Not Found

On MetaCritic, Funny Games received seven ratings of 80 or higher (which is really good), and six ratings of 20 or lower (really bad). It’s very rare to see critics as polarized as they were about German writer/director Michael Haneke’s remake of his own 1998 film by the same name. Now, what kind of movie could split critics into such distinctly different camps? How about an incredibly well crafted and suspenseful horror film with brutal violence and an almost unbearably pessimistic message about our society?

Funny Games centers on a young family heading to their vacation home for a quiet week away. Shortly after they arrive a young man (Brady Corbet) shows up at their door claiming that he was sent by the neighbors to borrow a few eggs. What starts out as merely an awkward interaction quickly becomes something much more sinister when the young man’s companion (Michael Pitt) arrives. The pair soon informs the family that they will be participating in a bet, and that their participation isn’t up for debate. The terms of the bet are simple; the young men bet that the family will be dead by 9 a.m. the next day. The family, of course, must bet that they will be alive.

What’s most disturbing about the mayhem that follows isn’t gore (there really isn’t much of that at all). No, what will stick with you after watching this film is the cold calmness with which the two assailants carry out the night’s festivities. They very rarely seem to ever lose their airtight grip on the situation. We’re never given a real reason for why they’re doing this, and that’s partly why Funny Games is so difficult for some people to stomach.

Outside of the moral criticisms Haneke is trying to make of our society, this film is a whole lot like Bryan Bertino’s 2008 film, The Strangers. What I mean is that both films primarily serve as an exercise in creating and sustaining suspense. In both cases, it won’t take long before you’ll have a pretty clear picture of the plot’s final outcome, but that doesn’t make them any less effective. The tone of both works lets you know that nothing positive could come out of these situations and it is simply something the viewer must accept. Thankfully, another similarity is that both films are tremendously successful at creating that suspense and sense of impending dread that they set out to. In Funny Games, Haneke accomplishes this by using a lot of long, sustained shots. You often feel certain something is about to happen, but Haneke doesn’t always follow through on those expectations, which will just leave you feeling even more antsy.

While the direction is fabulous, Funny Games biggest strengths are the performances delivered by almost every member of the cast. I can’t say enough about how perfect the choices of Pitt and Corbet were. Pitt especially is fantastic. He is so eerily self-assured that everything he does on screen is frightening. When he occasionally breaks the fourth wall and addresses the audience directly it is truly chilling. On the other team, Tim Roth (the husband) and Naomi Watts (his wife) are both excellent as well.

While I really enjoyed Funny Games, it certainly isn’t for everyone. It is unflinchingly dark and depressing throughout. Haneke offers a criticism of American audiences’ thirst for violence in a way that may be difficult for some viewers to take. On the other hand, I found the way he goes about delivering his criticism to be intriguing, and the story kept me on the edge of my seat from start to finish. If you like horror movies or suspense driven thrillers, then you NEED to see this film. It’s definitely one of 2008′s best in the genre.

No related posts.

I think Ben Kingsley deserves some sort of an award. Yea, I know, he already has an Oscar, but this is different. According to my research, Kingsley has now played a character of every ethnicity in the world except for African-American and Japanese.

Okay, I made that up, but seriously, his range is really impressive.

Transsiberian is the latest film from writer/director Brad Anderson, whose previous work includes the eerie Christian Bale film, The Machinist, and a variety of TV shows, most notably two episodes of the greatest series of all time (The Wire).

The story follows a young American couple as they take the Transsiberian Express from Beijing to Moscow, an eight day voyage through one of the world’s harshest landscapes. Roy (Woody Harrelson) is a caring but naive train enthusiast and his wife, Jessie (Emily Mortimer), is a reformed bad girl working hard to keep her life in order.

While on the train they meet another young couple. Abby (Kate Mara) is also an American; she’s a 20-year-old with sort of an Avril Lavigne look going on who hit the road early to escape a bad home life. Her boyfriend Carlos (Eduardo Noriega) is a well-traveled Spaniard with a good 15 years on his girlfriend. Being the typical passionate Spaniard that he is, Carlos immediately makes his interest in Jessie almost blatantly obvious through a series of awkward, prolonged stares. Still, Abby and Roy somehow manage to not notice.

Tension begins to build as it becomes clear that something is a little off with Carlos. That tension comes to the first of several crescendos when Jessie realizes Roy didn’t make it back to the train after going for a walk with Carlos at the previous stop. Panicked, Jessie decides to get off at the next town to try and track down Roy. Abby and Carlos are concerned for her safety, so they decide to wait with her. Roy eventually reappears, but by this point Anderson has thoroughly established a grip on his audience, one which he refuses to relinquish for the rest of the film. From this point forward, a heavy feeling of dread hangs over the characters. The audience knows that the other shoe is going to drop, but Anderson never lets you become too confident of when that will be.

When Jessie and Roy reboard the train (without Abby and Carlos, which is all I will say), Roy introduces Jessie to a new acquaintance he met while trying to meet back up with her. Grinko (Kingsley) is an affable and outgoing Russian narcotics detective. While their initial interactions are friendly, Grinko becomes suspicious when Jessie fails to sufficiently answer some basic questions about her interactions with Carlos and Abby. From there, a web of poorly told lies digs Jessie–and Roy by association–into a hole from which they may not be able to escape.

From a directorial standpoint, Transsiberian is a success on nearly every level. Anderson uses setting and location masterfully. Bleak, wide open Siberian landscapes are contrasted with the closed, almost claustrophobic feel of the train, each lending its unique characteristics to help build the suspense. The film’s pacing is also spot on. Anderson makes sure that there is just enough time between each twist that the audience isn’t ever quite able to fully relax.

I’ve never been Woody Harrelson’s biggest fan, but with his work in this film and No Country for Old Men he’s gained my respect. His portrayal of the Roy’s naiveity felt authentic, when it would have been easy for his character to become a static exemplification of that trait. Mortimer does a fantastic job with Jessie, giving her depth throughout the film, even before we learn her past. It’s quite an accomplishment for an actress whose characters are usually more of the “delicate flower” variety. Kingsley, as expected, was also excellent, delivering the goods as a stone cold Russian with the same brilliance as he has as an Iranian and Indian.

Overall, Transsiberian is an excellent film that I wish would have received more national recognition. I would recommend pushing this film up near the top of your “must-see” list. Check it out next time you have an opportunity.

No related posts.