If anybody hasn't watched either, watch the American one. The same director did both, and the American one is definitely just better, despite your shitty hipster instincts that the foreign original might be better. We all have them, but in this case we must ignore them. The kids look way creepier and are just plain better actors.
The dry, lifeless delivery of the first film isn't necessarily 'bad acting'--that can be scarier and more psychopathic than a more 'realistically' portrayed character.
And Arno Frisch in the first one is weirdly sexy, so that adds onto my reason for (only very slightly) preferring the first.
@Volcanic9 Nooo, Arno Frisch is just fantastic. Also, I watched the original before the remake came out. And also, both movies are foreign. To me. And do you speak german? Alot easier to judge the acting that way.
People always find something to complain about even when the movie is directed by the same person on both versions and in the exact same way. I don't get it. Maybe they are just stupid.
The US version is better, it's almost identical to the original, Michael Haneke made sure of that lol, and the killers in the US version were creepier and more menacing. The production is better, the acting is better, it's just a new and improved version...Funny Games 2.0. Lol.
@patchylat1 I disagree. The acting is much better in the original (especially by the woman who plays Anna). The only real advantage the U.S. remake has is that it's glossier.
@molcoo I'd have to agree about one thing, and that's that Naomi Watts was the wrong one for this movie, but Tim Roth and Michel Pitt kicked total ass in the US version. People are always elitists when it comes to the originals, it's like the anime argument original vs dubbed. In some uncommon cases, the english dub is better, and I believe that is the case for the US version of "Funny Games". And yes, the polish does make it nicer.
Everybody telling me the original is better never explains why other than "well it's the original". I watched both and I felt horrified watching both.
Both actresses playing Ann are very good, but the most important performance is the two killers, and Michael Pitt and Brady Corbet are infinitely superior performances. So clearly the US version is better. The Austrian Paul isn't nearly as menacing or charismatic, only bland and skinny, not nearly as creepy. Pitt and Corbet's verbal delivery is much better, although that could be the language issue. Such as verbal film doesn't adapt well to subtitles.
@yummymayo it is widely known that he made an "american" remake of a previously german language film. the film was considered for the palme d'or at cannes and already established as a brilliant cinematic work. i guess he wanted to reach american audiences by making it in english and using well known actors. but i disagree with his logic. though i do like the remake, i dont think any movie should ever be remade - especially by the same director. he could have made another film.
@jadepoteat He wanted to make it in English because he wanted to make more money. Haneke is the William Castle of arthouse films: he finds a gimmick and clings to it in a desperate effort to conceal the fact that he has nothing but contempt for his audience.
You know what's weird? I hate preachy movies that fuck with you, and I hate Funny Games U.S. But if I saw Funny Games 1997, I'd love it. I know I would. Why am I biased that way?
Well, i gotta say that i USUALLY don't like american remakes of european movies, actually i usually hate, i mean, i'm a huge fan of american movies, but it gets lame when they try to adaptate their culture to movies that has nothing to do with it. Anyway, the remake of Funny Games i actually really liked, it's a great remake, good performances specially Tim Roth's.
Yeah i think i understand the reasoning behind the remake - the director made the remake precisely because it makes no sense and it is just one of those stupid U.S. Horror movie cliches to remake foreign movies for U.S. audiences - even though it's still the exact same movie. The whole point of the remake is that there is no point and that's the the whole point of the movie too. It's all just for poking fun at the U.S. film industry.
It's alright, I'm glad it's cleared now! By the way, a movie tip, "A Zed and Two noughts" from Peter Greenaway. Beautiful photography and soundtrack too :)
@egyptiansushi Yeah, I know it's the same director, and I don't know his intention why he did this, but it wouldn't be the first movie remake just for american audience like The Ring, Vanilly Sky, Nightwatch or many french movies because they want to see american actors or places.
@VokeX Both the films here are a huge comment on American films/audiences, though, and the whole film makes a joke out of messing with the idea of filmmaking. So remaking the film was another "funny game" for Haneke--it made no sense for a film that Hates America to be remade as American, and it makes even less sense for a director to make a shot-by-shot remake of their own work. All of your examples greatly differ from the originals--this is in a totally different realm and is all a comment.
this movie seems too much like a clockwork orange. even the trailer pretty much COMPLETELY rips off a clockwork orange's. you should do a comparison video of clockwork to this movie, i'd watch that.
@Priestica606 It's hard for me to think of anything in common between the two films. Unless you mean the relatively short scene in Clockwork with the couple... while this is the whole film. The Clockwork scene is much more spectacle than this--the point of this film is that no gore or badness is ever shown on screen. (The time it is, it is "rewound" and has "never happened".)
@loveforchia yeah but she doesn't know he's psycho, to her, he's just some random neighbor kid. We as an audience, we know that he's psycho because of the whole plot of the movie, and all you can think about when you watch it is "don't let him in!" (directors do that for suspense)
People always seem to forget that the characters in horror movies aren't as cynical as the audience because they don't know that they're in a horror movie.
most likely you wouldn't have stabbed him in the balls
@loveforchia you just gave me a great idea for a video: It'd be a recreation of the first part of this egg scene, but the woman asks the man to wait outside while she fetches the eggs and maybe mutters something about not wanting to make a mess. She returns and pulls out a gun and curtly shoots him in the chest. The video ends with her saying something like "try to make me play your games now sicko". The whole point of the clip being that it's out of context and makes no sense
this scene too is disturbing because strangers are taking advantage pretending to be sorry and ashamed.We have conventions in society about boundaries and these two boys are breaking them instantly:lieing,destroying giftsof property and killing the dog
we realize later they have probably killed the neighbors before they come over .this movie disturbs me living in U.S this kind of cruelty is common for no other reason that people are bored and have no souls.GOD HELP US ALL!
In fact, Haneke, the director, is from Austria. the original movie was shot there, too. Don't worry about living in the States... because of that movie.
The first version is better. first, it's the original and second, the two violent characters are creepy. I love this movie, it's so curious that the director doesn't show what we're used to in these days. For example, you don't see the woman getting naked or the boy getting shot. You just see a simple action like a man making himself a sandwich. Great.
@sandrastaley He doesn't show it in either version because that is the whole point, a lot of horror fans who go into watching this would expect gore & nudity, Haneke greats discomfort by denying the audience what they expect.
@sandrastaley My apologies, it was the word 'curious' that most have thrown me off there, now I see what you meant & you raise a great point about the film.
This is a good example of a movie I mostly loved, but which is almost completely ruined by just one scene. You know which scene I am talking about if you've seen this movie (the original - I haven't seen the new one, but I think it is the same). Up to that point the movie worked brilliantly as both a horror movie and a comment about violence in the media. This scene nearly ruins it for me on both levels. A great example of a film that gets too caught up in its own cleverness.
I was referring to the scene where they rewind the movie back and change what happened. Sorry, I should have been more specific. Maybe it didn't bother everyone as much as it bothered me, but I hate it when a movie is so good that just one bad scene ruins it, and for me this was one of those movies.
By the way, did you like the remake or the original better? Or no difference?
Eh I liked Arno Firsch better in the original than Michael Pitt.
And if you like that it is comment about violence in the media, why would you protest the biggest commentary scene? The audience is so bloodthirsty by that point that for some reason it LOVES to see that guy getting blown away (the only on-screen violence in the whole film), but then it turns out that didn't even happen. The anguish in being denied the only on-screen violence in the movie is great and powerful.
If you dislike it because it breaks the fourth wall, then why don't you also dislike him winking at the camera and talking to the camera the couple of times, too? Or is there something else 'obviously bad' about that scene that I'm missing? It's seriously my favorite scene... haha.
To me the difference with that scene is that with the talking to the camera and winking, the character is in control of events more, where in this scene he loses control for a minute and has to rely on (to me) such a weird gimmick to go back in time with the remote control.
On the other hand, I have to admit that it is powerful, you are right - since I thought it was the worst scene in the movie, and you thought it was the best. To cause two such different reactions is really interesting to me
The problem I had with this scene is that from this moment on, you completely lose hope in the couple's survival. You know they will die, because one of the guys is accorded powers that allow him to do whatever he wants. What grabbed me through most of the film was the feeling that they could somehow survive this.
@insanej3 But thats not the director's intentions. He wants you to want see them suffer, not to want see themsurvive. When the Psychos discuss, they often refer to this, like when the one guy asks "You are on their side, are you?", while the director hopes you are not.
IF you are, you have succeeded the test, which the film is.
Yeah, it is in both versions, unfortunately. I actually liked how they talked to the camera and stuff, I just thought that particular scene went too far and really ruined it for me.
thats very unoriginal. the director could have just released the other version on dvd with english dubbed. it would have been easier and a lot less pointless or unoriginal
Thanks for posting this comparison. I just saw the newer version last week and it still "sticks" with me. I'll have to rent the Austrian original and just see how different the acting is.
The only thing wrong with the remake was that it sucked. The pussy sounding psycho wimp was annoying, the kid was annoying too(good thing he gets shot), and the only cool thing was Michael Pitt's character. Yup.
I think its really neat how they remade it the same way! Many people may be upset but thats their opinion. They did a good job doing shot for shot unlike a lot of remakes which change a lot of things. And since they were both directed by the same person its better! I for one loved the Remake, and the original seems just as good (Obviously!) But the actors in the 2007 were so cute. Ha, my opinion.
Anyway! Good job on making this! You did good matching the scenes! I'd like to see the other one!
This just shows how fucking pointless remaking these movies really is.
Why can't people just learn to read?
Then maybe we wouldn't have to deal with, what I'm sure will be a pathetic remake of "Let the Right One In", a movie that came out just slightly over a year ago.
Not only is it being remade, they changed the name of it as well.
I implore you, simple minded viewers of "the summer blockbuster", learn to read.
i agree that people need to read fucking subtitles for a change instead of saying oh fuck this its german. english people seem to do this more than any other. but i do think that theres a point to remaking a film. to make it more modern or in tim burtons case (even though i love him more than anyone apart from quentin tarantino) because he liked the original but thinks he can do it better and just wants to see what he can do
I'm starting to think that it's America in general that is the cause of these situations (remakes of movies and cancellations of any intelligent shows).
I just finished watching the entire series "Arrested Development" (had watched it years ago when it was still on TV, but just bought the DVDs). It's probably the smartest show I have ever seen in terms of comedy yet it was cancelled. Makes me sick that it was taken off but The Simpsons is still on after 20 years. Sorry for the rant. lol
@BOOSHBOYDOM I man yeah it does seem kind of pointless to make the same exact movie. and I myself dont mind reading subtitles, but not everyone does and it may be better for some people to understand it in english rather then have to read the subtitles. they could focus more on the movie. Ha but idk I dont mind reading subtitles but there are people that have trouble doing it.
@xMaGiCxSoApx Have you not considerd that they made an exact remake of the film to show that the games happen to 'the people' have the exact same out come? That even in different countrys the pair still play there synical games? or maybe they just did remake the film for English speaking audiences.
It's pretty much exactly the same, besides from a bit more 90's feeling to the Austrian one, the colors and such.
Some might find that an exact remake is pointless, but then again, without it I'd probably never have seen this brilliance of a movie. Not that I dislike European movies, I'm European myself, but I was just never introduced to it, Hollywood films take up most of our cinema space.
It's totally plausible in 1997. One cell phone per family was pretty regular (if even they had that many!). Since this was a vacation home, they also had no land line.
In the 2008 one, the other cell phone is in the car, which gets stolen by the time they can get to it.
i don't think so, i've only seen the 2008 version, and nothing shows that. I'd rather say they're brother or something, but anyway, they're lying all the time when they talk about them, we can't know
I haven't seen the american version, but I LOVED the original one. The actor who acted Paul was in my mind great, rly creepy. The whole movie had very uneasy feeling throughout. Awesome movie, I would give it 4/5.
no reason to make more, but it was cool of you to take the time to do this. i was wondering how similar the shots were after i saw some clips of the the austrian version and they looked exactly like the U.S. version. 5 stars
I personally think the American version of Funny Games is better. The acting was a step up from the Austrian version and Peter and Paul came off as much more menacing.
The original did have more of an eerie feel to it. I haven't seen either yet, but I have seen many clips and parts and I would go with the original. I'm not too fond of American remakes. They all tend to downplay the movie itself some way. Execept for The Ring. Of all the International to American remakes I've seen in any genre, that was actually the best done. Kudos Naomi for that.
the original of funny games was done by the same director it says it on the cover.....but y would he make 2 the same...still the remake is really good
german original is without a doubt a lot better. us was made to reach american audience with a more mellow atmosphere and known actors. naomi watts doesnt even come close to susanne lothar´s convincing performance as desperate victim. just watch the original. seriously.
just because some little childish teenage girlie doesnt know any actors, doesnt make them unkown. if you want a movie to get more attention you give known actors a role. thats not talent, thats marketing. please dont respond to my comment and rate it negative if you have no idea what your little 15 year old brain tells you to talk about. ok?
but i was saying the guys who play peter and paul arnt that well known. I know them because im a huge fan and admire all their movies they had done. So i think michael haneke chose them because they fitted the part, not because they are as u say 'well known'.
i know what im talkig about! and btw leaving ur comment with a question makes it seem like you want a reply even though you said you didnt.
btw how old are you??? Im 16 now not 15, and im not some dumb little girl . xoxo
this is unnecessary because it leads to nothing and because you seem unable to act not childish. but its not that you dont have enough time to grow up and behave properly. so, have fun in your future life miss young lady. and please! please! dont respond to that.
how am i acting childish? by making a point of saying my opinion?
very childish <suree.
get past my age. Im not very mature but i understnad more things than most ppl wont! I behave properly u have no right to comment on me as a person. I will have fun, and 5 years from now when im making films, having then aired at sundance, you'll remeber me. =) xoxo bye
i think paul and peter in the new 1 r far better at playin there characters. i think the pretty boy posh kids suit it better thn the dumb kid and the ruff kid as is in the old 1
Arno Frisch (the actor in the old one who is not featured in this scene that I think you're calling "rough") is definitely a pretty boy. Prettier than either of the new guys. :P
Meh, the US version didn't really amaze or shock me. The kids death and the dog dying made me sad, the rest was meh. I've seen worse in Anime. God damn Japanese.
ja, das dachte ich auch als ich den film gesehen habe....hab den film auf meinem recorder, also den deutschen, und der is um längen besser ! der kommt dramatischer/kranker rüber :-P
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
I fucking hate that movie. The par, when she kills him and he just revines it! I nearly shouted at the screen after yelling for the death part.
And also, that scene where she is alone after the two left and takes like fucking forever to get up. That whole take was serious over 5 minutes alone with nothing happen. So lame.
That take was closer to ten minutes and it was very powerful because it made you really deal with the fact that her son was killed. A more stereotypical movie would move onto something else very quickly, making the son's death completely emotionally free, but instead, this film really confronted you with it by lingering on it. When your son dies in real life, you're not immediately up for running around.
well when you might be next you might be. I'm sorry i have to agree with this guy, i hated that scene but i won't go as far as to say i hated the movie. Some of it was boring and a bit dragging but the concept and plot was really cool. I hated that one song they used, the only frantic song in the whole movie they play in the beginning.
I've only seen the recent version but i'm hoping the original will in some way be better.
As I understand it, the film wasn't supposed to be an enjoyable experience. It's supposed to be frustrating...it's all buildup without the kind of payoffs and catharsis that fans of horror movies have come to expect.
In a way its about the experience of watching a violent movie more than it is just a violent movie in-and-of itself. It challenges us to confront our bloodlust & how far we want to relate to the characters. Whether or not it works is different depending on the viewer, I think.
it seems like people prefer the version that fits their mother tongue...and i'd say it's because it's a verbal film.
most the tension is built up by the (verbal) acting - which may feel dull if it's a foreign language, even if you speak it.
that being said, a remake in another language does make sense.
thetasurfers 1 month ago
I think that the fact that Haneke replicated his original film almost exactly just shows how incredibly pretentious he is.
jnddepew 1 month ago
If anybody hasn't watched either, watch the American one. The same director did both, and the American one is definitely just better, despite your shitty hipster instincts that the foreign original might be better. We all have them, but in this case we must ignore them. The kids look way creepier and are just plain better actors.
Volcanic9 4 months ago 2
The dry, lifeless delivery of the first film isn't necessarily 'bad acting'--that can be scarier and more psychopathic than a more 'realistically' portrayed character.
And Arno Frisch in the first one is weirdly sexy, so that adds onto my reason for (only very slightly) preferring the first.
egyptiansushi 4 months ago 3
@Volcanic9 Nooo, Arno Frisch is just fantastic. Also, I watched the original before the remake came out. And also, both movies are foreign. To me. And do you speak german? Alot easier to judge the acting that way.
lashlashlashlashlash 3 weeks ago
americans are allergic to subs
tolis287 4 months ago
People always find something to complain about even when the movie is directed by the same person on both versions and in the exact same way. I don't get it. Maybe they are just stupid.
LadyInDrag 4 months ago in playlist More videos from egyptiansushi
I pefer the second version of this movie, the killers are muche better!
Carlosmanson8 5 months ago
I hear german :D
xD
TengaiTheSkyline 5 months ago
The US version is better, it's almost identical to the original, Michael Haneke made sure of that lol, and the killers in the US version were creepier and more menacing. The production is better, the acting is better, it's just a new and improved version...Funny Games 2.0. Lol.
patchylat1 7 months ago
@patchylat1 I disagree. The acting is much better in the original (especially by the woman who plays Anna). The only real advantage the U.S. remake has is that it's glossier.
molcoo 6 months ago
@molcoo I'd have to agree about one thing, and that's that Naomi Watts was the wrong one for this movie, but Tim Roth and Michel Pitt kicked total ass in the US version. People are always elitists when it comes to the originals, it's like the anime argument original vs dubbed. In some uncommon cases, the english dub is better, and I believe that is the case for the US version of "Funny Games". And yes, the polish does make it nicer.
patchylat1 5 months ago
Everybody telling me the original is better never explains why other than "well it's the original". I watched both and I felt horrified watching both.
SBV123 7 months ago
paul is much better in 1997 (original)
lPapaCalitri 7 months ago
Both actresses playing Ann are very good, but the most important performance is the two killers, and Michael Pitt and Brady Corbet are infinitely superior performances. So clearly the US version is better. The Austrian Paul isn't nearly as menacing or charismatic, only bland and skinny, not nearly as creepy. Pitt and Corbet's verbal delivery is much better, although that could be the language issue. Such as verbal film doesn't adapt well to subtitles.
waltereg0 8 months ago 3
i dunno, i dont really know why youd do an almost exact replica of an already great film... especially from a director like haneke.
yummymayo 8 months ago 3
@yummymayo do you know that Haneke did it himself?
egyptiansushi 8 months ago 3
@yummymayo it is widely known that he made an "american" remake of a previously german language film. the film was considered for the palme d'or at cannes and already established as a brilliant cinematic work. i guess he wanted to reach american audiences by making it in english and using well known actors. but i disagree with his logic. though i do like the remake, i dont think any movie should ever be remade - especially by the same director. he could have made another film.
yummymayo 8 months ago
actually, it's the same director. michael haneke wanted to make it in english so he could direct it toward a broader audience.
jadepoteat 9 months ago
@jadepoteat who are you talking to? jw.
egyptiansushi 9 months ago
@jadepoteat He wanted to make it in English because he wanted to make more money. Haneke is the William Castle of arthouse films: he finds a gimmick and clings to it in a desperate effort to conceal the fact that he has nothing but contempt for his audience.
lexo30 8 months ago
You know what's weird? I hate preachy movies that fuck with you, and I hate Funny Games U.S. But if I saw Funny Games 1997, I'd love it. I know I would. Why am I biased that way?
MrWeasley1 9 months ago
Well, i gotta say that i USUALLY don't like american remakes of european movies, actually i usually hate, i mean, i'm a huge fan of american movies, but it gets lame when they try to adaptate their culture to movies that has nothing to do with it. Anyway, the remake of Funny Games i actually really liked, it's a great remake, good performances specially Tim Roth's.
Unmauricio 9 months ago
Dumb parents breed dumb children. This is how you do a reverse mind fuck:
Tip all the mother have to do is slap the other guy and tell her friend that the guy try to sexually harass her as the boat approaches.
-End of the story.
Shall we call it:
Mind FUCK Condom? Mind Fuck Chastity Belt? or Reverse Mind FUCK? Mind Fuck Rapex?
comedianFA 1 year ago
Yeah i think i understand the reasoning behind the remake - the director made the remake precisely because it makes no sense and it is just one of those stupid U.S. Horror movie cliches to remake foreign movies for U.S. audiences - even though it's still the exact same movie. The whole point of the remake is that there is no point and that's the the whole point of the movie too. It's all just for poking fun at the U.S. film industry.
Supenmanu 1 year ago
It's alright, I'm glad it's cleared now! By the way, a movie tip, "A Zed and Two noughts" from Peter Greenaway. Beautiful photography and soundtrack too :)
sandrastaley 1 year ago
I don't get it. Why does american people always need a remake of european movies?
VokeX 1 year ago 4
@VokeX Both films were made by the same director. It was all his idea.
egyptiansushi 1 year ago 11
@egyptiansushi Yeah, I know it's the same director, and I don't know his intention why he did this, but it wouldn't be the first movie remake just for american audience like The Ring, Vanilly Sky, Nightwatch or many french movies because they want to see american actors or places.
VokeX 1 year ago
@VokeX Both the films here are a huge comment on American films/audiences, though, and the whole film makes a joke out of messing with the idea of filmmaking. So remaking the film was another "funny game" for Haneke--it made no sense for a film that Hates America to be remade as American, and it makes even less sense for a director to make a shot-by-shot remake of their own work. All of your examples greatly differ from the originals--this is in a totally different realm and is all a comment.
egyptiansushi 1 year ago 6
@egyptiansushi you're right :)
VokeX 1 year ago
@VokeX Because the film was so successful it was big enough to reach the u.s with a remake
TheRagev3 1 year ago
@VokeX coz they can't read subtitles fast enough... like italians
YourBodyYourTemple 10 months ago
fucking awesome
TheIvysaur 1 year ago
Should have used the sham wow to clean up the eggs.
DualityPictures 1 year ago
ive seen remakes of films but this remake is egzactlly identical really amazing as if they went by the egzact same script which they probablly did XD
raymaster56 1 year ago
@raymaster56 wot interesting use of Gs and Zs
egyptiansushi 1 year ago 7
@egyptiansushi D: please excuse my horrible grammar
raymaster56 1 year ago
Did anyone else notice that HUGE pile of firewood in the original film?
Keep in mind that there at a "summer" house.
RYANL22 1 year ago
this movie seems too much like a clockwork orange. even the trailer pretty much COMPLETELY rips off a clockwork orange's. you should do a comparison video of clockwork to this movie, i'd watch that.
Priestica606 1 year ago
@Priestica606 It's hard for me to think of anything in common between the two films. Unless you mean the relatively short scene in Clockwork with the couple... while this is the whole film. The Clockwork scene is much more spectacle than this--the point of this film is that no gore or badness is ever shown on screen. (The time it is, it is "rewound" and has "never happened".)
egyptiansushi 1 year ago
@Priestica606 What do you know someone agreed with me
BatManTBATParody 1 year ago
the original acting is better... there was no reason to remake this! only because people are too lazy to read subtitles, people! come on!
iadoremanga 1 year ago
I love doing side by sides, feel free to make another.
Its really intresting
ThaliaEatsDonuts 1 year ago
Thats awesome. I didnt know that there was the same film released back in 1997.
Diclonius1989 1 year ago
awesome
dannyabboud2 1 year ago
WTF does she even keep him so long in the house???
I would have stabbed him in the balls and kicked this sicko out of my house
loveforchia 1 year ago
@loveforchia yeah but she doesn't know he's psycho, to her, he's just some random neighbor kid. We as an audience, we know that he's psycho because of the whole plot of the movie, and all you can think about when you watch it is "don't let him in!" (directors do that for suspense)
People always seem to forget that the characters in horror movies aren't as cynical as the audience because they don't know that they're in a horror movie.
most likely you wouldn't have stabbed him in the balls
Priestica606 1 year ago
@loveforchia you just gave me a great idea for a video: It'd be a recreation of the first part of this egg scene, but the woman asks the man to wait outside while she fetches the eggs and maybe mutters something about not wanting to make a mess. She returns and pulls out a gun and curtly shoots him in the chest. The video ends with her saying something like "try to make me play your games now sicko". The whole point of the clip being that it's out of context and makes no sense
barlin07 1 year ago
Do the boat scene at the end!
Confinedtobedposts 2 years ago
haha. the use of a house phone and the cell phone ten years later.
also, is this filmed in the same house?
malcolmcox 2 years ago
recreation of the house
egyptiansushi 2 years ago
this scene too is disturbing because strangers are taking advantage pretending to be sorry and ashamed.We have conventions in society about boundaries and these two boys are breaking them instantly:lieing,destroying giftsof property and killing the dog
we realize later they have probably killed the neighbors before they come over .this movie disturbs me living in U.S this kind of cruelty is common for no other reason that people are bored and have no souls.GOD HELP US ALL!
lovesGenet 2 years ago 3
@lovesGenet Please calm down, it's only a movie. This rarely, if at all happens.
coolerjtv 2 years ago 3
In fact, Haneke, the director, is from Austria. the original movie was shot there, too. Don't worry about living in the States... because of that movie.
madrut 2 years ago
lol i love how at 2:20 they even use the same color towel
personally i preferred the original.
moviepimpdj 2 years ago 3
its strange to see them both hahaha
foxie175 2 years ago
The first version is better. first, it's the original and second, the two violent characters are creepy. I love this movie, it's so curious that the director doesn't show what we're used to in these days. For example, you don't see the woman getting naked or the boy getting shot. You just see a simple action like a man making himself a sandwich. Great.
sandrastaley 2 years ago 14
@sandrastaley and those really matter? its still a great movie even if u ont see a naked woamn or a kid getting shot in the face
delelta 1 year ago
@delelta you really didn't get it! I said "curious" and "great" to those facts
sandrastaley 1 year ago
@sandrastaley hey easy. u act like i was picking a fight with u. i was just stating that it still is great even though he didnt add in those things
delelta 1 year ago
@delelta sorry I didn't mean it that way! no hard feelings I hope :)
sandrastaley 1 year ago
@sandrastaley its ok no hard feelings :)
delelta 1 year ago
@sandrastaley He doesn't show it in either version because that is the whole point, a lot of horror fans who go into watching this would expect gore & nudity, Haneke greats discomfort by denying the audience what they expect.
TomHPMc 1 year ago
@TomHPMc Why did everyone missunderstood me? I know it is the point and it's pretty clever, I actually find it "Great".
sandrastaley 1 year ago
@sandrastaley My apologies, it was the word 'curious' that most have thrown me off there, now I see what you meant & you raise a great point about the film.
TomHPMc 1 year ago
@sandrastaley That it's the original is not an argument that it's better. Just sayin'. :3
MartinDenStore 8 months ago
@MartinDenStore Opinions.
sandrastaley 8 months ago
@sandrastaley Why does it matter? ^^
MartinDenStore 8 months ago
@MartinDenStore opposite opinions do matter actually ahah, but I get it ;)
sandrastaley 8 months ago
@sandrastaley Haha, ah you get what I mean. ;)
MartinDenStore 8 months ago
the guys in the newer version are hotter and seem more modern anyways
MegluvsHBK13 2 years ago
boah das gleichzeitig zu hören macht mir total wirr im schädel xD
/
hearing both versions simutaneously fucks my mind xD
VisualFucks 2 years ago
I think I like the American version better. its slower and the tension is higher from the beginning
ilovecrap 2 years ago
This is a good example of a movie I mostly loved, but which is almost completely ruined by just one scene. You know which scene I am talking about if you've seen this movie (the original - I haven't seen the new one, but I think it is the same). Up to that point the movie worked brilliantly as both a horror movie and a comment about violence in the media. This scene nearly ruins it for me on both levels. A great example of a film that gets too caught up in its own cleverness.
allnaturalhemp 2 years ago
I've seen both films and I don't know which scene you mean? presumptive~
egyptiansushi 2 years ago
I was referring to the scene where they rewind the movie back and change what happened. Sorry, I should have been more specific. Maybe it didn't bother everyone as much as it bothered me, but I hate it when a movie is so good that just one bad scene ruins it, and for me this was one of those movies.
By the way, did you like the remake or the original better? Or no difference?
allnaturalhemp 2 years ago
Eh I liked Arno Firsch better in the original than Michael Pitt.
And if you like that it is comment about violence in the media, why would you protest the biggest commentary scene? The audience is so bloodthirsty by that point that for some reason it LOVES to see that guy getting blown away (the only on-screen violence in the whole film), but then it turns out that didn't even happen. The anguish in being denied the only on-screen violence in the movie is great and powerful.
egyptiansushi 2 years ago
If you dislike it because it breaks the fourth wall, then why don't you also dislike him winking at the camera and talking to the camera the couple of times, too? Or is there something else 'obviously bad' about that scene that I'm missing? It's seriously my favorite scene... haha.
egyptiansushi 2 years ago
To me the difference with that scene is that with the talking to the camera and winking, the character is in control of events more, where in this scene he loses control for a minute and has to rely on (to me) such a weird gimmick to go back in time with the remote control.
On the other hand, I have to admit that it is powerful, you are right - since I thought it was the worst scene in the movie, and you thought it was the best. To cause two such different reactions is really interesting to me
allnaturalhemp 2 years ago
@egyptiansushi
The problem I had with this scene is that from this moment on, you completely lose hope in the couple's survival. You know they will die, because one of the guys is accorded powers that allow him to do whatever he wants. What grabbed me through most of the film was the feeling that they could somehow survive this.
insanej3 1 year ago
@insanej3 But thats not the director's intentions. He wants you to want see them suffer, not to want see themsurvive. When the Psychos discuss, they often refer to this, like when the one guy asks "You are on their side, are you?", while the director hopes you are not.
IF you are, you have succeeded the test, which the film is.
Battleschnodder 1 year ago
@Battleschnodder
Very interesting analysis, that's completely different of how I perceived the movie, though. I guess in that angle, this scene makes more sense.
insanej3 1 year ago
@allnaturalhemp Is that scene in the original? I didn't like it really either, and I've only seen the new one.
meamverysmart 1 year ago
the rewind? is that in both versions?
CreativeAlloy 2 years ago
Yeah, it is in both versions, unfortunately. I actually liked how they talked to the camera and stuff, I just thought that particular scene went too far and really ruined it for me.
allnaturalhemp 2 years ago
really? i thought it was good
pirenne 2 years ago
im wathcin dis on halloween!
EdgeHead579 2 years ago
dont it will ruin your night. have you seen it before?
NeilHonky 2 years ago
i hav! its DEPRAVED!
EdgeHead579 2 years ago
God It Gets ridonkulous how the Austria version even sometimes says stuff that sounds english like What for and the Number Four
SSJSasuke777 2 years ago
german for what is "was" and four is "vier".
egyptiansushi 2 years ago
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOKay!!!!!
SSJSasuke777 2 years ago
thats very unoriginal. the director could have just released the other version on dvd with english dubbed. it would have been easier and a lot less pointless or unoriginal
TheLenny1996 2 years ago
He's the first director to shot-for-shot remake one of his own films. I think that's actually very original. Not unoriginal.
egyptiansushi 2 years ago
I think its rather stupid actually.
NeilHonky 2 years ago
Whether or not it is stupid has nothing to do with how 'original' it is.
egyptiansushi 2 years ago
The american version sucks!
ganzobenstehn 2 years ago
Thanks for posting this comparison. I just saw the newer version last week and it still "sticks" with me. I'll have to rent the Austrian original and just see how different the acting is.
Great job!
KCJazzKeys 2 years ago
The only thing wrong with the remake was that it sucked. The pussy sounding psycho wimp was annoying, the kid was annoying too(good thing he gets shot), and the only cool thing was Michael Pitt's character. Yup.
brainwashed92 2 years ago
AAAAAH! WHAT DID YOU DO???
You forgot to put a spoiler alert D:
I didn't watch the movie. So yeah. Next time, spoiler alerts would be a good idea.
Thank you.
Waddleduck64 2 years ago
I think its really neat how they remade it the same way! Many people may be upset but thats their opinion. They did a good job doing shot for shot unlike a lot of remakes which change a lot of things. And since they were both directed by the same person its better! I for one loved the Remake, and the original seems just as good (Obviously!) But the actors in the 2007 were so cute. Ha, my opinion.
Anyway! Good job on making this! You did good matching the scenes! I'd like to see the other one!
ShugoSpade 2 years ago
wow this is like a shot for shot remake.
theLyricsSuck621 2 years ago 2
Why is it such a big deal if it was remade?omg a cultural difference lets cry about it.
both look good to me.
mco16 2 years ago
This just shows how fucking pointless remaking these movies really is.
Why can't people just learn to read?
Then maybe we wouldn't have to deal with, what I'm sure will be a pathetic remake of "Let the Right One In", a movie that came out just slightly over a year ago.
Not only is it being remade, they changed the name of it as well.
I implore you, simple minded viewers of "the summer blockbuster", learn to read.
donavonbray 2 years ago 3
i agree that people need to read fucking subtitles for a change instead of saying oh fuck this its german. english people seem to do this more than any other. but i do think that theres a point to remaking a film. to make it more modern or in tim burtons case (even though i love him more than anyone apart from quentin tarantino) because he liked the original but thinks he can do it better and just wants to see what he can do
BOOSHBOYDOM 2 years ago
I'm starting to think that it's America in general that is the cause of these situations (remakes of movies and cancellations of any intelligent shows).
I just finished watching the entire series "Arrested Development" (had watched it years ago when it was still on TV, but just bought the DVDs). It's probably the smartest show I have ever seen in terms of comedy yet it was cancelled. Makes me sick that it was taken off but The Simpsons is still on after 20 years. Sorry for the rant. lol
donavonbray 2 years ago 3
@BOOSHBOYDOM I man yeah it does seem kind of pointless to make the same exact movie. and I myself dont mind reading subtitles, but not everyone does and it may be better for some people to understand it in english rather then have to read the subtitles. they could focus more on the movie. Ha but idk I dont mind reading subtitles but there are people that have trouble doing it.
xMaGiCxSoApx 1 year ago
@xMaGiCxSoApx Have you not considerd that they made an exact remake of the film to show that the games happen to 'the people' have the exact same out come? That even in different countrys the pair still play there synical games? or maybe they just did remake the film for English speaking audiences.
MarksteySkate 1 year ago
It's pretty much exactly the same, besides from a bit more 90's feeling to the Austrian one, the colors and such.
Some might find that an exact remake is pointless, but then again, without it I'd probably never have seen this brilliance of a movie. Not that I dislike European movies, I'm European myself, but I was just never introduced to it, Hollywood films take up most of our cinema space.
GalacticChicken 2 years ago 2
this sucks
monster77y 2 years ago
I must say, the English version as a much better cinematography. As for the direction, still pretty good.
Augusto210 2 years ago
I only saw the american verion, and it was TRULY SOMETHING
TheRedIdentity 2 years ago 2
How come they didn't have more than one phone ? That does not seem plausible.
mcmoran23 2 years ago
It's totally plausible in 1997. One cell phone per family was pretty regular (if even they had that many!). Since this was a vacation home, they also had no land line.
In the 2008 one, the other cell phone is in the car, which gets stolen by the time they can get to it.
egyptiansushi 2 years ago
It's a vacation home. I imagine they'd only have one phone there.
sloucho84 2 years ago
haha love this movie. its the anti horror movie. f the critics who got scared of a movie which criticized them.
YouDidntdoAnything 2 years ago
are the 2 guys supposed to be gay or something?
boredstudent 2 years ago
No? What would make you say that?
egyptiansushi 2 years ago
cause they're deviants
boredstudent 2 years ago
..lol
egyptiansushi 2 years ago
i don't think so, i've only seen the 2008 version, and nothing shows that. I'd rather say they're brother or something, but anyway, they're lying all the time when they talk about them, we can't know
trojanlol 2 years ago
in my opinion, the american version is better than the other
mrsclockwork 2 years ago
The American version is a remake made scene-by-scene by the same director (Haneke) who made the original one.
pezCrayg 2 years ago
i dont like the stupid final of this movie
anacletocoronado 2 years ago
Why not? Would you prefer the typical good cop saves the day ending that every single Hollywood film ever made? Haneke's a reactionary.
Zarathustra06 2 years ago 3
I guess the german Paul makes more sense considering he's supposed to be tubby. And have is jelly rolls.
wickedlover101 2 years ago
I haven't seen the american version, but I LOVED the original one. The actor who acted Paul was in my mind great, rly creepy. The whole movie had very uneasy feeling throughout. Awesome movie, I would give it 4/5.
Bonefoot 2 years ago 3
the American version is amazing!
ptlw09 2 years ago 3
no reason to make more, but it was cool of you to take the time to do this. i was wondering how similar the shots were after i saw some clips of the the austrian version and they looked exactly like the U.S. version. 5 stars
thedahmerkid 2 years ago
I personally think the American version of Funny Games is better. The acting was a step up from the Austrian version and Peter and Paul came off as much more menacing.
molcoo 2 years ago
Comment removed
dael089 2 years ago
The original did have more of an eerie feel to it. I haven't seen either yet, but I have seen many clips and parts and I would go with the original. I'm not too fond of American remakes. They all tend to downplay the movie itself some way. Execept for The Ring. Of all the International to American remakes I've seen in any genre, that was actually the best done. Kudos Naomi for that.
shinjitsu85 2 years ago 2
sick video! really enjoyed watching both side by side!
bradellacott 2 years ago
why didnt they use shamwow to clean up the eggs. it would have been alot easyer
thetimeforfame 2 years ago
the original of funny games was done by the same director it says it on the cover.....but y would he make 2 the same...still the remake is really good
mccabedylan 2 years ago
Maybe he made them the same because he had so much fun making the first one, he wanted to do it again! =P
JackolynSparrow 2 years ago
Vanilla sky, the ring, funny games...these films and other are copies; the original movies are much better
pacodelbarcelona 2 years ago 2
german original is without a doubt a lot better. us was made to reach american audience with a more mellow atmosphere and known actors. naomi watts doesnt even come close to susanne lothar´s convincing performance as desperate victim. just watch the original. seriously.
staxstix 2 years ago
known actors <lol
the actors who play peter and paul are NOT NOT well known so i dis agree wid u on that.
But ye the two adults wasnt hired because they were known, its called talent xoxo
XxCole15xX 2 years ago
just because some little childish teenage girlie doesnt know any actors, doesnt make them unkown. if you want a movie to get more attention you give known actors a role. thats not talent, thats marketing. please dont respond to my comment and rate it negative if you have no idea what your little 15 year old brain tells you to talk about. ok?
staxstix 2 years ago
but i was saying the guys who play peter and paul arnt that well known. I know them because im a huge fan and admire all their movies they had done. So i think michael haneke chose them because they fitted the part, not because they are as u say 'well known'.
i know what im talkig about! and btw leaving ur comment with a question makes it seem like you want a reply even though you said you didnt.
btw how old are you??? Im 16 now not 15, and im not some dumb little girl . xoxo
XxCole15xX 2 years ago
no, you really dont know what you are talking about. and this is also quite unnecessary. if you want my age, look at my profile. bye.
staxstix 2 years ago
i do know what im talking about.
How is this unnecessary? opinions are necessary.
your 21 <wow so much older than me , u really must know what your talking about, because your 5 years my elder. CONGRATS!
and now i can say bye because im wasting my life proving a point to a moron like you. xoxo
XxCole15xX 2 years ago
this is unnecessary because it leads to nothing and because you seem unable to act not childish. but its not that you dont have enough time to grow up and behave properly. so, have fun in your future life miss young lady. and please! please! dont respond to that.
staxstix 2 years ago
how am i acting childish? by making a point of saying my opinion?
very childish <suree.
get past my age. Im not very mature but i understnad more things than most ppl wont! I behave properly u have no right to comment on me as a person. I will have fun, and 5 years from now when im making films, having then aired at sundance, you'll remeber me. =) xoxo bye
XxCole15xX 2 years ago
Comment removed
TessaSchouten 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
i loved reading your guys' argument :)
probably more interesting than the movie itself!
TessaSchouten 2 years ago
-.- html doesnt work on youtube.
tehfrog 2 years ago
"Are Americans so damn illiterate that they can read subtitles?"
That made no sense at all.
StormyLoveHypothesis 2 years ago 4
what about the scence at the neighbors
dalynca 2 years ago
thats amazing!
lovewutong 2 years ago
I'd say this is pretty close. LOL. Compared to other remakes... I guess.
aznbgirl06 2 years ago 4
i think paul and peter in the new 1 r far better at playin there characters. i think the pretty boy posh kids suit it better thn the dumb kid and the ruff kid as is in the old 1
BOOSHBOYDOM 2 years ago
Arno Frisch (the actor in the old one who is not featured in this scene that I think you're calling "rough") is definitely a pretty boy. Prettier than either of the new guys. :P
egyptiansushi 2 years ago
I thought the guy who played Paul in the remake fit the part.
RetepAdam 2 years ago 2
Meh, the US version didn't really amaze or shock me. The kids death and the dog dying made me sad, the rest was meh. I've seen worse in Anime. God damn Japanese.
Haii2you 2 years ago
what was different about the german version
alphadude500 2 years ago
Die deutsche Version ist deutlich besser. Die amerikanischen Schauspieler sind einfach nur grottenschlecht. Total unglaubwürdig.
waschbeckenfrisch 2 years ago 3
ja, das dachte ich auch als ich den film gesehen habe....hab den film auf meinem recorder, also den deutschen, und der is um längen besser ! der kommt dramatischer/kranker rüber :-P
Jigsaw222Killer 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
I fucking hate that movie. The par, when she kills him and he just revines it! I nearly shouted at the screen after yelling for the death part.
And also, that scene where she is alone after the two left and takes like fucking forever to get up. That whole take was serious over 5 minutes alone with nothing happen. So lame.
locke89 2 years ago
That take was closer to ten minutes and it was very powerful because it made you really deal with the fact that her son was killed. A more stereotypical movie would move onto something else very quickly, making the son's death completely emotionally free, but instead, this film really confronted you with it by lingering on it. When your son dies in real life, you're not immediately up for running around.
egyptiansushi 2 years ago
well when you might be next you might be. I'm sorry i have to agree with this guy, i hated that scene but i won't go as far as to say i hated the movie. Some of it was boring and a bit dragging but the concept and plot was really cool. I hated that one song they used, the only frantic song in the whole movie they play in the beginning.
I've only seen the recent version but i'm hoping the original will in some way be better.
sciencebledsun 2 years ago
As I understand it, the film wasn't supposed to be an enjoyable experience. It's supposed to be frustrating...it's all buildup without the kind of payoffs and catharsis that fans of horror movies have come to expect.
In a way its about the experience of watching a violent movie more than it is just a violent movie in-and-of itself. It challenges us to confront our bloodlust & how far we want to relate to the characters. Whether or not it works is different depending on the viewer, I think.
guestinformant9 2 years ago 2
Yeah they're hilarious NOT. and WTF is wrong with U.S. audiences? Are Americans so damn illiterate that they can read subtitles?
lezxotic 2 years ago
when you seeit side to side like this you can understand why people make comparrisons about which is the better version - not!
i only see a few slight differences. both films are wonderful
Nanakiismyhusband 2 years ago 3
is the old version only in german
Irishstud11 2 years ago
well, you can see the english on the bottom of the screen.
egyptiansushi 2 years ago
yeah i know i didnt know if the original with that cast was in english to
Irishstud11 2 years ago
I prefer the decor of the german version.
BitchinnShoes07 3 years ago
damn those eggs are different lol
me5g435rg 3 years ago 2
a fascinating insight into the yolk to egg white ratio of eggs on both sides of the atlantic here. Marvellous.
electricitycomesfrom 3 years ago
Omg, twins? Or a parralell world?
TwilitOnline 3 years ago
"Tubby" does look like a tubby on german version.
the7thmexican 3 years ago 3
I found this movie to be quite entertaining when is wasn't being incredibly dull.
sexygoodtimez 3 years ago
wow. thats entertaining :)
the remake is definitely better.
mainly because the actors are much more attractive. :D
CR4CkAdDiCt 3 years ago 3