Literally "too deep" for 95% of its audiences

Literally "too deep" for 95% of its audiences.

This perfectly took apart most of the exploitation and torture horror stuff that is being shat out by Hollywood and fed to audiences world wide.
It is actual terror to the -unsuspecting- viewers because Haneke knows his shit. He knows all the conventions of the craft and breaks them or shifts them to the point where you can't run away from it.
It's one of those rare movies where thinking "It's just a movie" doesn't help you to distance yourself from what's going on.
I rarely remember a film -appart from Irreversible maybe- that gets the viewers this hard by his voyeuristic balls.

>inb4 spoilers
>inb4 DUDE BREAKING THE 4TH WALL LMAO

>inb4 It's not the original one

When Haneke found that his original movie was only shown in arthouse theaters in the US he remade it shot by shot because he wanted it to reach wider US American audiences.

>2007 remake

Go fuck yourself, faggot.

Here we go. Kindly read and go fuck yourself.

I like it but I disagree with what it was doing with it's message.

Also Michael Pitt is great in this.

Why you watch this and not the original?

I did. I watched both. The original years ago and the US remake just now. It still works. Both versions are good although I prefer the original one.

Better sound, cameras, acting. I've seen both more than once and honestly, if I were to recommend one to someone, it's the remake.

This is me and I'm ok with recommending the remake to US viewers. Absolutely disagree on what you say about the acting. Sound and camera are fine in both.

Is this the good horror movies thread?

I saw the original Texas Chainsaw Massacre for the first time last night. The perception I had of it was thankfully wrong, it was a masterfully put together film, even if some bits aged poorly. The sound design is top notch spooks, and the first actual death scene is just sudden but without being a jumpscare.

People are plebs, OP. It actually fills me with joy to think off all those idiots that were confused or disappointed by this.
Although I find it sad to see when some work goes over ppl's heads.

Pic related btw

Where is this from?

Comment section of some stream site.

>DUDE OUR MAIN CHARACTERS MAKE DUMB DECISIONS THAT ONLY HAPPEN IN HORROR MOVIES TO MANUFACTURE TENSION LMAO
Neck yourself memester

>it's a the protagonist kills the antagonist but the other antagonist has a time travel remote and rewinds time to stop her scene

wut

I'm normally not a fan of remakes but I have the greatest respect for Haneke to remake this because he felt he wanted to reach the specific audience.

Heck, I just rewatched the trailer and its brilliantly done: It's a fucking trap he puts out and misleading as hell...
It's on one level with how Kubrick tricked couples and normies into watching Eyes Wide Shut.

That said, I still recommend to anybody with a three digit IQ to watch the original instead.

>Hollywood makes violence unreal, it makes it unrealistic and therefore consumable for an audience. And this is detestable to me. It’s dishonest.

Kek, he's literally out guy.

>memester
Sorry, your opinion just got discarded

I've seen worse. And I think apart from how the wife reacts in the beginning there's jack shit they could have done.

It's a film which perfectly encapsulate the sensation of being told off by an elderly Austrian man.

And I really don't approve of him remaking it. Nobody wanted to watch it in German ad nobody wanted to watch it in English. That this is Sup Forums approved is all the proof you need of just how much we attract the edgelord audience.

It's a pleb filter.

>Nobody wanted to watch it

That's the point, you fucking retard. That's why he constructed the movie like a trap for a certain audience. It's not meant to be a movie you enjoy.

I also doubt Haneke needs any form of approvement from Sup Forums or in this case - idiots like you.

Fucking idiot.

>of being told off
You're not smart, are you?

this movie is literally only known as the "movie with the dude from The Way of The Gun"

Watched this in the 8th grade with my best friend and laughed so hard we had to turn it off and crawl outside for fresh air.

Dylan Roof's looking pretty good desu

>'Nobody wanted to watch it' is an argument about the quality of a film now

Did you watch too many Marvel movies or something?

I think we agree all the performances and technical aspects in both were great.

>yfw these are the people that post on this board.

Fuck. Fuck you.

>with the lights out starts playing

>i do not likes this move

It's perfect. I'll be using this from now on on here.

That's the kind of girl I'd want to recommend Irreversible to. Tell her it's a good and kinda dark thriller and great entertainment.

i do not likes this movie neither the original nor the remake

>especially the shorter one

When will they learn?

Saved and edited for further use

Insult me all you want, but Haneke clearly intended this as an exercise in cinematic trolling. Twice. He courted the audience who watch slashers or exploitation films and intentionally made a film that they would find repellent. It's a scolding.

Since these are from streaming websites you might actually be right.

But I completely agree with everything you say here! You pretty much nailed it. The difference only seems to be that I can enjoy what he does here and you don't, I guess?

edgy

I guess the idea of upsetting the people who still watch slashers has appeal; it's a genre I hated even when I was younger. But that doesn't make me like the movie itself because it's so unpleasant to watch.

You are probably correct.

Why would they find it "repellent"? It's just a standard horror movie.

Everyone who "watches slashers" who saw the movie was just bored though.

why are normies so fucking stupid? I seriously don't understand, they act like lesser humans

You are about to find out, fucko.

When was the last time you watched it?

>implying that disgusting person in that pic is a normie and not an omega being
The guy above it is probably a normie and these ppl most likely post here too by now.

What?

Only normies are retarded enough to comment reviews about films on free movie streaming sites using their facebook accounts

>It is not explained
AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

Why was Adam Sandler such a jerk in the original?

If you think that's tough, wait till you read the only two comments on Haneke's Caché/Hidden on that site. :^)

Stop this.

>tottenham supporter
no surprise

>watching the Naomi Watts-less silly language version

If you think this movie is "deep" then I'm not sure what to tell you. Yeah, I get the message of the movie, but it should have been a short film. It really isn't that clever or insightful. I'm not surprised audiences hated the movie considering it spends the entire running time chastising the viewers.

It's obnoxious hipster shit.

Going to watch this now for this first time. Original or Remake which do I go with? I don't mind subs

>Haneke thread
>that one guy who hates him because apparently Haneke hates white people isn't shitposting here

Idiot.

It's hard for me to recommend you which one in that case. Go for original I'd say though.

Original. Main villain is ten times better than Michael Pitt.

I'd say watch the original first and then take a look at the remake just to see how he recreated it shot for shot.

But why? Naoi watss is fantastic and its a scene by scene remake..

I don't get how you guys didn't find the film captivating or entertaining at all- the acting is fucking great and it's still done ice cold in the psycho department. In no way did I find the movie insulted me, the """twist""" was just cerebral icing on the film cake for me

>lmao look at how self aware and edgi and anti hollywood I am
>pls gibe good reviews
Legitimately the least enjoyable movie I've ever seen, it felt like that awful Uwe Boll one but less entertainingly bad.

Tough to say. Both are good, but I love Ulrich Muhe more than I like Tim Roth so I'm biased. Then again Naomi Watts is fucking beautiful.

Can't help you, sorry. Both are fine.

lmao at you pretentious cunts milking each others dicks

The Emperors New Clothes

desu you can "beat the movie" by just not seeing it.

...

>tfw the movie's metatheatric fourth wall breaking puts the onus of the violence on the viewer so instead you rewind the film and save Naomi Watts, leaving that as the canonical ending

>tfw you only watch the scene when they make her strip and turn it off satisfied after.

Horror films don't scare me. I'm scared of real issues like poverty and systematic racism.

The rewind scene is the final call for a walkout. Its also subversive in terms of audiences wanting different endings.

>entertaining
You weren't supposed to be find it entertaining. If you found the movie entertaining then you are the exact type of person the film is chastising.
>the "twist" was just cerebral icing on the film cake
What "twist"? Nothing in the movie really surprised me.

>You weren't supposed to be find it entertaining

>You can't be entertained by good acting and solid filmmaking
>You can't enjoy or appreciate film on a technical level in terms of editing etc.

I liked it but I think that he could have done the exact same deconstruction without breaking the 4th wall and rewinding the film

It could have worked both ways but he wanted it to only work one.

If you are that impressed by a movie breaking the fourth wall then you're an idiot.

You can appreciate something without being entertained. I appreciated the point of the film but I was bored as hell. The movie is a short film stretched to future length. It is painful.

the 4th wall is just "there". The only time the audience is addressed directly is the final one.

DUDE BREAKING THE 4TH WALL LMAO
I fucking hate this film.

I was not only referring to the wall-break, I mean the rewind scene in addition to the dialogue the two of them have on the boat in the end.

I don't get why you are defending a movie that was purposely constructed to be entirely pointless. The point of the movie is that it has no point. It really isn't anything special or brilliant.

If you say so. The acting alone was good enough to keep me engaged. On top of that I'm a sucker for Haneke's visual style.

Funny thing is most critics reviewed it as a slasher film rather than a subservive deconstruction of a genre that is that time has over-reliance on blood, multiple reboots, alternate endings, and final girl tropes that are prominent at that time.

>The point of the movie is that it has no point
Not him, but that's just fucking bullshit. I'm sorry if the point of the movie went over your head or you couldn't appreciate it.

Most critics are idiots, so that doesn't surprise me.

The director said his goal was to make a movie that was pointless. Haha. Stop acting like this movie is "deep" it really isn't.

Michael Haneke just puritanism for upper class, secular, liberals. Literally everything he makes is an utterly joyless screed against western civilization, and this time he just so happened to choose horror movie violence to decry instead of bucolic protestantism or the plight of immigrants or whatever.

It's the cinematic equivalent of listening to George Carlin rant about consumerism or religion, and it attracts the same kinds of people.

I would like to see them on what they think of Craven's Scream, New Nightmare against Haneke's Funny Games 1997.

"Haneke states that the entire film was not intended to be a horror film. He says he wanted to make a message about violence in the media by making an incredibly violent, but otherwise pointless movie."

>Implying that isn't making a point

Holy shit are you retarded?

the facebook comment section is always retarded

The point is literally the director blaming his audience for the movie he chose to make.

>He says he wanted to make a message about violence in the media by making an incredibly violent movie
>Hurr the movie is pointless
Go back to facebook please

YES I FUCKING GET IT APART FROM THE VIOLENCE THE MOVIE HAS NO POINT TO IT, AND THAT IS THE POINT! WOW! SO FUCKING BRILLIANT! DEEPEST MOVIE OF ALL TIME!

Maybe stick to capeshit

Holy shit. Calm down, faggot

The arrogance he has to do such a thing is really quite remarkable.

Even more remarkable are all the people who think that Funny Games is deep for Haneke exercising all the moral sophistication of a five year old and blaming the world for his art.

I believe the tone was more mocking than angry.

This. You pretty much hit the nail on the head.