Correction!

Posted by · 3:51 pm · December 26th, 2008

I knew when I tapped out my “year in superlatives” post last week that something was bugging me about my Best Poster pick.  I had forgotten something, I just knew it.  And as much as I loved the “W.” one-sheet I picked, I don’t know, it didn’t feel right.

Then I was reading through this list of the year’s best posters and it clicked.  Even though I despised Michael Haneke’s “Funny Games” remake with every fiber of my being, this was a brilliant piece of work.

So, correction appended.




→ 10 Comments Tags: , , | Filed in: Daily

10 responses so far

  • 1 12-26-2008 at 9:00 pm

    Emily said...

    Why didn’t you like Funny Games?

  • 2 12-26-2008 at 9:00 pm

    Zan said...

    I would like to know too. I’m prepared with my rebuttal.

  • 3 12-26-2008 at 9:26 pm

    Kristopher Tapley said...

    It’s compelling as far as acting is concerned. Not a bad word to say about any of the performers. But it’s nihilism is too much for me, and thematically, that nihilism says absolutely nothing.

  • 4 12-26-2008 at 10:02 pm

    Zan said...

    It’s actually the complete opposite of a nihilistic film. It’s a firm, slap-on-the-wrist satire directed at those who consume such morbid violence and blood-splattering action without remorse. Haneke does an absolutely tremendous job of critiquing the typical, monotonous gruesome horror fare we’re used to seeing. A lot of his shots and sequences in the film are precisely the opposite of what is normally seen in trite slasher flicks; or in other words, he shows what things would really be like. I don’t expect everyone to embrace it (because of the grim subject matter), but he didn’t just make it for the sake of making it. It’s actually a fairly bold statement about the bloodlust of many moviegoers.

  • 5 12-26-2008 at 10:34 pm

    Kristopher Tapley said...

    That’s fair enough, but the point is lost within. And really, it’s a trite point to be making in the first place. I thought it a gruesome display, satire or not. And maybe that’s the point, but I don’t need to be sold on such matters so it became a nuisance more than a revelation.

  • 6 12-26-2008 at 10:50 pm

    Zan said...

    I can understand your point there. It seems like he made it more to pat himself on the back for such wit, but it came off as being a bit grandiose.

    I certainly wouldn’t call it a great film, but I also don’t consider it to be worthy of the company of such drivel as “88 Minutes” and “21” in the “Year’s Worst” category.

  • 7 12-26-2008 at 11:19 pm

    Kristopher Tapley said...

    Well, like I said, I recognized a plenty of skill throughout, especially the acting and certainly in Haneke’s directing. The film wasn’t near my worst list but I’m comfortable hating a film even if I know it’s expertly crafted.

  • 8 12-27-2008 at 4:52 am

    Ross Miller said...

    I agree with Zan on this one. Funny Games is one of the best films of the year imo. It is an expertly crafted sattire on the way we consume violence in movies not only without a problem but we actually cheer it on. As an example when the original (which this is basically an exact shot-for-shot remake of) showed at Cannes (I think it was, anyway) at the part where the woman finally gets one over on the invaders and shoots one of them the crowd actually cheered. But Haneke brilliantly foreseen this and said, “Nope, you’re not getting THAT so easily,” and rewinds what happens, putting it back on course. Just one of the many examples of pure brilliance in this film.

    Perhaps it has something do with a certain pessimistic look on things that I tend to have that I loved the film so much. But even if you stand back from it (Haneke always keeps you one or two steps removed anyway, he doesn’t WANT you be part of it; he’s trying to make you WATCH) the way it’s put together is fantastic. The direction is expert, the building of tension is almost unbearable and therefore very succesful, the acting (particularly from Watts) is at times jaw-dropping to watch, the cinematography is crisp and sharp, it’s jarring in all the right places and it makes you THINK. The very fact we are discussing it proves that. I think it’s a great achievement and although I prefer the original (having watched both that and this remake several times it’s clear I prefer the original version) I still think this Haneke did something fantastic with this.

    I think his success (not money wise, I mean how it worked out) with a remake (f his own film and shot-for-shot no less) defies logic, almost.

  • 9 12-27-2008 at 9:24 pm

    Zan said...

    To further illustrate Haneke’s point as you suggested with the rewinding, he does plenty to completely defy banal horror movie standards. The dog falling out of the trunk: visibly disgusting. The kid isn’t supposed to die in a horror film, right? Well, here he dies first. After Roth is killed, Watts should just be able to jimmy the handcuffs with a hairpin, right? Well, we have a 9-minute sequence to show that it’s not that easy. But she’ll win in the end, right? Not exactly that either. She gets nudged off the boat in the most anti-climactic of ways.

    Pitt and Corbert ARE a veritable Leopold and Loeb. There doesn’t have to be a purpose for their violence.

    But, Kris, if you can separate personal feeling from objective analysis, that’s a very good thing.

  • 10 12-27-2008 at 10:37 pm

    Chad said...

    you seen this?

    http://www.impawards.com/2008/posters/adam_resurrected_ver2.jpg