criterionforum.org

Here's the trailer. Compare it to the trailer for the first film.

Since Haneke basically says that once you get the "point" of the film, you can walk out of the theater, I guess there's no need to see the remake or even re-watch the original. Once was enough. Plus that American doesn't even come close to the creepiness of Arno Frisch (though they did pretty well with the Frank Giering lookalike).

I wish the studio had the balls to use some thrash music (was that Melt Banana in the original trailer?) in the American trailer as well.

It was John Zorn/EYE/Naked City/etc, or in the words of Warn A Brother(s), "who?"

pianocrash wrote:It was John Zorn/EYE/Naked City/etc, or in the words of Warn A Brother(s), "who?"

Ironic that Naked City's first two albums were released by a Warner subsidiary (Nonesuch).

Kirkinson wrote:

pianocrash wrote:It was John Zorn/EYE/Naked City/etc, or in the words of Warn A Brother(s), "who?"

Ironic that Naked City's first two albums were released by a Warner subsidiary (Nonesuch).

OK, and why do you think Zorn set up Tzadik??

Why do people keep hiring Michael Pitt? He can't even manage a different haircut from film to film, let alone a different performance.

I dunno, I haven't really seen Pitt act, but that trailer was the first time he actually struck me as being quite attractive. Perhaps that's the reason.

Just finished watching the trailer and I seem to be the only to notice (please say that you've noticed it too) that the shots, the camera angles, the house, the furniture, practically everything is a facsimile of the original movie. How odd.

I mean, this isn't the case of Gus van Sant remaking Hitch's Psycho shot by shot, this is something else entirely. Quite mystifying, actually. It doesn't even feel like it was shot in America. It's like Haneke felt like revisiting his masterwork the only way possible: replacing the actors with English speaking ones so that the American public wouldn't bother with subtitles. Very odd.

I can see the irony behind it but I don't see the point.

The remake trailer is reminiscent of Kubrick's trailer for A Clockwork Orange - though the choice of classical music is less inspired, and the giant intertitles aren't as effective. I must say I'm intrigued, if a bit puzzled, by this project. I'm glad his next film is neither a remake nor apparently English-language...

Lino wrote:I can see the irony behind it but I don't see the point.

well the production company was setting up to make a remake without Haneke and they contacted him just to get "his blessing" for the project, when he suggested he direct it. I could see how he would not like the idea of someone else (possibly) turning his film into a generic slasher pic...

I could see how he would not like the idea of someone else (possibly) turning his film into a generic slasher pic...

Considering what the film is 'about' that would be a strangely apt fate...

Oedipax wrote:I'm glad his next film is neither a remake nor apparently English-language...

has anything been announced?

miless wrote:

Oedipax wrote:I'm glad his next film is neither a remake nor apparently English-language...

has anything been announced?

It's not on IMDB yet, but the new Film Comment mentions it, and there's this on Wikipedia.

Lino wrote:this isn't the case of Gus van Sant remaking Hitch's Psycho shot by shot, this is something else entirely. Quite mystifying, actually. It doesn't even feel like it was shot in America. It's like Haneke felt like revisiting his masterwork the only way possible: replacing the actors with English speaking ones so that the American public wouldn't bother with subtitles.

I think he's bringing his message to the people who needs it the most: Americans and people who won't/can't watch his movies. With bigger-named stars and the fact that it's in English, it would attract a somewhat wider audience.

But, yes, I'd much rather it be a shot-for-shot remake rather than a Hollywoodized, conventional thriller. I don't know if I'm gonna see it though. Once with the original is enough.

Funny Games is a brilliant film though. It has the distinction of being a movie I both hate and love.

The Times posts a piece, way early in the game. An interesting take on a movie I have no real interest in.

Message deleted

denti alligator wrote:Since Haneke basically says that once you get the "point" of the film, you can walk out of the theater, I guess there's no need to see the remake or even re-watch the original. Once was enough. Plus that American doesn't even come close to the creepiness of Arno Frisch (though they did pretty well with the Frank Giering lookalike).

What is the point? Funny Games was actually funny, if it is exactly the same, it should still be a hoot.

Mr Pixies wrote:

denti alligator wrote:Since Haneke basically says that once you get the "point" of the film, you can walk out of the theater, I guess there's no need to see the remake or even re-watch the original. Once was enough. Plus that American doesn't even come close to the creepiness of Arno Frisch (though they did pretty well with the Frank Giering lookalike).

What is the point? Funny Games was actually funny, if it is exactly the same, it should still be a hoot.

You're kidding, right?

denti alligator wrote:

Mr Pixies wrote:What is the point? Funny Games was actually funny, if it is exactly the same, it should still be a hoot.

You're kidding, right?

I would probably agree with Mr Pixies that Funny Games is funny, in an extremely twisted manner! It might just be my sick sense of humour but the idea of a golfer having one of his clubs used against him felt strangely appropriate. Or the hotter/colder search for the dog with the wink to the audience and the punchline once the car door is opened. Or the sudden edit once the mother is recaptured to her completely tied up and gagged this time, as if they are punishing her for showing she couldn't be trusted. And especially the final scene on the boat with discussion of the time and the way the final character has a glimmer of hope before the killers decide on an early end so they can have some breakfast with their new victims! (If only she had a remote control at that point so she could force them to play by their own rules!)

However all those scenes start off sickly comic and then become more disturbing simply by continuing to stay with the characters as they struggle in pain or terror - a violent punchline to a joke can be funny (perhaps most easily shown by The Simpsons and Homer's mirth at the "Football in the groin" film! Come to think of it, comparing that to Funny Games is ironic since didn't that Simpsons episode finish with the football in the groin film being remade in Hollywood with George C. Scott in the starring role?(!)), but when you don't immediately cut away the audience has to sit there and watch someone writhing in agony or coming to terms with their loss (perhaps the scene in the original that most shows how the film is not completely allied to the tormentors but is more omniscient is its approach to them is when the tormentors leave the film and both the mother and father and we the audience have to endure the long scene after the child is killed - the tormentors have experienced the 'funny' bit and haven't stuck around to see the anguish they've caused, instead leaving only to return once the film is ready to torment again).

denti alligator wrote:Since Haneke basically says that once you get the "point" of the film, you can walk out of the theater, I guess there's no need to see the remake or even re-watch the original. Once was enough. Plus that American doesn't even come close to the creepiness of Arno Frisch (though they did pretty well with the Frank Giering lookalike).

But god, isn't this the type of film you want to see with a packed house to see how the unsuspecting audience responds, especially if the film gets promoted like some horror film in order to bring in the target audience.

I like it - but I'm starting to feel like this is going to be more of a limited release. For the experiment to really be a success, this should be marketed as a mainstream thriller and open on 3,000 screens. And not screened for critics in advance

Oedipax wrote:I like it - but I'm starting to feel like this is going to be more of a limited release. For the experiment to really be a success, this should be marketed as a mainstream thriller and open on 3,000 screens. And not screened for critics in advance

I actually really like it... one of the better posters I've seen in a while... and I agree with everything else you said.

Cold Bishop wrote:

Oedipax wrote:I like it - but I'm starting to feel like this is going to be more of a limited release. For the experiment to really be a success, this should be marketed as a mainstream thriller and open on 3,000 screens. And not screened for critics in advance

I actually really like it... one of the better posters I've seen in a while... and I agree with everything else you said.

*gravelly voice speaking over montage of happy family (twirling child around in slow motion, that kind of thing) to a classical music score*

"This woman never had to fight for anything in her life...this summer...she will"

*end gravelly voice and cue hyper edited violence montage to grunge rock soundtrack*

"Coming soon - rated PG-13"