Kinda like Hard Candy?

That's not a bad comparison, but Funny Games is pretty far beyond Hard Candy. In Hard Candy there's that idea that the guy may be a pedophile and deserving what he's getting. In this film the family is more or less innocent (remember, it's a husband, wife, and their young son). It's just extremely uncomfortable and agonizing.

I guess you could call "Hard Candy" "Funny Games Lite." FG is an entirely different level of sadism.

Wow. You've definitely aroused my curiosity.
I want to see it.
I don't want to see it. I wonder what I'll decide? Either way, I know that I won't go to the theater to see it. Sounds like a definite rental to watch at home. Thanks for the interesting review!

I actually saw the original on IFC in the middle of the night about 5 years ago or so. I had a little insomnia and turned on the TV and it was just starting. Needless to say I was too disturbed to go back to sleep and sat and watched the whole thing.

Great idea! I'd start again with Hard Candy.

If you wanna go more mainstream, "Schindler's List" and "Saving Private Ryan" are both hard to watch at times, but there is a bit of a distinction between those and films like "Funny Games" and "Requiem," because in the end both of those films were hopeful, and those two are both exceedingly bleak.

"The Mist" was that way for me, or more specifically the end was.

"Open Water" also is like that-very bleak and creepy.

I've not seen it myself, but I hear "Pink Flamingos" has a couple of parts that are pretty difficult to watch.

I am pretty excited about this one. I really enjoyed the original, and am a big admirer of Haneke. He always said that FUNNY GAMES would work better as an American film, because it parallels our way of living and sentiment when it comes to violence on screen more than any other country.

I have seen all of the other films listed above, and would especially agree that works like ERASERHEAD, REQUIEM FOR A DREAM, and IRREVERSIBLE are all disturbing and brilliant. Of course, that is what I am always looking for in a picture. Something to take us out of our comfort zones and really challenge us to have an experience.

It is nice to know that there is still an audience for these types of films in our country, and especially nice that there is one in Indiana.

listen to joe, people! funny games isnt like other "hard to stomach" films. john waters makes things hard to watch for sheer cringe factor. Requiem's story into darkness is well done, but its gradual whereas funny games is just brutal. luckily, and thank you joe for being crystal clear about Haneke's intent on punishment. much could be said that if the violence were to be shown the film would just be slasher pron. instead the viewer is tortured by not showing something we as viewers shouldnt even want to witness anyway.

as much as i am confused by the remake of a great film, my hope in its success lay solely in opening/closing sequences and music (john zorn thrash jazz) ; if each are the same i already know its good.

and i will watch it repeatedly.

I don't specifically remember if it's exactly the same, but there's a similar Euro-death-rock soundtrack that is most shocking and disconcerting. It absolutely ambushes you and Haneke just throws it on the, volume pumped, from a complete still quiet.

And thanks for the nice words. I had some help in that I interviewed Brady Corbet, who played Peter, and got some nice insight into the film.

It's very much worth seeing, but not a pleasant experience at all.

One thing I liked about the AP review was that he mentioned that it was "almost boring." Most films will show you the actual death-the stabbing or the shooting and the resultant explosion of meat and brain matter, etc., but Haneke does the exact opposite. You don't see the actual "money shot," so to speak, but he'll leave the result--a dead body, off to the side of the frame, blood pooling. To me that's worse than seeing one second of gore, then moving on.

There is one exception, of course, and the violence is actually a satisfying, cheer-worthy moment. But Haneke takes it away from us using a device that I won't spoil, though other reviews have (and the Corbet interview touches on).

How about "Chuck & Buck"?

spoilers

Shot for shot remake of the original, whose content is even more disquieting in a theatre. Pitt and Corbet are utterly chilling as the two psychopaths who terrorize a family for no reason at all - when asked by a practically immobile Tim Roth (in a quietly devastating performance), "why are you doing this?", he casually tosses around typical motives that are commonly found in films, such as drug addiction, sexual insecurity and class difference. The funny games in question aren't so much directed toward this family, but rather toward the audience, who Haneke almost sadistically tortures. He critiques a society fascinated with violence by warping the traditional thriller genre, breaking the fourth wall so that the villains can mockingly grin and wink at the audience, relishing in its suffering. Nevertheless, there appears to be some hope when Watts' character unloads a shotgun blast through Corbet's character's stomach, a scene that brought applause from the audience that I was among. Unfortunately for them, Haneke doesn't play fair game, and he inexplicably reverses the scene, doing so in an agonizingly perverse manner as Pitt's character uses a TV remote control to literally rewind the film and prevent the death. Contrary to what most would believe, his film doesn't feature any on screen violence at all other than the scene mentioned above (ooh, how he loves to feed the audience's appetite for bloodshed), but that doesn't prevent it from being a far more unnerving and disturbing film than most gore induced flicks that crowd the multiplexes these days. Haneke's message is the most unquestionably clear when the camera holds on a TV covered in blood, an image that exemplifies the frighteningly pedestrian manner in which violence is portrayed by the media. When a horrified Naomi Watts (who delivers a bravura performance) asks an eerie Brady Corbet why he doesn't just kill them, he answers, "you shouldn't forget the importance of entertainment", associating their suffering with pleasure and thus condemning the audience itself for paying an admission price to sit through such disgusting, prolonged misery. As if the purpose isn't clear enough, Haneke repeatedly maneuvers his completely unaffected puppets into the kitchen for some food, keeping them there even as gunshots ring in the other room. As a matter of fact, his message is so blatantly obvious at times that it becomes somewhat of a drag to have to deepthroat our flawed existence so often - we get it, we get it, Michael, everyone loves violence. Regardless, it's an intriguing little experiment all the same, and worthy of a trip to the theatre if online to delight in the audience's suffering. How we suck.

What's your favorite Haneke, Joe?

As disturbing as Funny Games is, I still wouldn't put it up there with the likes of Salo, Pink Flamingos, Cannibal Holocaust and above all, Irreversible, which literally had me shaking.

Okay, Joe...you were right! I saw it this weekend and Funny Games makes Hard Candy look like a gumdrop!!

I didn't not like it. Did you get that? That's as close as I'm going to get to saying I did like it. BUT, what in the heck was that "rewind" scene?! Almost ruined the movie! If it weren't for that scene giving it an "unrealistic" spin...I might've had nightmares for weeks!

Yeah, I get it! I think it's almost impossible for the average moviegoer to actually "like" this movie, and I've yet to see a critic say they did as well (though it's generally been well-reviewed).

Yeah...that was the point where the film turned to something else, and that manipulation that Brady Corbet talked about in the interview really came out.

And downwardspiral asked what my favorite Haneke film was. I'd have to say this one, but only because it's the only (two) films of his I've seen. I've actually got Cache in my DVR as well, and I'm going to check that out sooner or later.

well, i stumbled upon this article almost a month ago but could not remember the name of the film. finally, today, while planning a movie marathon, i rediscovered the article and the movie title. however, unfortunately, this film is not even being shown in this state after today so i will search for the original at barnes & noble.

I wouldn't think it would be in theaters this long. It was only playing at Landmark, but if you're interested in seeing it I would keep an eye on Key Cinemas' schedule, as they're apt to give it a run.

Matter of fact, if you're dying to see it on the big screen, you might send a message to Mr. Ron Keedy (you can do it through Key Cinemas' profile here on indy.com or at keycinemas.com) and implore him to pick it up for a run.

And just for another bit of fun, the original is available on Amazon.

Not sure I want to see this movie - might be too freaky. I did watch The Mist (you mentioned earlier)but I found it kind of funny. The acting was pretty bad and the creatures were just silly. It did make me jump a few times and was certainly gross but not scary as it was made out to be. Bad scary movies are fun to watch though!

Regarding "The Mist," I loved it 95% of the way through. You were right on that it was just a fun B-movie. It was the last 5 minutes or so I didn't like, and felt that they used cheap tactics to manufacture a "shocking" ending. It was shocking, but it was blatantly done as just a shock tactic and it undermined the rest of the movie and undid all of the crazy fun I'd had to that point.