Why did the Austrian version get the Criterion release, when the American version has a better cast...

Yes. Murder by numbers

>unironically watching pretentious version of torture porn
Funny games is the biggest onions horror there is.

>torture porn
>horror
neither of which describe the film. can you try stating an opinion without using buzzwords?

He just wanted some eggs! All this could’ve been averted if Tim Roth wasn’t such a dick.

which version do I watch first?

The psychos speak regular austrian, though, which sounds absolutely disgusting. The way he says "Golfball", horrible.
That said, I hated the mother in the original version because she was so fucking ugly. Naomi Watts is a top milf.
THAT said, dumb fucking burgers will watch any movie as long as it's made with anglo actors, even if it's a take by take reenactment of the original movie, so yeah, obviously the austrian version is superior. Plus, Haneke is a pretentious faggot.

Doesn’t matter, they’re intentionally the same movie, but with different actors. I watched the Austrian version first, out of an impulse to avoid horror remakes whenever possible, and it was terrific. But then, I was also a Tim Roth fan at the time (shut up, he’s a good actor and gets good roles), so I gave the American version a watch an indeterminate time after the first, and it was also terrific. So, honestly, it’s up to you.

Whichever you want really, they are 99.9% the same

>neither of which describe the film
Congratulations on missing the point. Not only is it a 'takedown' of slasher film audiences, the director is so pretentious he reshot the same film twice for Americans that watch shit like Hostel.

>Haneke is a pretentious faggot.
Why do you think so? Where is he "pretending" anything?

especially when he acts like he isn't a junkie

pretentious =/= pretending

We have a term for that, "Bildungsbürger". You know, extremely high-brow people who think anything but classical music is noise, people who say that T. Mann's books are good, who know nothing but their sheltered upper class life, who think that humanities are inherently more relevant than science, stuff like that.

You're an ignorant swine who's never read/listened to anything he's written or talk about. He is an absolute master who understands the psychological power of film better than anyone working today.

Original is better. It feels much more like a traditional horror film. The actors are also more subtle in their performances which is more fitting with the theme of the movie. Only thing the remake improves is the camera quality and the target audience.

That's a bit silly. Haneke's favorite films are films like Psycho, Mirror or A Woman Under the Influence. Directors he admires are directors like Bresson, Chaplin or Tarkovsky. If it was like you said he would only have the most obscure avangarde films listed as his favorites.
Sure he doesn't like Tarantino flicks, but his approach and thoughts are most certainly not from an ignorant blind perspective.

>He is an absolute master who understands the psychological power of film better than anyone working today.
>dude you can't rewind violence in real life!
Go watch some less embarassing shit like Eli Roth's stuff or Serbian Film.

>If it was like you said he would only have the most obscure avangarde films listed as his favorites.
No, it wouldn't. In fact, most of those are well-renowned and/or time-proven classics. Just not the most obvious stuff like Kubrick or Citizen Kane and that is what a Bildungsbürger would watch.
Obscure avantgarde is too tasteless and crass for their tastes. Just like with their music, they enjoy what makes them appear classy.

How does enjoying a film like Psycho make you appear "classy"?
He also loves Salo, how is that not "tasteless and crass" for him then?

>the American version has a better cast, and better performances almost across the board?
I disagree.

How is he pretentious? Sounds to me like you just don’t like the movie, and are using a bunch of bullshit justifications, while getting super defensive, instead of either just saying that you didn’t like the movie, or closing the tab?

I love how this movie just shits on plebeians. It's entire purpose exists just to make pleb viewers angry and it succeeded tenfold. Fantastic film(s).

The rewinding scene is an amazing plebe filter. If that bit turned anyone off from the movie, then they really should just back off and be like “this isn’t for me.” Instead they get all worked up and defensive, as if they’ve been slighted in some way, by a movie that isn’t for them. It’s truly bizarre.

I like Haneke films but they often seem like overly long lectures that beat you over the head with its point without having a necessary amount of exploration to warrant the constant
beating over the head. Funny Games and maybe White Ribbon and The Piano Teacher are his only films that don’t suffer from this.

Not the guy you're replying to, but I wouldn't call the movie pretentious. I would say it has a message that ultimately doesn't say much of anything interesting or unique. At the end of the day it's a pointless exercise in contradiction. It criticizes its audience and it clearly doesn't respect the types of movies it's pointing a finger at and it's all a bit high horsey, but at the same time it is exactly one of those movies. You're not engrossed with it because you're expecting the twist and it seems like all he really wanted to do was make the audience reflect on why exactly they were sticking with something like this. Fair enough I guess but when all you're really saying is "violence bad, audience bad" you're not really saying much of anything at all, especially when you are the one responsible for presenting that violence. I do think it's a well directed movie with great performances. I'm a sucker for metanarratives too so while I don't think this one is actually saying anything worthwhile in the slightest I still enjoyed it on that level. It's a strange movie. I recall the director saying something along the lines of for Funny Games to have been successful, its message would have had to fail, and I think that's true. I don't think this movie really gets talked about because of its message. The absurdity of it sticks with you, sure, but at theend of the day you sat through like 80% of it because it was engrossing violence. There's really nothing wrong with that, it's just entertainment. I only wish the movie itself agreed.

>Priding yourself over some Austrian's artsy attempt at hostel
Peak pseud

The White Ribbon is my favorite of his movies but it absolutely does beat you over the head with its 'muh patriarchal authoritarian culture caused the Nazis' message.

imagine being this pretentious

Not an argument

>violence bad
Have you seen a single other Haneke film? Almost every single one of them has violence in it, and it's more than often extremely brutal. But that's the point, he never uses it just as a cheesy device for the audience to clap and cheer to, but as a deeply traumatic thing that should affect the narrative in some way just as it is in the actual real world.

I think that’s why people call Funny Games ‘torture porn,’ because it treats a horrifying and traumatic experience as...horrifying and traumatic! None of the violence in Funny Games is sensationalistic or stylized, it’s genuinely nauseating to watch.

>he never uses it just as a cheesy device for the audience to clap and cheer to, but as a deeply traumatic thing that should affect the narrative in some way just as it is in the actual real world.
Exactly. He's saying violence is bad. You shouldn't enjoy it, but here you are sitting through it as entertainment. Regardless of how traumatic or realistic it's portrayed, that's exactly what you're doing when watching one of his movies, as movies are inherently meant to be entertainment.

That's weird I watched Funny Games and didn't see a single act of violence

>Ulrich Muhe
This, he was the kinoest actor ever.
I miss him, why did he have to die of cancer ;_;

>as movies are inherently meant to be entertainment
What a dumb statement.
Why should film be different than literature or paintings or music? In what way do you think it should merely resort to mere "entertainment" and that's it? Is a film like The Hunt bad because it's not straight up entertainment?

>Claim to make the same movie
>Car is cleary parked in different ways on each movie
FUCKING HACK

Attached: SmileFunnyGames.jpg (704x941, 46K)

This I always laugh when people say Tim out acted him.

Attached: 1C27D2FC-2B75-4A86-B0C6-AB559D706965.jpg (950x534, 137K)

>I think that’s why people call Funny Games ‘torture porn,’ because it treats a horrifying and traumatic experience as...horrifying and traumatic!
No, it's because it's based on that type of schlock film. You would get how pointless making a commentary on Eli Roth's shit films is if you've actually seen them.
m.youtube.com/watch?v=Bjbl2nLKp_0

I believe the smug smile of the german autist far more.

>literature or paintings or music
Also inherently entertainment. Those things are made for people to view, listen to, read, take in and reflect on. You're a willing participant to all of them. Even if they're unpleasant, terrifying, nausea inducing, they're still entertainment. Calling them entertainment doesn't take anything away from them. That's exactly what they are.

You mentioned Eli Roth twelve times as if Haneke made Funny Games just for him, he made it for the entirety of the desentisized american audience. He probably wants to spit in Tarantinos face aswell.

Pitt's smile is like saying "It's all folks".
The german one is more unsettling. He also was the same actor from Benny's Video

Entertainment needs to be entertaining. For art, I'd say the closer term would be "engaging".

Do people actually think Pitt put acted him? Where did this meme come from?

>Entertainment needs to be entertaining.
Even the shittiest of shit movies are still entertainment.

arguing over subtle differences in the definitions of words is like crack for pseuds

>You mentioned Eli Roth twelve times as if Haneke made Funny Games just for him
As a film, it's a reshot version of ridiculous torture porn that even the audience watching knows is shit. If you want something interesting that comments on its audience watch Cannibal Holocaust.

he kinda looks like alexandra daddario

fuck

Attached: WTF_BennieGoodmanStory.jpg (608x448, 30K)

>forgetting about Seventh Continent

Seventh Continent was utter trash

How can someone be this pleb?

Haven’t seen it

That's exactly why it doesn't work for me. It's just weird violent euros. The remake has more contrast and is more interesting as a result.

I have watched the remake 2 or 3 times years ago. I think I should watch the original

>literally the same film, shot for shot
>but the English language version has a hotter female lead
>DUMB AMERICANS I HATE AMERICANS THEY'RE FAT AND DUMB I HATE THEM I CAN'T STOP THINKING ABOUT THEM AMERICANS AMERICANS HURHUR AMERICANS
Fucking obsessed and seething.

I watched both, I liked the foreign one better and thought the actors did a great job despite not being a-listers. But they're the same so not really a big difference.

Criterion release is probably based on distribution rights for the US one wanting to keep the profits and not share.

They did a great job because they are better actors.

Wut

You should it’s better