FunnyGames Tagged Articles at Cinematical

An American remake of Death at a Funeral might be a new low. Consider: this would be a remake of an English-language film, two years after it received a considerable Stateside release. (I mean, I saw it in my local suburban multiplex at the time.) At least Nine Queens (which quickly became Criminal) and Funny Games were in a foreign language and barely saw the light of day here.

At least the remake of the quintessentially British farce may not turn out to be the anodyne Hollywood studio comedy you might otherwise expect. It'll be directed by Neil LaBute, who, with the bizarre exception of the Gwyneth Paltrow snoozer Possession, at least consistently makes interesting films. (And yes, I'll defend his Wicker Man redo if called upon.) On the other hand, I have no idea what to make of the fact that the remake is going to star Chris Rock. I can't really think of a more jarring replacement for the amiably goofy Matthew MacFadyen.

LaBute seems to have gotten back into at least some critics' good graces with last year's Lakeview Terrace, which (not for the first time) wrapped the writer-director's trademark edginess in a genre film cloak. It seems a shame to stuff a whopping hunk of subtext into something as droll as Death at a Funeral but it probably won't be boring. On the other hand, the remake will be written by Rock, not LaBute, and if Rock's previous screenplays are any indication, maybe it will be boring.

Variety reports that LaBute has also signed on to direct a rom-com called Here Comes the Sun, but we don't have any details about that one.

Last time we checked in on Stephen King's ten favorite films of the year, it was 2006 and we found titles like Waist Deep (?) and Snakes on a Plane. Okay, so maybe the legendary author didn't watch many films that year -- but here we are two years later, King once again dished out a top ten for Entertainment Weekly, and so maybe he's managed to see a bit more. Check out King's list below, with brief quotes from him for each -- then read the rest over at EW.

1. The Dark Knight -- "The best superhero movie ever. This is to cape-and-tights movies what Godfather II was to the gangster movie: a genre-defining event."
2. Slumdog Millionaire -- "It's been years since the movies have produced such an affecting story about the power of friendship."
3. WALL-E -- "I don't think it deserves a Best Picture Academy Award, but it certainly deserves to be nominated."
4. Tropic Thunder -- "The funniest, most daring comedy of the year."
5. Funny Games -- "It works as a savage parody of the snuff-porn genre even as it transcends it."
6. The Bank Job -- "High-tension cerebral thrills."
7. Lakeview Terrace -- "Jackson's performance deserves an Academy Award nod, but won't get one. Too bad."
8. The Ruins -- "It could have been ludicrous. Instead, it's unrelenting."
9. Redbelt -- "... this is not your father's Karate Kid."
10. Death Race -- "Death Race is filled with laconic violence and blasting muscle cars, but just beneath the surface is a biting satire of reality TV."

So, is King nuts for suggesting that Samuel L. Jackson receive an Oscar nod for Lakeview Terrace? Do you agree with the horror guru, or does the man still need to see more movies?

This week's marquee indie release is being marketed as a twisted tie-in to the US Open golf championship. At least, that's the conclusion I draw from the DVD cover for Michael Haneke's US remake of his own Funny Games. Naomi Watts and her big tear have been relegated to the back. James Rocchi declared it "a great movie ... cruel, cold and darkly thrilling." DVD features are non-existent, unless you consider a full-screen version to be an extra.

Erik Davis called Zak Penn's poker mockumentary The Grand "one of the best ensemble comedies of the past 20 years." That ensemble includes Woody Harrelson, Michael McKean, Chris Parnell, Cheryl Hines, Ray Romano, Dennis Farina, Werner Herzog and David Cross. DVD features include alternate endings, deleted scenes, poker player profiles, and an audio commentary with Penn, writer/executive producer Matt Bierman and actor Michael Karnow.

To round out our trio of enthusiastic recommendations from Cinematical critics, Scott Weinberg was seriously geeked out by The Signal, "one viciously fun little genre flick ... fast-paced, disturbing and slick." The plot? Everyone turns into "raving homicidal lunatics." David Bruckner, Jacob Gentry, and Dan Bush directed. DVD features are generous, including an audio commentary with the directors, deleted scenes, a short film, and six "making of"-type things.

Other releases of interest include The Wayward Cloud, Summer '04, The Ballad of Narayama, Young Yakuza, Human Lanterns, and the smashing Invisible Target, which I reviewed with great enthusiasm.

(ed. note: This post was accidentally published at 1AM, instead of 1PM, so we're re-publishing it at the correct time.)

I've been thinking about the largely negative response to Wong Kar-wai's My Blueberry Nights (6 screens), a film I quite liked. As of today it's at 43% on Rotten Tomatoes, though it opens wider this weekend (including here in the Bay Area) and more reviews are surely coming in. Most critics I've spoken with around here likewise didn't think much of it. What are the reasons for all this disappointment? The main reason has to do with its weight. It's a lightweight movie, a trifle, flimsy, vapid, thin, etc. Wong is considered one of the world's greatest filmmakers, a maker of "weighty" works of art, and so this "lighter" film is beneath him. It's a letdown, a step backward.

Well, I say that's nonsense. Many great filmmakers dallied in lightweight, lesser trifles during their careers, and it didn't make them any less great. Martin Scorsese has made lots of them. After Hours (1985) and The Color of Money (1986) may not pack the punch of Raging Bull, but they are quite enjoyable, and pure Scorsese. (His current Shine a Light, 277 screens, feels like a trifle.) Fritz Lang came to the United States from a position of great power and unlimited resources in Germany and found himself assigned cheap crime pictures. Yet few critics today would complain about the "lightness" of The Big Heat or Scarlet Street. Max Ophuls also made crime films in Hollywood (Caught and The Reckless Moment), and his reputation remains intact. Some consider John Ford the greatest American director of all time, and even though his goofball Donovan's Reef (1963) isn't counted among his classics, I love it just as much. It has moments of great beauty that reflect its maker's personality. My Blueberry Nights may not stand up to In the Mood for Love, but it's unquestionably a Wong Kar-wai film.

Among my favorite film books is Michael J. Weldon's two-volume "Psychotronic" film guide. The first was published in 1983 and the second in 1996 (Michael hopes to publish a third at some point). Unlike Leonard Maltin's annual book, Weldon doesn't update an existing guide; each new guide is an entirely new volume. If you want to read about Halloween, you need Vol. 1 and if you want to read about Halloween 4, you need Vol. 2. A "Psychotronic" movie can be fairly easy to define. It's basically any of the "lower" film genres, dealing with the more questionable elements of society: horror, sci-fi, bikers, strippers, superheroes, zombies, kung-fu, vampires, comic books, drugs, sex, action heroes, rock 'n' roll, midnight movies, monsters, witches, cults, serial killers, magic, time travel, robberies, heists, contract killers, gladiators, Spaghetti Westerns, mad scientists, murder mysteries, pimps, voyeurs, etc.

(Funny Games opens in theaters this weekend; below is Cinematical's Review from the 2008 Sundance Film Festival.)

Michael Haneke's remake of his own Funny Games is a great movie. It's also a great film. It's also a great piece of commentary on film. It's hard to say which Funny Games stirs up more -- your guts, or your brain. There's a line about how the film criticism of Manny Farber "played both brows against the middle." Funny Games smashes lowbrow violent entertainment and highbrow thoughts about violent entertainment into each other, hard, over and over again until the resulting wreck of bone and flesh and blood glistens like a sharp-edged gem. It gives you what you want and asks why you want it in the first place, and it does both those things superbly. It is cruel, cold and darkly thrilling.

The Farber family (played by Naomi Watts, Tim Roth and Devon Gearhart) are getting away from it all to their lakeside vacation home. They're going to relax, meet friends, play golf and enjoy good food and good music. But they're not going to get to do any of those things. Two polite young men (played by Brady Corbet and Michael Pitt) drop by; they're guests of the neighbors, and the neighbors sent them over to borrow four eggs. Watts is glad to help. But the eggs break, and they'd like to borrow another four. Watts is less glad to help, but still polite. And then second set of four eggs are broken, and then it's not about the eggs at all, and politeness becomes irrelevant. Which, really, it is in the first place. Soon the Farber family is bound and frightened and hurt, and the two young men stay cool and courteous and curious, proposing games and posing probing questions. Roth chokes out a simple question: "Why are you doing this?" Pitt's answer is simpler: "Why not?" Pitt spools off a long series of complex and contradictory rationalizations for his associate's part in events that are rapidly going out-of-control for the Farbers, closing by noting that " ... he's jaded and disgusted by the emptiness of existence. It's hard." None of it is true, and what would it matter if it were?

Are you looking to really mess with someone today ... on Valentine's Day? Do you and your sweetheart share an abnormal love for all things torture related? If so, have I got the game for you! As part of the marketing for the pretty awesome Funny Games remake (read James' review here), Warner Independent set up this unique viral game in which you can personalize a -- how shall I say -- "interesting" video, and send it to a friend, a loved one ... or that ex-boyfriend who screwed you over for dinner tonight.

Oh that's right -- you can't let him get away with it. Right now, he's probably laughing at you, telling all his friends how he made up some stupid excuse to get out of your special Valentine's date. And here you are -- sitting in front of your computer, desperately trying to think of a way to get back at him. That bastard! Well, instead of spamming his MySpace page, why not show a little more originality? To see what I mean, head on over to the Funny Games site and spend a few minutes spreading the love around. Trust me, when he comes crawling back -- all dirty and disheveled -- you'll be glad you did the right thing.

Oh, and when you two kiss and make up (thanks to us!), you can plan to go see Funny Games when it arrives in theaters on March 14.

As the junior partner in the pair of white-clad killers in Michael Hanekne's English-language remake of his own Funny Games, actor Brady Corbet may be one of the lesser-known names in the cast, but his work as a smiling, shy sociopath makes for a haunting performance. At the 2008 Sundance Film Festival, Corbet spoke with Cinematical about Haneke's working process, what it's like to play someone who's already playing a role, and his take on Funny Games's combination of entertainment and commentary: "The first (version) asked the question 'Why are you watching this?' And the new film asks 'Why are you watching this again?'"

This interview, like all of Cinematical's podcast offerings, is now available through iTunes; if you'd like, you can subscribe at this link. Also, you can listen directly here at Cinematical by clicking below:

After a startling, striking debut in Hedwig and the Angry Inch, Michael Pitt wound up having what many young actors would consider a dream career, mixing parts in big-studio films (Murder by Numbers, The Village) with parts in independent movies by legendary directors (The Dreamers, Last Days). As the ringleader of the murderous duo in Michael Haneke's Funny Games, Pitt combines charisma and coldness to create a truly unique and riveting villain. Pitt spoke with Cinematical about breaking the fourth wall, playing a psychopath and how while working with Haneke made him feel excited, it also left him more than a little bit nervous: "I was constantly on my toes ... just always working on it, always. I knew I needed to do that." This interview, like all of Cinematical's podcast offerings, is now available through iTunes; if you'd like, you can subscribe at this link. Also, you can listen directly here at Cinematical by clicking below:

Michael Haneke's remake of his own Funny Games is a great movie. It's also a great film. It's also a great piece of commentary on film. It's hard to say which Funny Games stirs up more -- your guts, or your brain. There's a line about how the film criticism of Manny Farber "played both brows against the middle." Funny Games smashes lowbrow violent entertainment and highbrow thoughts about violent entertainment into each other, hard, over and over again until the resulting wreck of bone and flesh and blood glistens like a sharp-edged gem. It gives you what you want and asks why you want it in the first place, and it does both those things superbly. It is cruel, cold and darkly thrilling.

The Farber family (played by Naomi Watts, Tim Roth and Devon Gearhart) are getting away from it all to their lakeside vacation home. They're going to relax, meet friends, play golf and enjoy good food and good music. But they're not going to get to do any of those things. Two polite young men (played by Brady Corbet and Michael Pitt) drop by; they're guests of the neighbors, and the neighbors sent them over to borrow four eggs. Watts is glad to help. But the eggs break, and they'd like to borrow another four. Watts is less glad to help, but still polite. And then second set of four eggs are broken, and then it's not about the eggs at all, and politeness becomes irrelevant. Which, really, it is in the first place. Soon the Farber family is bound and frightened and hurt, and the two young men stay cool and courteous and curious, proposing games and posing probing questions. Roth chokes out a simple question: "Why are you doing this?" Pitt's answer is simpler: "Why not?" Pitt spools off a long series of complex and contradictory rationalizations for his associate's part in events that are rapidly going out-of-control for the Farbers, closing by noting that " ... he's jaded and disgusted by the emptiness of existence. It's hard." None of it is true, and what would it matter if it were?