This movie was absolutely awful.

 

 

 

It's about a family of 3, Naomi Watts, Tim Roth, and they're son, who are trapped in their vacation home by two teenaged killers who force them to do games that will decide who dies and when. All while being perfect polite little angels.

 

 

 

[hide=Spoilers]They kill the son and badly injure the husband, then force Naomi Watts to pray and decide which of them dies and how.[/hide]

 

 

 

Then this happens.

 

 

 

[yt]pJxoLRdulUc[/yt]

 

 

 

I mean, wtf! We were waiting the whole 2 hour movie for that to happen to one of the bastards, and then they just take it right back! Not only that, but aside from that scene, this rest of the movie is all things that can really happen, nothing supernatural.

 

 

 

I'm so confused after seeing this movie on Friday, and it would be great if SOMEONE could explain wtf that was about.

Well... at least it's not as predictable as most movies are. :P

Looked like they pulled a Donnie Darko on you.

 

 

 

Expect to be confused unless you're on the chronic.

reminds me of wayne's world in a way.

Did you try reading the video description? I get it now, and I haven't even seen the bloody thing. Women, couldn't technology themselves out of a paper bag...

Did you try reading the video description? I get it now, and I haven't even seen the bloody thing. Women, couldn't technology themselves out of a paper bag...

 

 

 

Yeah the description is pretty good. The movie actually looks pretty interesting too, never heard of it before.

Yeah I read the description, but it doesn't explain anything.

 

 

 

I read on wikiped the same thing, the director purposely didn't give the audience what they wanted.

 

 

 

Makes perfect sense when you're making a movie for the purpose of entertainment.

Yeah I read the description, but it doesn't explain anything.

 

 

 

I read on wikiped the same thing, the director purposely didn't give the audience what they wanted.

 

 

 

Makes perfect sense when you're making a movie for the purpose of entertainment.

 

Yea, you think that when she grabs the shotgun and blows that guy away (even though his friend wanred him to look out!) she'll get the other guy, too, or he'll back off or something, and they'll get away safe and have a happy ending. But nope; instead he says "[bleep] this" and rewinds time to make sure that doesn't happen. Evil wins, and the audience went from :thumbsup: to :o

Yeah I read the description, but it doesn't explain anything.

 

 

 

I read on wikiped the same thing, the director purposely didn't give the audience what they wanted.

 

 

 

Makes perfect sense when you're making a movie for the purpose of entertainment.

 

 

 

Actually some of the best movies had endings that I didn't want. Take American History X for example.

Yeah I read the description, but it doesn't explain anything.

 

 

 

I read on wikiped the same thing, the director purposely didn't give the audience what they wanted.

 

 

 

Makes perfect sense when you're making a movie for the purpose of entertainment.

 

 

 

Actually some of the best movies had endings that I didn't want. Take American History X for example.

 

 

 

Yeah but this guy didn't just do that for the ending, he deliberately made the whole movie that way.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Funny_Games_(1997_film)#Themes

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Funny_Games_(1997_film)#Themes

 

 

 

Way to post, not troll, make an on topic post, and yet contribute nothing.

 

 

 

I don't really get what the director was smoking, movies are for entertainment. This would have been cool as a cheap independent film to be shown ONLY at film festivals and basic cable, but not a theatrical release where you actually EXPECT to be entertained.

 

 

 

P.S. I think it's a sign of a bad horror/thriller when you watch the trailer before it comes out and until you see it believe it's a comedy with a bit of dark humor. Just sayin'.

 

 

 

[yt]Ec-70W_K77U[/yt]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Funny_Games_(1997_film)#Themes

 

 

 

Way to post, not troll, make an on topic post, and yet contribute nothing.

 

You asked someone to explain the film for you, and the link which Adio provided explained the film. Seems to me like he contributed pretty well.

 

 

 

This would have been cool as a cheap independent film to be shown ONLY at film festivals and basic cable, but not a theatrical release where you actually EXPECT to be entertained.

 

I don't get that. I tend to be more entertained by films that don't end up the way I want them to. Could be just me though.

 

 

 

It seems like a good idea, but from the two videos provided, it also looks like the acting is terrible.

Funny enough you're the exact kind of person that the movie targeted dizzle. Those who want to just be entertained by cheap violence. (I read up on the movie a bit).

I don't really get what the director was smoking, movies are for entertainment. This would have been cool as a cheap independent film to be shown ONLY at film festivals and basic cable, but not a theatrical release where you actually EXPECT to be entertained.

 

 

 

Yea, who knows what will happen if you have to think a little bit. This was a cheap independent film shown at filmfestivals and art-houses, but because of that it also misses the audience the movie is directed at. So it's only good that Haneke got the chance to make a remake that hit theaters everywhere.

The 2007 movie is actually a remake of a 1997 film with the same title.

 

 

 

 

 

They're both insane movies...and like it has been said, the film is made purposefully like it is. It's not a "family ends up escaping and the bad guys die a terrible death." It's more of a "The bad guys completely slaughter the whole family in a variety of painful ways"

 

 

 

 

 

It's a well done movie.

The 2007 movie is actually a remake of a 1997 film with the same title.

 

 

 

 

 

They're both insane movies...and like it has been said, the film is made purposefully like it is. It's not a "family ends up escaping and the bad guys die a terrible death." It's more of a "The bad guys completely slaughter the whole family in a variety of painful ways"

 

 

 

 

 

It's a well done movie.

 

 

 

I agree, it's a well done movie. But not for entertainment purposes.

 

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Funny_Games_(1997_film)#Themes

 

 

 

Way to post, not troll, make an on topic post, and yet contribute nothing.

 

You asked someone to explain the film for you, and the link which Adio provided explained the film. Seems to me like he contributed pretty well.

 

 

 

 

 

 

I want to hear from you guys though, I've already read the wiki many times.

 

 

 

The acting is actually pretty good for the most part btw.

 

 

 

 

 

Funny enough you're the exact kind of person that the movie targeted dizzle. Those who want to just be entertained by cheap violence. (I read up on the movie a bit).

 

 

 

Though I do love mah cheap violence, you have to admit that the remote scene was a little... well, it shows what Hannake(sp?) as trying to do, but I just don't think it's a good idea for a theatrical release when you cut out a huge demographic.

If you think that it's not a good idea for a movie that's getting a 'big' release then you just don't want to understand it. How can the ideas ever reach the audience they're aimed at when they (the adience) don't get to see them?!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Funny_Games_(1997_film)#Themes

 

 

 

Way to post, not troll, make an on topic post, and yet contribute nothing.

 

 

 

I don't really get what the director was smoking, movies are for entertainment. This would have been cool as a cheap independent film to be shown ONLY at film festivals and basic cable, but not a theatrical release where you actually EXPECT to be entertained.

 

 

 

P.S. I think it's a sign of a bad horror/thriller when you watch the trailer before it comes out and until you see it believe it's a comedy with a bit of dark humor. Just sayin'.

 

 

 

[yt]Ec-70W_K77U[/yt]

 

 

 

 

 

i could've just called you an idiot, but i thought everyone already knew that. btw, i technically wrote some of that wiki page ages ago, so nice going - you did hear from me.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Funny_Games_(1997_film)#Themes

 

 

 

Way to post, not troll, make an on topic post, and yet contribute nothing.

 

 

 

I don't really get what the director was smoking, movies are for entertainment. This would have been cool as a cheap independent film to be shown ONLY at film festivals and basic cable, but not a theatrical release where you actually EXPECT to be entertained.

 

 

 

P.S. I think it's a sign of a bad horror/thriller when you watch the trailer before it comes out and until you see it believe it's a comedy with a bit of dark humor. Just sayin'.

 

 

 

[yt]Ec-70W_K77U[/yt]

 

 

 

 

 

i could've just called you an idiot, but i thought everyone already knew that. btw, i technically wrote some of that wiki page ages ago, so nice going - you did hear from me.

 

 

 

Insults insults insults. NOW you're trolling =D>

 

 

 

If you don't want to say something ON the forum, then go away.

Well, you're asking for it saying stuff like "movies are meant to be for entertainment only". If I wasn't such a nice guy I'd call you an idiot too.

Well, you're asking for it saying stuff like "movies are meant to be for entertainment only". If I wasn't such a nice guy I'd call you an idiot too.

 

 

 

Um, can you think of a reason for movies besides entertainment, and a small minority of educational films? None really, unless you just want to torture your friends.

Well, you're asking for it saying stuff like "movies are meant to be for entertainment only". If I wasn't such a nice guy I'd call you an idiot too.

 

 

 

Um, can you think of a reason for movies besides entertainment, and a small minority of educational films? None really, unless you just want to torture your friends.

 

 

 

Profit.

 

 

 

Though really, not all movies are aimed to appease you.

 

 

 

If they were aimed to appease teenaged males, there'd be less High School Musical and such, and more pointless violence, swearing and nudity.

 

 

 

Yes, all movies are designed for entertainment purposes, however they are not all geared towards the same type of person.

Well, you're asking for it saying stuff like "movies are meant to be for entertainment only". If I wasn't such a nice guy I'd call you an idiot too.

 

 

 

Um, can you think of a reason for movies besides entertainment, and a small minority of educational films? None really, unless you just want to torture your friends.

 

 

 

Profit.

 

 

 

Though really, not all movies are aimed to appease you.

 

 

 

If they were aimed to appease teenaged males, there'd be less High School Musical and such, and more pointless violence, swearing and nudity.

 

 

 

Yes, all movies are designed for entertainment purposes, however they are not all geared towards the same type of person.

 

 

 

You have a point there, but you'd think they'd aim for the larger demographic.

 

 

 

P.S. Sorry about my last post on this thread, I just read it and it kinda sounded like I was insulting you :?

Its hard to tell what people are going to enjoy until they try.

 

 

 

If its something too similar, its generic and unamusing the 3rd time round.

 

 

 

If its too unusual or confusing, then people might not like it, but then others might. Hard to say what makes the perfect film. The perfect film after all, is not something you can aim for and achieve, its more of a fluke in my opinion. Try too hard, and people will hate it.