywood trash like the Saw & Hostel series', why should we mind?! This one will make ya Disturbing & brilliant! The entire cast is excellent! Naomi Watts, who is also credited as executive producer continues to show great range and Michael Pitt is also quite effective. Why isn't he used more? Sure it's a bit manipulative, but after the recent onslaught of forgettable Hollywood trash like the Saw & Hostel series', why should we mind?! This one will make ya think and you will not forget it anytime soon. Expand
  19. Maurice
    Mar 16, 2008
    10
    Brilliant For intelligent audiences only.
  20. BillB
    Mar 16, 2008
    0
    Put simply, what a piece of crap! Oh, so this was supposed to be art? Not to spoil its genius "look, this is a movie" pretentiousness, but one of the good boy / bad boys picks up the remote to the TV and rewinds the scene! The WHOLE POINT of a movie is for the audience to buy into it, and this "rewind" just destroys the entire thing! There are actually some good performances in this very Put simply, what a piece of crap! Oh, so this was supposed to be art? Not to spoil its genius "look, this is a movie" pretentiousness, but one of the good boy / bad boys picks up the remote to the TV and rewinds the scene! The WHOLE POINT of a movie is for the audience to buy into it, and this "rewind" just destroys the entire thing! There are actually some good performances in this very poor excuse for a movie... Expand
  21. AR
    Mar 21, 2008
    3
    "For intelligent audiences"? Give me a break. If you liked this one, you took the bait. This film is neither interesting nor challenging, and it fails most where it tries the most: it is simply not a profound revelation about an audience's experience of watching a movie, much as Haneke would like it to be. Its meta-cinematic gestures are just gimmicky cliches (wow! the actor is "For intelligent audiences"? Give me a break. If you liked this one, you took the bait. This film is neither interesting nor challenging, and it fails most where it tries the most: it is simply not a profound revelation about an audience's experience of watching a movie, much as Haneke would like it to be. Its meta-cinematic gestures are just gimmicky cliches (wow! the actor is talking to the camera!), and its whole premise (wow! excessive violence! I wonder what does this tell us about ourselves as movie-goers!) wears out very quickly. As on perceptive poster noted, it replaces intelligence for self-consciousness. If you want to see a challenging, complex an brilliant contemporary film, check out David Lynch's INLAND EMPIRE, and stay away from this nonsense. Expand
  22. ScottM
    Apr 1, 2008
    9
    Good lord. Haneke's is not a minister preaching hell and damnation to American movie audiences. He gives us what we want, and the film openly acknowledges it. It's not a black or white case where he is either being completely ironic or extremely sadistic, it's both. We as the audience have the power to save the family by turning off the movie or walking out, but Haneke Good lord. Haneke's is not a minister preaching hell and damnation to American movie audiences. He gives us what we want, and the film openly acknowledges it. It's not a black or white case where he is either being completely ironic or extremely sadistic, it's both. We as the audience have the power to save the family by turning off the movie or walking out, but Haneke knows that more than likely we'll keep watching. Impeccably made, flawless for what it is. Expand
  23. LevS.
    Jun 26, 2008
    1
    Pretentious and ineptly executed. I was bored; because it was boring. Plus the issue of violence in movies is old hat. Perhaps the original was more engaging in the 90s. Apparently this English-language version is a shot-by-shot remake. What a cynical exercise.
  24. GustavoB.
    Jun 27, 2008
    0
    Only thing to be said about this movie: whoever worked to make this movie should be prosecuted for wasting people's time! This is the most stupid movie ever! If you worked in this movie, you should be ashamed of yourself and your kids will also be ashamed of you! IDIOTS!
  25. DrewC.
    Jul 29, 2008
    0
    Listen, this guy thinks violence in entertainment is SO bad he's gonna make a very unsettling movie and show everyone how disturbing it really is. Oh but wait it's not in English we just wouldn't get it if it was in another language. Let's reshoot the same exact movie, shot for shot!! yeah. that'll show those ignorant Americans...come on. unoriginal called guy, if Listen, this guy thinks violence in entertainment is SO bad he's gonna make a very unsettling movie and show everyone how disturbing it really is. Oh but wait it's not in English we just wouldn't get it if it was in another language. Let's reshoot the same exact movie, shot for shot!! yeah. that'll show those ignorant Americans...come on. unoriginal called guy, if it was really that great of a statement we would of heard of the Austrian version and watched with subs on. no need for this. Expand
  26. JoanneS.
    Aug 22, 2008
    10
    Wonderfully suspenseful thriller. A welcome change from the usual torture porn films of late. The director turns all the usual horror cliches on the head and is full of surprise twists and shocks. Wonderfully acted, if a tad slow in places, this is a surprisingly good addition to the genre. Well worth a look.
  27. DanielM.
    Aug 5, 2008
    0
    The woman at blockbuster told me that this was a great movie. I wish I would see her again so I can ask her for my time and money back. SOOO slow and boring. At one point in the movie. It took 10 minutes for someone to stand up and walk into the other room. It was the most painful movie to watch ever.
  28. CarrieW.
    Sep 24, 2008
    0
    Not my idea of entertainment - Gross.
  29. HarrietH.
    Sep 5, 2008
    3
    Utter rubbish!!!! was waiting for a good twist, and something shocking to happen and this film did not deliver!!! and what the hell was the rewinding all about? the only good thing was the young boys acting he was very good and and played his part very well. would not suggest wasting your money on this crap!!
  30. GVSK
    Nov 1, 2009
    2
    Initially I thought this movie was a waste of my time as well. After thinking it over and reading various comments and critiques, I am beginning to understand the message of this film more and more. I appreciate the concept, but the delivery could have used some fine tuning. Like the eager yet inexperienced children of a gourmet chef wanting to cook her a nice dinner with the freshest Initially I thought this movie was a waste of my time as well. After thinking it over and reading various comments and critiques, I am beginning to understand the message of this film more and more. I appreciate the concept, but the delivery could have used some fine tuning. Like the eager yet inexperienced children of a gourmet chef wanting to cook her a nice dinner with the freshest ingredients. The questionable end product is lovingly consumed by the mother. Shared with family, they too may appreciate the sincerity of the meal regardless of its (lack of) presentation or harmony of flavors. Though this would probably not be a popular dish on the menu of the chef's bistro. Expand
  31. SO'Connor
    Apr 11, 2009
    0
    The worst movie that has and will ever be made. things in this movie happen 10X slower than it would take in real life. i would have rather slowly cut my self than watch this film. the only reason i kept watching is for the hope that something would happen worth wile in this film. of course nothing happened in the film. however there was a fair warning in the begening of the film. the The worst movie that has and will ever be made. things in this movie happen 10X slower than it would take in real life. i would have rather slowly cut my self than watch this film. the only reason i kept watching is for the hope that something would happen worth wile in this film. of course nothing happened in the film. however there was a fair warning in the begening of the film. the starting credits look like a small child, maybe around 4-5 years of age created them. at that time i should have realized to walk away. my bad. Expand
  32. RobertM.
    Apr 10, 2009
    0
    For several years I thought that the 1996 Mark Wahlberg movie "Fear" was the absolute worst movie ever made. I was wrong. Funny Games is by far the absolute worst film of all time. I kept looking around the theatre wondering why I wasted my time and money on this film. I stayed mainly because I was certain that somehow, someway, this film could redeem itself and yet it never did. A very For several years I thought that the 1996 Mark Wahlberg movie "Fear" was the absolute worst movie ever made. I was wrong. Funny Games is by far the absolute worst film of all time. I kept looking around the theatre wondering why I wasted my time and money on this film. I stayed mainly because I was certain that somehow, someway, this film could redeem itself and yet it never did. A very disappointing outing indeed. I wanted more than my money back, I wanted my TIME back. It is pretty evident that when a movie is released and then the DVD is released 3 months later, it probably should have gone straight to DVD. Don't waste your time, money or brain cells on this one. You will just be disappointed and have a sick hope in your heart that Naomi Watts can somehow make up for it someday. Expand
  33. HeatherG.
    Apr 2, 2009
    1
    This was truly a pointless movie. The director was trying to make a statement regarding violence in the media, but instead appears to glamorize it. Of course the director gets the point of the movie but many other people wont, and the concept he
  34. MarlonE
    Apr 30, 2009
    0
    The Worst Movie Ever the ONION magazine MUST have gotten paid or something!! seriously if you ever hear about this movie run run away! it was so bad it motivated me to become a member on this website and just let someone know just how AMAZING bad it was. Biggest waste of 2 hours of my life!!
  35. MuzzaMe
    May 15, 2009
    1
    Buggest load of crap I have seen in years, want my money back.
  36. Devin
    Sep 1, 2009
    0
    Stupidest F**king movie I've ever seen. Everything was bad. And yes, the actor rewinding the movie to change what happened, even f**king worse. Absolutely nothing good to say about this movie!!
  37. TP.
    Mar 12, 2008
    2
    Yucky and stupid.
  38. CoryG
    Mar 14, 2008
    10
    It kept you guessing until the very end which you would have never known was the end.
  39. joshc
    Mar 16, 2008
    8
    Small details like their matched white gloves and inconsistent names clue us (and Anna) into the fact that the invaders are up to no good. Paul borrows one of Georg's golf-clubs and uses it to kill the family dog then, during a minor argument, to break Georg's leg. Paul announces a bet, that none of the family will be alive in nine hours time. The story is deliberately Small details like their matched white gloves and inconsistent names clue us (and Anna) into the fact that the invaders are up to no good. Paul borrows one of Georg's golf-clubs and uses it to kill the family dog then, during a minor argument, to break Georg's leg. Paul announces a bet, that none of the family will be alive in nine hours time. The story is deliberately archetypal, borrowing from The Desperate Hours, Last House On The Left and Straw Dogs as an isolated "normal" family are invaded by psychopathic outsiders who arbitrarily torment them, forcing them to fight back. However, writer-director Haneke has ambitions to make more than just an edge-of-the-seat suspenser. It might well be accused of being too clever for its own good, and the ending isn't particularly radical, but this is a remarkable film. Haneke's earlier effort Benny's Video was about the numbing effects of media violence but adopted alienating devices that made it cold. Here, he plays the game far closer to the rules, encouraging identification with the victims (especially Lothat) and making villains (who seem to be students out for a lark) unforgettably creepy characters. Expand
  40. MB
    Mar 16, 2008
    10
    The only film this year that isn't out to make you like it by brainwashing you and meeting your highest expectations.
  41. JackT
    Mar 19, 2008
    1
    The sequences in
  42. JesusChrist
    Mar 19, 2008
    10
    Not for the morons.
  43. BartC.
    Mar 22, 2008
    5
    This movie is alright on a whole, however Haneke does not succeed with his attempted message of the film. Whether the message is to change how Americans look at horror movies or to just make them aware of it. Haneke uses this as a cop out in his approach at horror.
  44. BenN.
    Apr 11, 2008
    1
    Didn't really like this film. Didn't really have a story line and didn't make sense.
  45. SeanV.
    Apr 14, 2008
    5
    While I love Thrillers, I almost couldn't watch all of this. I mean it starts good keeping things tense, but then it gets so brutal I didn't know what to do with myself. And I have watch almost every horror movie out their, its just I don't know how to describe it.
  46. RamB.
    Apr 16, 2008
    0
    Crude pointless violence, with some intellectual intent. If you want to reason out how others should feel guilty about violence in society try these two: (1) don't be violent with your thoughts, i.e., whenever someone does not agree with what you think is good for everyone DON'T make them watch Funny Games and (2) Go and experience real-world violence happening. This is not a Crude pointless violence, with some intellectual intent. If you want to reason out how others should feel guilty about violence in society try these two: (1) don't be violent with your thoughts, i.e., whenever someone does not agree with what you think is good for everyone DON'T make them watch Funny Games and (2) Go and experience real-world violence happening. This is not a Funny Game... This movie is just plain boring and a failure. Expand
  47. AnnaW
    Apr 17, 2008
    0
    For intelligent audiences only?? I fully understand the point that it was trying to make and the purpose behind it. But that was the most pointless 111 minutes of my life. The film was awful, truly TRULY awful. I actually cannot understand how anybody could walk out of a cinema and say that was a good film. I'm sure this is going to get many 'oh but its so clever and making a For intelligent audiences only?? I fully understand the point that it was trying to make and the purpose behind it. But that was the most pointless 111 minutes of my life. The film was awful, truly TRULY awful. I actually cannot understand how anybody could walk out of a cinema and say that was a good film. I'm sure this is going to get many 'oh but its so clever and making a statement' but that is all it is. It is not worthy of the cinema and my £4.50 AND my 111 minutes. Expand
  48. JamesK.
    Apr 24, 2008
    0
    Never wanted to leave a movie theatre so badly before. This has got to be the WORST movie ever.
  49. NatashaJ.
    Apr 5, 2008
    0
    This film was disturbing and unwatchable. Walked out half way though as found it uncomfortable to sit there and watch it. A complete waste of time with sickening views.
  50. GeorgeS.
    Apr 6, 2008
    0
    For God's shake it's an awful movie. It's just a waste of time. The makers believe we are stupids. I could make a better movie just for fun.
  51. CraigB.
    Jun 21, 2008
    0
    This is honestly the worst movie I have ever seen. I have never been so bored watching a movie. The only thing I could possibly compliment is Naomi Watts she gave a good performance in an otherwise unexciting movie.
  52. BobH.
    Jun 26, 2008
    7
    I'm conflicted about this film. On the surface it's a simplistic, straightforward kidnapping/torture/slasher flick with relatively transparent characters but a closer examination reveals a dark, brooding, unsettlingly thought-provoking tale of sadism that's anything but conventional. It drags quite a bit in the last hour and leaves a lot to be desired, but this is a I'm conflicted about this film. On the surface it's a simplistic, straightforward kidnapping/torture/slasher flick with relatively transparent characters but a closer examination reveals a dark, brooding, unsettlingly thought-provoking tale of sadism that's anything but conventional. It drags quite a bit in the last hour and leaves a lot to be desired, but this is a refreshingly dark flick that doesn't have to resort to Eli Roth-esque gore to make one feel uncomfortable. Expand
  53. JoeS.
    Jun 28, 2008
    0
    One of the worst, sick, perverted movies I've ever seen. At least Clockwork Orange with their terrible villains had some justice at the end. This is just horrific non-stop torture and abuse of victims and portrayed as "funny". Very sad & disturbing film!
  54. PatriciaD.
    Jul 10, 2008
    7
    Having seen the original, I was curious to discover why Haneke wanted to re-make it, but in English. It is the same film as the original German, with the same creepy home invaders/murderers, the substitution of Watts and Roth for the parents in the first film indistinguishable from the parents in the first trip down this road. The result is a beautifully made journey into Hell, if you Having seen the original, I was curious to discover why Haneke wanted to re-make it, but in English. It is the same film as the original German, with the same creepy home invaders/murderers, the substitution of Watts and Roth for the parents in the first film indistinguishable from the parents in the first trip down this road. The result is a beautifully made journey into Hell, if you find yourself sucked into the premise of the plot, mindless terror,with no point except to create fear. On that level it is very effective. Full marks for the staging and casting. Haneke, I think, achieved what it was he set out to achieve. But...to what end? Expand
  55. LeeH.
    Jul 14, 2008
    0
    A very 'sick' movie- no reason to watch unless one is sadistic and loses ones' critical thought..why none of the victims think of calling the police?? why the movie shirks from showing nudity but piles on the violence?..has to be the work of someone in dire need of some therapy.
  56. ChadC.
    Jul 26, 2008
    2
    Disturbing? Yes. A commentary on violence in films? Maybe. Ridiculous? Absolutely? Setting aside the fact that the writing and directing is completely unbelievable insofar as it fails to depict how the human animal would really react in a fight for survival such as this family is presented with, it fails in so many other ways. The fact that I found amusing what I should have found Disturbing? Yes. A commentary on violence in films? Maybe. Ridiculous? Absolutely? Setting aside the fact that the writing and directing is completely unbelievable insofar as it fails to depict how the human animal would really react in a fight for survival such as this family is presented with, it fails in so many other ways. The fact that I found amusing what I should have found gut-wrenchingly disturbing attests to the failures of the filmmakers. Watch this movie if you have time to spare or you're a film student. Otherwise, spend your time elsewhere. Expand
  57. R.Cory!
    Jul 3, 2008
    10
    I thought this was the funniest movie i saw last year. I had to see it when every worthless movie critic begged people to not watch it. A handful of people walked out of the theatre... but I couldn't stop laughing. People say that Funny Games is an exercise in violence... but it's really about a director f'ing with people's expectations.... and that's hilarious.
  58. ChrisL
    Aug 1, 2008
    0
    This film is terrible & frustrating. It's not bad in the typical sense of the word (we've all seen bad films right?) This actually made me angry as I watched it, I can't believe it's been released, nothing about the story or the roles is enjoyable. It only gets worse when one of the attackers 'rewinds' the film when something happens he doesn't like. At This film is terrible & frustrating. It's not bad in the typical sense of the word (we've all seen bad films right?) This actually made me angry as I watched it, I can't believe it's been released, nothing about the story or the roles is enjoyable. It only gets worse when one of the attackers 'rewinds' the film when something happens he doesn't like. At that point I was ready to take this DVD and burn it in my back yard! A waste of 1hr 40mins of my life. Expand
  59. AmberB
    Aug 19, 2008
    0
    This was the worst movie I have ever seen. It is 2 hours of my life that I will never get back. I must admit, you can't stop watching it because you keep thinking it HAS to get better. And when it doesn't it's terribly disappointing.
  60. Maxwell
    Aug 24, 2008
    10
    Dear everyone who gave this film a zero, Thank you for absolutely proving the director's point.
  61. LucianoB
    Oct 11, 2009
    0
    Haneke's stupid medicine was neither necessary nor effective. Despite the fact that it was very well crafted, I hated this movie, not because it denied me the violence, but because it denied me the justice. This movie is just an exercise in torturing the audience in the wrong way for the wrong reasons.
  62. JontyP
    Oct 13, 2009
    1
    A feel bad movie which left me angry and frustrated. Would love to see a remake where Tim Roth works out and kicks some ass. Rich people without bodyguards, closed circuit tv and police backup, I dont really think so. Its a human zoo - not a human jungle- yet!
  63. BrandonS.
    Jan 18, 2009
    10
    Excitingly original.
  64. HBSL
    Oct 2, 2009
    1
    If i ever had doubts about writing this, petros lifted them: part of me suspects the film was indeed made by and for people who are convinced to be better than others, to be "intellectuals". Such arrogance has to hide lack of self confidence. But back to the film. Mr. Haneke, I was alone on a business trip and ventured by chance on the hotel room tv into FGU.S. just as the torture had If i ever had doubts about writing this, petros lifted them: part of me suspects the film was indeed made by and for people who are convinced to be better than others, to be "intellectuals". Such arrogance has to hide lack of self confidence. But back to the film. Mr. Haneke, I was alone on a business trip and ventured by chance on the hotel room tv into FGU.S. just as the torture had started. I was hooked, and yes, the movie is very good at that. a poisonous hook, for it drowned me slowly, in disbelief and I couldn't stop, hoping something within the movie would. And of course that never happens. Is that why petros thinks it's genius? and with him the large majority of critics i've read? a week later, i still feel depressed and wounded and miserable. bad and unkind to others. some scenes won't go away and i think of my wife and my kids. if i wanted to hurt someone i love i would get them to watch this. Haneke, you added a bit of misery to this world. And frankly i still wonder what stopped you there: couldn't they have severed a limb from the kid before shooting him? say, after they used the severed arm to rape his mother? for, say, 8 to 10 minutes? what stopped you? too many of your own kids or parents tortured in real life? or were they not enough? would that be too "gore" for intellectuals like petros and yourself? why not have your family play in it? THAT would have been something for you to watch as spectator! THAT would have amde a point! and critics would wet their pants even more in appreciation! Ts ts ts, very disappointing, what a coward... Seriously, I did read a couple of things on your movies, themes, etc. to try and understand: the questions without the answers, etc. Fine, but i still don't get it. Is this movie of any use? haven't all the things you pretend to denounce or show been told elsewhere already? the vast majority of "intellectuals" who will enjoy this movie and watch it again (like the our friend petros) are most probably exactly the kind of people critics believe you are denouncing...Let me say it again: Haneke, you made the world a little bit worse. And people, fancy hurting the ones you love a bit more than you do on a normal day? Get them to watch this. I almost forgot Petros: good luck for surviving the cold air "du haut des cimes" buddy. hb Expand
  65. NK
    Jan 4, 2009
    8
    Intriguing, intelligent and some excellent performances. Well worth watching in my opinion.
  66. NickO
    Oct 9, 2009
    9
    I think a lot of people have missed the point here.
  67. BisC.
    Apr 1, 2009
    1
    Awful! That's all there is to say. It is just plain awful. And so is the acting. I'll make a note to skip any movies with this cast.
  68. [Anonymous]
    Apr 21, 2009
    1
    To rewind the movie by the actor himself, not cool. Not to mention how slow are the rolls. Perhaps that was the whole idea, to make a movie with non sense.
  69. petros
    Aug 17, 2009
    10
    The comments for this film is proof that this world is divided unevenly in two categories - smart (just a few unfortunately) and unbelievably stupid (the majority) - go watch iron man and don't insult us with your ignorance. the original is the best film ever made, haneke's only mistake was making a remake in order to approach a brader audience. he should know better. what do The comments for this film is proof that this world is divided unevenly in two categories - smart (just a few unfortunately) and unbelievably stupid (the majority) - go watch iron man and don't insult us with your ignorance. the original is the best film ever made, haneke's only mistake was making a remake in order to approach a brader audience. he should know better. what do you expect from people who can't watch films with subtitles. nothing obviously. Expand
  70. ChrisL.
    Dec 20, 2008
    8
    you might be disappointed after watching it, because it is different. if you are looking for an everyday movie, you will have no trouble finding it every day. And this is what the movie is complaining about: If you like violence, think twice. "Funny games" is about the victims, not the murderers. The murderers in this movie are the everyday consumers of violent movies. In any case, this you might be disappointed after watching it, because it is different. if you are looking for an everyday movie, you will have no trouble finding it every day. And this is what the movie is complaining about: If you like violence, think twice. "Funny games" is about the victims, not the murderers. The murderers in this movie are the everyday consumers of violent movies. In any case, this movie has a message, and you won' t get it out of your head for quite some time. And that's quite something nowadays. Expand
  71. JamisonR
    Mar 13, 2008
    0
    You know what is most disturbing about movies like this? That they get made! It is almost impossible to get a project off the ground in Hollywood and yet Warner turns out this? And this is a remake of a film which was called
  72. MarkW.
    Mar 14, 2008
    2
    Acting is decent, but story line needs massive work. The dialogue between the characters is ok, but overall the attention to details is horrible. It's a little unfuriating and not in a good way.
  73. Enrique
    Mar 14, 2008
    10
    It is as brilliant as the original German production, both directed by Michael Haneke. He delivers a faithfull version of the first one without making absolutely any concessions to general audiences. This is a masterpiece but certainly not for everyone. If you want a convencional horror movie with the usual thrills, take your crap to a mall multiplex, buy pop-corn and stay away from this movie.
  74. ChadS.
    Mar 14, 2008
    6
    After "Cache", a career high for this filmmaker(so do the tastemakers say; I prefer "La Pianeste"), this shot-by-shot remake of the Belgian original is little more than a placeholder, one can only presume, as a means of introducing himself to a mainstream audience, and hopefully, not a sign of creative burnout. If you saw Gus Van Sant's "Psycho", you'll know what this new After "Cache", a career high for this filmmaker(so do the tastemakers say; I prefer "La Pianeste"), this shot-by-shot remake of the Belgian original is little more than a placeholder, one can only presume, as a means of introducing himself to a mainstream audience, and hopefully, not a sign of creative burnout. If you saw Gus Van Sant's "Psycho", you'll know what this new version of "Funny Games" is like. So does a new context change the original Austria script, which was meant primarily for a European sensibility? Yes and no. No: because recontextualization seems to be absent here due to the lack of domestic signifiers that would place the film squarely in America. The same geographical displacement in "Funny Games" is the stock and trade of Danish filmmaker Lars Von Trier. In spite of its American setting and English-speaking characters, the only indication that we are indeed stateside is the dissonant heavy metal by the avant-garde musician John Zorn(of New York) on the soundtrack(the same music featured in the Austrian original). No better or worse than the original "Funny Games", if the American version is your first contact with this material, you'll probably have the same positive reaction as the people who saw the disquieting Austrian original. Yes: in one instance, when Paul(Michael Pitt) picks up the remote control and changes his friend's fate(Brady Corbet, previously best known in Greg Araki's "Mysterious Skin"). Since the majority of American films are blessed with happy endings, Paul makes a correction which aligns "Funny Games" with the European tradition of following through with the narrative's trajectory. There is no reversal of fortune for Ann(Naomi Watts) and George(Tim Roth). There is proof, however, that "Funny Games" might be directly responsible for the Adam Sandler-vehicle "Click". Expand
  75. AlbertoB.
    Mar 15, 2008
    9
    Almost as great as the German original thriller.
  76. MarcD.
    Mar 15, 2008
    0
    Never have I agreed more with my buddy Joe Morgenstern. The "Funny" part of this movie is that people actually pay to see it. [Yeah, I'll own that one.] Or that Tim Roth and Naomi Watts were hoodwinked into starring in it. I heard that it was going to be this "real" torture flick in the vein of Eli Roth, etc. Nope. Nothing shocking whatsoever. I checked my watch maybe 10 times during Never have I agreed more with my buddy Joe Morgenstern. The "Funny" part of this movie is that people actually pay to see it. [Yeah, I'll own that one.] Or that Tim Roth and Naomi Watts were hoodwinked into starring in it. I heard that it was going to be this "real" torture flick in the vein of Eli Roth, etc. Nope. Nothing shocking whatsoever. I checked my watch maybe 10 times during the 2 hours. Flatline boredom. Michael PItt couldn't act his way out of a paper back, and you just want to punch his stupid face every time he addresses the camera. And the Remote Control trick - that was the clincher - I was thinking 2 out of 10 until that happened - then it dropped to zero. If not for the music in the titles and credits, I may have pelted the screen with my half-eaten Yogurberry. Expand
  77. DanHefko
    Mar 16, 2008
    10
    Anthony Lane implies (New Yorker,
  78. TracyR.
    Mar 16, 2008
    10
    I think you either love this movie or you hate it. This movie isn't for everyone. It says something when the same movie that gets rated a 0 from critics also gets a 100. I'm giving this a 10 because I really think it was amazing filmmaking/acting.
  79. TRUPWN
    Mar 25, 2008
    0
    If Haneke is trying to make a point that Americans like violence way too much, this is simply not the right way to do it - by feeding them more violence. For a matter of fact I cannot possibly imagine an inferior manner of trying to make a point. The imbeciles handing out 10s to this movie like they were giving candy to a baby are only doing so because they enjoyed the movie for its If Haneke is trying to make a point that Americans like violence way too much, this is simply not the right way to do it - by feeding them more violence. For a matter of fact I cannot possibly imagine an inferior manner of trying to make a point. The imbeciles handing out 10s to this movie like they were giving candy to a baby are only doing so because they enjoyed the movie for its violence. The whole point of this film was to get viewer's to call into question their desire for such violence, but it fails miserably at that task, because most people will either desire more violence after viewing it or have bad dreams, etc. when they did not even enjoy such movies to begin with. Expand
  80. BarryB.
    Apr 25, 2008
    10
    Never have I felt so tense while watching a movie (except maybe Bram Stoker's Dracula, but I was kid then). Haneke made a movie that most action, thriller, and horror movie lovers won't love, because it calls them out on exactly what they crave and why they crave it. In real life, the bad guys usually win. But the Mission Impossibles, the 8MMs, and the Hostels have tried to Never have I felt so tense while watching a movie (except maybe Bram Stoker's Dracula, but I was kid then). Haneke made a movie that most action, thriller, and horror movie lovers won't love, because it calls them out on exactly what they crave and why they crave it. In real life, the bad guys usually win. But the Mission Impossibles, the 8MMs, and the Hostels have tried to teach us that good guys prevail. They don't. Naomi Watts deserves an Oscar nomination. Expand
  81. ToddM.
    Apr 29, 2008
    10
    This is probably the best movie of 2008. it is incredible how it breaks all of the rules of movies. i will admit some parts are unnecessarily long but other than that this is an incredible film.
  82. MarkusB
    May 27, 2008
    9
    As good as the Austrian (!) original.
  83. TomB
    Jun 15, 2008
    0
    lol, there is a point in the movie where they set the camera on a tripod and shoot the outside of the house for no reason for about 5 minutes. don't go and see it THE FAMILY DIES AT THE END. THIS MOVIE SUCKS DONT SEE IT.
  84. GoceR.
    Jun 18, 2008
    0
    I thought it was going to be great....UNTIL the psycho killers start talking to the audience. And THEN the rewinding part? Come on! Do not watch this movie. SLOW. BORING. EXTREMELY SLOW.
  85. PaulR.
    Jun 19, 2008
    10
    People of course will not understand the brutal nature of a movie like this cross examining Americas constant lust for violence. I first saw the 1997 Austrian version about 4 years ago and it slammed me up against the wall making me think of violence in a whole new light. This version, also directed by Haneke is a Brilliant film on the exact same malicious level as the original. It is not People of course will not understand the brutal nature of a movie like this cross examining Americas constant lust for violence. I first saw the 1997 Austrian version about 4 years ago and it slammed me up against the wall making me think of violence in a whole new light. This version, also directed by Haneke is a Brilliant film on the exact same malicious level as the original. It is not meant to be a entertaining film experience, it is a lesson in pain. If you want a watered down version of Funny Games watch "The Strangers", which is horrific in how it's made. If you want an experimental horrific movie experience then watch this film. Expand
  86. JoeG.
    Jun 28, 2008
    0
    Sick, disturbing and twisted. Psychological abuse of the audience. Film creators should seek counseling for worshiping amoral, criminal behavior. Don't waste your time!
  87. DavidN.
    Jun 29, 2008
    10
    Clever and imaginative. This is a movie that tells a story about the killers and their sadistic craziness, but instead it compels to make you think the actual story is about an abducted family and their struggle for survival. Never saw that one coming! Its been a while since a movie actually shocked me. All of you 0% voters, go watch Iron Man.
  88. KyleR.
    Jul 21, 2008
    9
    The movie was very clever and the acting is very very good,its like Heath's performance as the joker.i had myself laughing every time Peter And Paul said something and did.I must admit that it was slow in some parts.but that doesn't make a bad movie.in a underline note. If u haven't seen it.take the chance and watch it.
  89. JohnH
    Jul 27, 2008
    1
    Piece of crap. A few wannabeintellectuals think it's artsy because it deals with higher class living. That's it. There's no cleverness. There's no wit. There's no redeeming quality. It's a sick, slow moving "story" about 2 kids who torture & kill a peaceful family in horrific ways. That's it. No plot. Just a hollow, fake writer/director who thinks Piece of crap. A few wannabeintellectuals think it's artsy because it deals with higher class living. That's it. There's no cleverness. There's no wit. There's no redeeming quality. It's a sick, slow moving "story" about 2 kids who torture & kill a peaceful family in horrific ways. That's it. No plot. Just a hollow, fake writer/director who thinks he's intelligent & profound by looking into the minds of two mentally deranged people. Of course it's fiction, so it's actually all his own mind. Wow, so amazing; must've taken years to come up with that. Expand
  90. DianeR.
    Aug 18, 2008
    0
    Do NOT WASTE your time watching this stupid movie, the actors are the worst I've ever seen, this movie is so BORING!!!
  91. CollinR.
    Jan 12, 2009
    0
    An extraordinary hate-ful box-in experience. Can someone please include one of the thousands of perjorative reviews on the video cover? "Torture-porn" it definitely is. Reprehensible. Who could write this offensive text. The director is a drug-induced socio-phobe. Can't the actors read this script?
  92. DanS
    Jan 19, 2009
    9
    This is such a great film because it divides viewers into camps. those who think cinema is entertainment and those that think cinema is art. Read what people who rated the film badly have to say. It's always something to the effect of: "this is so boring"; or, "the director must be some kind of sadistic person". They sound like little children who've been brought up on Batman This is such a great film because it divides viewers into camps. those who think cinema is entertainment and those that think cinema is art. Read what people who rated the film badly have to say. It's always something to the effect of: "this is so boring"; or, "the director must be some kind of sadistic person". They sound like little children who've been brought up on Batman and the Saw series. Grow up people. This film is really not much more than an assault on the entertainment diet of most of America (one of the most violent nations in recent times), and a nation that constantly sugar coats its film output to appease all the prudes out there. This film was made because America is in denial about their tastelessness in the arts, period. So called critics who berate this film are the same ones that regularly indulge in poor, titillating representations of violence and Haneke's approach conflicts with their film diet and they're just not ready to concede any praise to the film. It goes against their right to consume crap at the cinema. Expand
  93. puppup
    Oct 24, 2009
    9
    This is not "natural born killers" or any other gringo film. This is european. We're so bored with the usa violence even gore films. Thiss is true, though we know it's a film. Haneke wants to say: "don't you consider stupid the lot of gringo films of this kind you've seen in your life". I'm spanish so, I think this never happen to me (I'm not sure or this, of This is not "natural born killers" or any other gringo film. This is european. We're so bored with the usa violence even gore films. Thiss is true, though we know it's a film. Haneke wants to say: "don't you consider stupid the lot of gringo films of this kind you've seen in your life". I'm spanish so, I think this never happen to me (I'm not sure or this, of course), but we always know this things only happens if you're a gringo: they consider themselves the best country, the best democracy, they do the best films, they are afraid (fear fear) of averything. We don't. We win. Expand
  94. AndrewAnonymous
    Jan 27, 2009
    4
    At first this movie had me very excited and I was quite scared at certain points during the film. However, as the movie went on certain occurences made me less impressed with this shot-for-shot remake. Yes this film had a successful plot, characters and suspense factor however it was filled with dissapointing, and at times 'random', moments. One scene dragged on for nearly 8 At first this movie had me very excited and I was quite scared at certain points during the film. However, as the movie went on certain occurences made me less impressed with this shot-for-shot remake. Yes this film had a successful plot, characters and suspense factor however it was filled with dissapointing, and at times 'random', moments. One scene dragged on for nearly 8 minutes without any camera angle change and with hardly any dialogue; 5 minutes definitely added a suspenseful thrill but boredom set in once patience wore thin. The second, confusing 'trip-out' which completely threw me off was a scene when a character literally rewound what had just happened and completely changed the outcome. With no hints of supernatural power, this was random and frustrating and left me wanting an explanation which I never seemed to receive. This accompanied with pointless shots and dialogue gives FUNNY GAMES a four. Expand
  95. Oct 29, 2010
    0
    There's nothing worse then a movie that only exists to shock it's audience, without any valuable substance whatsoever. Funny Games is one of those examples with nothing more to show to it's viewers then a bleak, sadistic state of affairs without a second of hope.
  96. Feb 18, 2011
    7
    Funny Games is not thriller-you-expected, unique. Deliver you funny scene, absurdity, surrealism and interactivity. Good performance by cast. I think it's good in the way but still not satisfying, I'm still curious with Michael Haneke's The White Ribbon, Total Film called it masterpiece, hope get chance to see it.
  97. Jun 8, 2012
    0
    Horrible movie, pointless plot with endless of pointless violence. The director and especially the actors should be ashamed of even agreeing on making such a horrible movie. In all honesty, this movie is only for those that enjoy violence; The Psycho's. So if you enjoyed it, you're not normal. Freak.
  98. Dec 28, 2014
    6
    Pretty interesting take on the home invasion genre, and it was especially relevant in the late 90's when movies were becoming even more gory and gritty. This movie is mostly a critique on horror movies of the time. The film intentionally contradicts itself, and one of the men occasionally breaks the fourth wall. On one occasion, he makes a bet with the family and asks the audience'sPretty interesting take on the home invasion genre, and it was especially relevant in the late 90's when movies were becoming even more gory and gritty. This movie is mostly a critique on horror movies of the time. The film intentionally contradicts itself, and one of the men occasionally breaks the fourth wall. On one occasion, he makes a bet with the family and asks the audience's opinion on the bet. The other captor frequently states the rules of a thriller film, such as how he won't kill the family immediately because there's "not as much entertainment value". There's even a scene where one of them rewinds the film itself so that the events play out how he wants it to. It's a pretty morbid movie; there's hardly any gore, but the scares are mostly psychological. Other than that, the movie is a little dull at times. Expand
Metascore
69

Generally favorable reviews - based on 10 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 6 out of 10
  2. Negative: 1 out of 10
  1. Reviewed by: David Rooney
    Mar 20, 2013
    50
    The film is shocking and upsetting, but never truly gets under the skin the way this kind of material often can. Whatever reservations are prompted by Haneke's approach, his direction is controlled and edgy. [20 May 1997, p.52]
  2. Reviewed by: Rene Rodriguez
    Mar 20, 2013
    100
    The movie gives you what you think you want, and then gives you some more, and just when you think things can't get any worse, Haneke swoops in and smashes the wall between fiction and reality, turning the viewer into a direct accomplice to what's transpiring onscreen. It is an astonishing film, sure to be controversial, and quite simply unforgettable. [30 Jan. 1998, p.6G]
  3. Reviewed by: Dave Kehr
    Mar 20, 2013
    40
    Denying us any catharsis, Haneke becomes a stern, finger-wagging lecturer; he seems to mean his movie as punishment, conveniently forgetting his own role in the crime. [11 March 1998, p.38]