Funny Games 1997 - 2008 comparison

I might make an actual video comparison (i.e., not holding a camera up to my monitor) at some point, just because I seriously find the accuracy of the director's own remake so unexplainably amusing side-by-side.

Category:

Film & Animation

Tags:

• funny
• games
• comparison
• shot
• by
• remake
• michael
• haneke
• side

[utowndude]

Making a shot for shot remake is worse than remaking it in the first place. WHAT IS THE POINT of shooting the same exact script and using the same exact shots??? IT'S SOOOO STUPID

[egyptiansushi]

@utowndude it has absolutely never been done before, especially by the same director, especially in such a way that points out the things he was critiquing in the first film (the movie is a comment on american violence so to remake it as an american film is hilarious)

it's all commentary and it's all absurdly original. no one else will ever do this and it was done as well as possible.

[malcolmcox]

So I'm englsih (american), and having no biased opinion towards either countries, i must say that the re-make is better. Michael Pitt gives such a chilling portrayal as to where to original guy seems to have less emotion. It may not have been intentional, but the director made a much better film the second time.

and also, this movie is not a scary movie. quit referring to it as one.

[egyptiansushi]

The lack of emotion of the first guy IS the chilling part. What kind of inhumane person wouldn't be emotive? Creepy.

[minimcrrules]

You should make it.

[egyptiansushi]

I did, check my 7th most recent video.

[kingsod]

Just becuse they are scene by scene remakes doesn't make them the same! I much prefer the 97 version for the characters. Stripping the mother for instance, was more humiliating in the 97 version - I believe Watts was miscast for this only reason in the 2007 version. Both great though.

[thesecretseven]

remaking the exact film was a part of the symbolism of it. it's the same director, he can do what he wants.

[Nutplucker]

The original actress seemed more dedicated and into it than Naomi Watts (check out the last scene in the house, when they start stabbing her husband, that's shock in her eyes, it was more just despise in Watts' expressions).

I also think that all the other actors worked better in the original, and believe me I wanted to love the remake as much as the original, cause finally we were getting this great movie now with better visuals etc. Still good though.

[hendersonhasselbalch]

The characters of the second are common- mass production thriller psychos, whith no special characteristics. We ve watched tons of movies with this typical american style of interpretation, that has started getting amusing already. I am choosing the 1997 one.

[monkeytart1]

it's not stupid to recreate a film. perhaps the producers & director weren't happy with the film the first time. it may not have been what they were looking for and therefore casted different people for the roles. i find the 2008 version far better than the first. the actors in the first version in my opinion didn't do as good of an acting job. naomi watts in particular did a far better job. the kid in the first one is strange. peter is strange in the first version. i could go on, but i won't.

[MissBadGirl95]

shocking!

[utowndude]

@egyptiansushi . . .seems like a waste of time and money to me