Like 1993's The Vanishing before it, Funny Games is the kind of remake you don't see that often. Not only does it maintain the same director as the original, it also keeps most of that films tone intact and hits many of the same notes. Having not seen the 1997 German language original, I can't compare the two for you here, but judging from what I've read a lot of what you'll see in this American re-do is taken shot-for-shot from the source material. In some ways this is a good thing, but if you remember Gus Van Sant's remake of Psycho, which basically took the same standpoint, it can also work against it. I can assure you Haneke's English debut doesn't fall victim to such a thing and when all was said and done I came away with equal feelings of disturb, thoughtfulness, and (to a lesser extent) boredom.

Well-to-do married couple George (Tim Roth) and Ann (Naomi Watts) are heading off to their Summer cottage with their son for a weekend of good food, golfing, and a getaway from the big city. It's nothing different from what they've always done and they certainly didn't expect it to be. But that's all about to change when two preppie boys show-up at the door claiming to be visitors to the neighbours next door.

Meet Paul (Michael Pitt) and Peter (Brady Corbet), two nineteen-year-old looking guys who make the impression of being your standard spoiled teenagers. But this is revealed as a front when their innocent request to Ann to borrow some eggs leads to them acting very strangely and escalates into them assaulting George when he gets a little bit irate upon asking them to leave. They also let loose their calculating sides and seem completely off their rockers when they take the entire family hostage and proceed to psychologically and psychically torture them during the course of the evening. They're like bored rich kids who have decided to resort to mind games and violence to keep things interesting, how else can you explain their slanted World views, penchant to lose their tempers quickly, and such off-putting moments like when they play "cat in a bag"?

In his antagonists, Haneke seems to want to make a statement about how desensitized the human race has become and how easily we can consider hurting our fellow man for our own amusement and pleasure. He does a convincing enough job doing this (especially when, half-way through, an inexcusable thing happens that will stun you to silence) and doesn't feel it is necessary to give you much motivation or background on Paul or Peter. This helps add some suspense to things as you're always wondering why they're doing it and it works fine but there's also some really bizarre moments where Haneke breaks down the "third wall" most movies erect by having characters talk directly to the audience and rewinding a certain moment when it doesn't go the way our villains agree with - it's a compelling idea in concept but helps derail any investment we have in making things feel realistic.

On the acting side of things, Watts (who also was an executive producer) and Roth pull off their American accents and bring desperation to their roles just enough to work and Pitt's Paul manages to be the right blend of obnoxious and psycho. In fact, all the acting here is generally above average, though Corbet tends to flip-flop a little in a role that requires him to be a bit of bone-head at times.

Coming out of Funny Games I completely understood what Haneke was trying to do, it's just that I didn't buy into it enough. Bumping a leisurely pace, odd humour, and shocking moments up against each other into an uncomfortable stew only worked for so long and, as I mentioned before, there were times I felt a disconnect in regards to my emotional investment in the film. That's not to say you shouldn't check it out as it has many interesting facets to it, just don't expect non-stop thrills and be prepared to be jolted out of stark reality on more than one occasion and you'll be fine. (Chris Hartley, 7/10/08)

Directed By: Michael Haneke.
Written By: Michael Haneke.

Starring: Naomi Watts, Tim Roth, Michael Pitt, Brady Corbet.

Picture Ratio: 1.85:1 Widescreen.

Picture Quality: The transfer here is clear of debris and generally looks decent but I noticed it does appear a bit fuzzy at times. I'm not sure if this was intentional but it is noticeable.

Extras: Surprisingly enough there's absolutely no special features here, not even a trailer, which is pretty disappointing as it would have been nice to hear from the actors or Haneke about the deeper meanings intended from the movie and how the original came to be remake ten years after being released.