Title: Funny Games (IMDb)
Starring: Naomi Watts
Released: 10th June 2008
SRP: $27.95
Further Details:
Warner Home Video has sent over early details on Funny Games which stars Naomi Watts, Tim Roth, and Michael Pitt. The Michael Haneke directed horror will be available to own from the 10th June, and should retail at around $27.95. The film itself will be presented in 1.85:1 anamorphic widescreen, along with an English Dolby Digital 5.1 Surround track. We have no word on any extra material for this one, but we'll let you know just as soon as we hear anything. For now though, here's the official artwork:
News by Tom Woodward
Starring: Naomi Watts
Released: 10th June 2008
SRP: $27.95
Further Details:
Warner Home Video has sent over early details on Funny Games which stars Naomi Watts, Tim Roth, and Michael Pitt. The Michael Haneke directed horror will be available to own from the 10th June, and should retail at around $27.95. The film itself will be presented in 1.85:1 anamorphic widescreen, along with an English Dolby Digital 5.1 Surround track. We have no word on any extra material for this one, but we'll let you know just as soon as we hear anything. For now though, here's the official artwork:
News by Tom Woodward
Advertisement
it was alrite, hardly a horror movie though and definitely not terrifying!!!
Saw the original...then saw the remake in theaters...ehh nothing that shocking. Kind of boring...and a pointless message in the end
You guys didn't get the message then.It was a great horror film. It wasn't meant to shock you or make you grossed out like those Saw and Hostel films. It was supposed to be suspenseful and very questionable with that, um, backing up part if you know what I mean along with the end with the conversation. You are supposed to think and acknowledge that it is just a movie.
I am going to rent this.
Same boring poster for the cover art. Why not use the other one? That was much more disturbing.
I've seen the original which I thought was good but my friend saw this one and said that the original was way better but Michael Pitt's performance was better than the original actor's. I'll rent this probably.
what's with the "get a grip!"?
i'll pick this up eventually, but i definitely need to get the original fist.
i'll pick this up eventually, but i definitely need to get the original fist.
This movie, despite its message was really pretty crummy and i don't like being messed with in the movies. It's just a guy trying to tell us what he thinks of violence in the movies
The movie was pretty unsettling, but it seems kind of hypocritical to comment on the prevalence of violent movies by making a violent movie...
I mean, obviously, from just reading some of the comments in here, the people who just wanted to see a violent movie, were under whelmed and didn't get the fact that it was supposed to be a critique about how people have become desensitized to violence in movies. And the people who just wanted to see a Michael Haneke/Naomi Watts/[insert cast member here] [art] movie got creeped out.
I mean, obviously, from just reading some of the comments in here, the people who just wanted to see a violent movie, were under whelmed and didn't get the fact that it was supposed to be a critique about how people have become desensitized to violence in movies. And the people who just wanted to see a Michael Haneke/Naomi Watts/[insert cast member here] [art] movie got creeped out.
I agree with those saying that this is a good film. Not fun to watch, but the message is plain and simple: violence is to be feared, not cheered. Great acting all around.
Great movie!! Will buy for sure.
I liked this movie overall, but I'd only recommend it to those who have yet to see (the far superior) original.
Phil92 wrote: Same boring poster for the cover art. Why not use the other one? That was much more disturbing.
This is the poster I was talking about:
This is the poster I was talking about:
Not a great movie overall but I did enjoy this, it was very anticipated for me. Who really shines here is Pitt and Watts.
EyesAndMinds wrote: Decent artwork though.
Thats actually the theatrical poster, which every DVD/Blu-ray should have all the time. Well not all the time.
EyesAndMinds wrote: Decent artwork though.
Thats actually the theatrical poster, which every DVD/Blu-ray should have all the time. Well not all the time.
This movie was one of the better ones I have seen this year. Michael Pitt was awesome, as was Naomi Watts. There was a great deal of tension and some very eerie shots. The last 10 minutes were pretty disturbing. I, actually, would not categorize this as a horror film. It is more of a thriller. I have seen both versions, I prefer this one. The artwork should be the one with the two guys on it, not Watts' face. Overall, won't buy this one, but it was definitely good.
I'm definitely picking this up after I get the original. I heard about Michael Haneke a couple months ago before hearing about this remake of his '97 original. I want to see that first, then this. I heard this was a shot for shot remake though with the only diference being the language (German vs. English). I personally feel this poster should be the cover:
I think the poster with Naomi crying is the best one. Really liked that one.
Love the cover, but no Blu-Ray release?
Will pick it up nevertheless!
Will pick it up nevertheless!
i LOOOOVED this movie! it was an interesting watch, after leaving the theatre i didnt know if i liked it or not, but i couldn't get it out of my head days after! good performances and some tense moments. Worth a watch.
So glad they went with the crying poster, dying to see this film.
Saw this one...loved it. I was the only one in the theater to "get it", which was satisfaction enough given some of the totally retarded comments that came out of these peoples mouths.
I like the other poster, but the Watts one is fine for me.
As for extras, just a commentary will do. I feel as if a making of will really take away from the message. But a director's commentary should do just fine.
Lastly I want to note the sound design in this film is f**king incredible. It made you feel like you were in the room with them.
cbundoc wrote: i LOOOOVED this movie! it was an interesting watch, after leaving the theatre i didnt know if i liked it or not, but i couldn't get it out of my head days after! good performances and some tense moments. Worth a watch.
Sorry for the double post, but that is exactly how I felt! I had to see the original right after, so I went to Amazon and I totally dig this film.
I like the other poster, but the Watts one is fine for me.
As for extras, just a commentary will do. I feel as if a making of will really take away from the message. But a director's commentary should do just fine.
Lastly I want to note the sound design in this film is f**king incredible. It made you feel like you were in the room with them.
cbundoc wrote: i LOOOOVED this movie! it was an interesting watch, after leaving the theatre i didnt know if i liked it or not, but i couldn't get it out of my head days after! good performances and some tense moments. Worth a watch.
Sorry for the double post, but that is exactly how I felt! I had to see the original right after, so I went to Amazon and I totally dig this film.
I was the only one in the theater to "get it"
Everyone who likes this movie keeps saying that. There isn't anything special about this movie, violence in film is entertainment and many are commentaries on violence in society. Cronenberg has done this plenty of times but his are also entertaining because they have a good story.
It's also depressing that the director felt the need to remake his movie in English like people who don't speak that particular language will not watch it.
With a great number of violent movies people will not be effected by what they see, true. But this isn't anything new or innovative, ever watch The Three Stooges? Violence is a part of life, and has been. There are already hundreds of better movies that make the same point Funny Games does.
Everyone who likes this movie keeps saying that. There isn't anything special about this movie, violence in film is entertainment and many are commentaries on violence in society. Cronenberg has done this plenty of times but his are also entertaining because they have a good story.
It's also depressing that the director felt the need to remake his movie in English like people who don't speak that particular language will not watch it.
With a great number of violent movies people will not be effected by what they see, true. But this isn't anything new or innovative, ever watch The Three Stooges? Violence is a part of life, and has been. There are already hundreds of better movies that make the same point Funny Games does.
Tired of gore-no horror. This was a great film. Shocking psychological drama and classier than Hostel and Saw.
I heard this movie was great, and I'm eager to check it out. However, I did watch Haneke's "Benny's Video" last week and that movie sucked. Super boring. Came out swinging with an intense scene involving a pig, and similar "off camera" violence between two of the characters, but really bottomed out after that. Insanely disturbing in spots, but overall missed the mark for me.
The message of the film: Those who needs to see it do and those who don't, don't. <------This meaning those who see the film and walk out is supposed to be the initial reaction one must react to in this film. Those who stayed will be tortured more and more until the grisely end because this is not a pleasant film to watch. I find it incredibly better within each viewing.
i took a girlfriend to go see this, i loved the pic, she was disgusted with what she saw, i haven't seen or talked to her since i saw it with her
I cant wait for this one!!
Nice artwork. It brings to mind the classy art production values of Criterion....Too bad I could care less for the actual film itself...
knight d wrote: ...ever watch The Three Stooges? Violence is a part of life, and has been.
Umm, no offense, but attempting to draw a comparison between the level of graphic violence in films like this and ANYTHING found in a Three Stooges episode (including what's considered their "most violent sequence ever" in the 1943 film They Stooge to Congo) is both unreasonably vague and patently absurd.
knight d wrote: ...ever watch The Three Stooges? Violence is a part of life, and has been.
Umm, no offense, but attempting to draw a comparison between the level of graphic violence in films like this and ANYTHING found in a Three Stooges episode (including what's considered their "most violent sequence ever" in the 1943 film They Stooge to Congo) is both unreasonably vague and patently absurd.
Final artwork added...
Advertisement
Most Talked About
Batman: Gotham Knight
US - DVD R1 | BD RA
10,000 B.C.
US - DVD R1 | BD RA
Funny Games
US - DVD R1
Dark City
US - DVD R1 | BD RA
Van Helsing
US - DVD R1
Latest Reviews
Indiana Jones Adventure Collection, The
US - DVD R1
I'm a Cyborg, But That's OK
TH - DVD
Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe
US - BD RA
Death and Life of Bobby Z, The
UK - BD RB
Karaoke Terror
US - DVD R1
Advertisement
Reviewer Agony
Battle in Heaven
UK - DVD R2
Man of the House
UK - DVD R2
Night of the Living Dead 3D
US - DVD R1
Boarding House
US - DVD R1
CSI: Miami - The Complete Third Season
US - DVD R1
New Easter Eggs
Family Guy Presents: Blue Harvest
UK - DVD R2
Superman Returns
US - DVD R1
300
US - DVD R1
300
UK - DVD R2
Hot Fuzz
UK - DVD R2
Hot Articles
Decent artwork though.