So basically why I was tempted to write this review is because so I see so many people hating this movie so much. I understand, you don't like reality and want to live in a fairy-tale with your pink glasses on? Carry on. This is all this movie is about. People reviewing this movie as one of the worst because it is violent? You must have been warned! That this is a horror/thriller film, if you hate the genre, so don't even watch it! Why would you rate it then? So maybe you think this is some cheap Hollywood horror story about demons and ghosts? Maybe you thought it is a chasing-shooting criminals police story? No it is not. This movie is a reflection of the sick world we living in. You can never be safe.This movie is a senseless act of violence? If you don't get the meaning, it does not mean that it is meaningless! I've seen somebody comparing this movie to Natural Born Killers and reviewed both as meaningless and the worst movies ever seen. So you actually think that every act of violence has to be justified, dont you? You don't care watching a movie about war, when heroic americans are killing innocent vietnamese or muslims in the east. You don't care when your superhero kills innocent policemen who maybe have a family and children and just doing their job to catch them? You're just all ignorant and hypocritical. This movie is all that about. Maybe you are lucky to be rich and you don't see what happens in the world of the poor and the middle class. You may be a beta male living in your mansion and all you care is your wristwatch and a tennis course. What do you think would have happened if there were 2 black guys instead trying to get help from these people in this movie? If they are lucky enough to get this deep into the neighborhood unnoticed, as soon as they rang a bell, the police would have been there. Now these two white psychopaths just got inside the house, because they came just like they would themselves. Kindly and politely asking for help, same category of richmen, with 2000$ worth of tennis clothes on. That is this movie all about, that you think you are rich and safe in your house, millions of dollars worth, but you're not. If someone knows your rules, they can reach you really easy and punish you, face to face, as a beta male you can't do anything. What about looking at the pop culture nowadays? There are teenagers rapping about how dealing drugs, being in a gang, having gun, having a prison time are so cool. Youngsters love them so much. Same as in the movie Natural Born Killers, how some psychopath couple went on their bloody rampage through the country and became idols for the youth because of the press. I think something like this actually happened in USA before this movie. Of course, being edgy is always cooler than studying and working all your life. If you had any brains of your own in this life, you would understand why it is so hard for young people to accept the fate of your life in the modern society. Especially, if you are born in middle-class or lower.

This is not just a remake of the old film, but a trivial exact copy. Up to the poses and replicas. So, in my opinion, does not deserve to be rated higher than just for the work done on the film's shooting, not for the film itself.

I think that says it all. Not enough that the movie makes ABSOLUTELY no sense, it also gets you frustrated and angry. Without ANY REASON.I didn't just lose 2 hours of my life that i'm never getting back, I also lose a lot of my brain cells in the process. I have to spit thinking about this movie...

A double-bill of Michael Haneke's notoriously provocative home-invasion thriller FUNNY GAMES, its original version and the US shot-by-shot remake made a decade later with a different cast, they are basically the same film, the only noticeable revision is a landline telephone would be plausibly upgraded to a cellphone. Affixing death metal to high-brow classical music, FUNNY GAMES alerts us from the beginning of its irreconcilably conflicting parties in this game of torture and murder: the bourgeois nuclear family (emblazoned by their lakeside holiday residence and a private boat) versus two white-gloves-sporting, acedia-afflicted young psychopaths (whose backgrounds are completely in the shadows). It is very interesting to watch how genteel etiquette disintegrates into hostility on a moment's notice, and how it becomes a fortune to hostage if one is that prone to irritability yet not cautious enough to the consequences, although what is blatantly shocking is the want of clear motive behind these two amoral young men, who wallow in inflicting sadism and cruelty to innocent people, and are dangerously masked by a normal and friendly appearance. But after watching the same story twice (not recommended though), a viewer may sense something perniciously self-serving in the scene nearly the beginning, the couple can be cautioned by their friend (aka. the previous hostage), a warning out of desperation might not be a game-changer to overcome the perpetrators (who are in possession of a rifle), but at least, they can try to fight back and very likely break the vicious circleAlso one can second-guess that in lieu of complete resignation, the wife could have shown some bravura by jumping onto their neighbor's departing boat in the eleventh hour only if she knew it would be her last chance. To mitigate the ill-feeling stemmed from audience's emotional investment of the beleaguered family, Haneke opts for a novel schtick by allowing one of the young wrongdoer Paul (Frisch/Pitt) to occasionally break the 4th wall and even play God with a remote control when an unpremeditated accident croaking his companion, archly takes audience away from their heinous act and nattering hogwash, renders a refreshing sensation of levity, which is a crying reprieve at that point of the narrative (after sending both a dog and a child to meet their makers out of Haneke's convention-defying obduracy). The film is violent no doubt, but mercifully we are spared from witnessing direct simulation of killing save its grisly aftermath, and it is fire and brimstone for the two leads, in the earlier version, the late Susanne Lothar and Ulrich Mühe (who became a couple in real life after making this film) stupendously put themselves through the wringer of distress, terror and despair, command onerous brawn against physical hindrance (including in a challenging long take lasting more than ten minutes), and Lothar notably drains all her energy into a traumatized state that's too disturbing to look twice. The same impression is ineluctably blunted in the remake, due to the vanishing thrill of reiteration, nevertheless Naomi Watts, undergoes the same ordeal with equally gutsy virtuosity but less apparel.On the villain parts, a wide-eyed Michael Pitt totally and literally pales in comparison with Arno Frisch, whose bumptious self-assurance is simultaneously gnawing and sinister, whereas Frank Giering and Brady Corbet both make a good accomplice who is unpleasantly effete and morbidly creepy. Teasing with the line between reality and fiction, the sick underside of human frailties often overlooked by the prim and the proper, Haneke's succès-de-scandale is not for faint-hearted but an anglophone remake made in facsimile betrays his eagerness to unleash the bane on those subtitle-eschewing English-speaking Americans, a bespoke commodity speaks volumes of his faintly veiled intention.