Ah, NC-17. Possibly one of the dumber ratings out there. The concept is great! Tag movies, like this, that aren't made for kids but are for an adult audience, with a rating that keeps kids away. In principle this is great! In execution, it's been deeply flawed. Newspapers won't advertise films with this rating, most reviewers won't review them, and studios won't generally allow them to be released. It's to the credit of Fox that they allowed this rather nice little movie to be put out uncut (though one of the male leads isn't... ha! Penis joke!).

The Dreamers concerns an American in Paris, played by Michael "Drop-pants Gorgeous" Pitt. He's a student visiting there who falls in with a twin brother/sister pair who love movies as much as he does. The twins aren't quite incestual, but they're as close as anyone can get.

The movie is something of a love-note to cinema. You see clips from a lot of the greatest movies of the early days of film, and get to see the kids recreate several of the scenes for their own (occasionally erotic), amusement. The movie also expertly highlights Paris in the late 1960's, giving you a real feel for the time and place and for what was going on.

Where the film fails... well, it doesn't fail in any real big ways. I gave it four stars because it felt like something was missing, though I couldn't put my finger on what (part of it is that the two male leads have an obvious simmering attraction to each other that doesn't get acted upon in the movie. I understand it does in the book the film is based on). There wasn't anything bad or wrong about the movie, but something did seem to be missing.

One thing that isn't missing, though, is acres of bare flesh. If you're one of those who doesn't like to see close-ups of penises and vaginas, then this likely isn't the film for you.

I'd actually recommend this movie for just about anyone over the age of 13 or so, provided you're a parent who doesn't mind your kids seeing a movie with lots of sexuality but no violence. If you'd prefer it the other way around, perhaps you need to rethink your priorities.

I haven't seen many other Bertolucci films, so I can't really compare them to this one. I know I liked it, though, and it's worth owning on this DVD, with plenty of extras, including a commentary by Bertolucci himself. Buy and enjoy!

Typically I'm down for a good nihilistic flick. If a movie can't be entertaining, it can at least be enthralling. The problem with Funny Games is that it was neither. It's too bad because the set up is simple and effective and the movie boasts an excellent cast with performances to match. Naomi Watts, Timothy Roth and Devon Gearhart are superb as the family in peril and our villains are played to wicked perfection by Michael Pitt and Brady Corbet (polite and well dressed on the outside, evil psychos on the inside). So what the heck went wrong?

My main gripe with the flick is that it's too damn pretentious. I get what director Michael Haneke (remaking his own Austrian film for American audiences) is doing. He's making a film about violence in society and violence as entertainment. We, the audience, are responsible for the carnage that happens to this family because we're watching it. We love to watch but do we even care? Hey, I'm hip to what your saying, no reason to hit me over the head with it. But getting hit over the head is exactly what happens. In fact, I think the weapon I was bludgeoned with was the Art House Movies 101 text book. There are several 4th wall breaking moments that I feel take the viewer out of the movie and dull its impact, hence weakening the film's message overall. There are several times when the villains talk directly to the audience (as if mocking us for not being able to turn away). I think the film would have been better served to have saved these scenes for the end of the film instead of peppered through out. Trust the audience enough to understand what the film is truly saying instead of forcing it down our throats. Haneke really should have studied the tag line to Last House on the Left; the audience is the one that needs to tell itself it's only a movie, not the director.

I really think that if the movie had nixed some of the art house wankery, it would have been a much more powerful film and still conveyed the same message. The funny thing (no pun intended) is that at times the flick teetered on the edge of being powerfully brilliant but kept falling over in to "just plain depressing" and that gets boring pretty quick. I admit that this is a movie I may re-visit later on with a different perspective and perhaps end up with a different view on it. Like I said, there's good stuff in here for sure, I just wasn't in to the execution. The movie has spurred a lot of interesting debate (and a lot of "your opinion sucks" silliness) on internet message boards, so the movie definitely has had an impact on viewers. I do recommend giving the film a look, but your opinions will vary.

by M. Moscato

For anyone who floated just above those cresting waves of what was and has long been that cliché but prevalent adolescence characterized by chemical imbalance and so much angst to fill a fleet of zeppelins, for anyone who blistered their fingertips for the first time and then callused them by learning those admittedly simple but thoroughly resonant songs, and especially for anyone now so reticent to even look upon (much less play) one of those sequestered five legendary LPs—for individuals of such temperament, Gus Van Sant’s Last Days will likely be an uncomfortable but significant experience. Therapeutically speaking, however, it may not be highly recommended for others: particularly those in any more morose a place that perhaps involves darkly peering into bathroom mirrors at night. Not unforeseeably, Last Days could very well contribute to some long-eschewed regression. That fair warning aside, though, this film inspired by the final days leading up to Kurt Cobain’s suicide offers a fascinating portrait devoid of the usual sensational artifices and pitfalls found in such accounts of rock and roll tragedy.

Last Days opens with some intriguing shots of a wandering and dazed man struggling through an unmistakably northwestern (Washington state) wilderness. The apparent inner chaos of this man contrasted with nature's otherwise calm and indifferent disposition is a reoccurring theme expressed throughout the film. And although this thinly veiled character is not addressed as Blake until after these opening scenes in the swampy woodlands, most viewers will be instantly aware of his real, understood name and the very spirit that is being resurrected when at night around a small campfire he lifts his head and simultaneously croons and howls: "Home, home on the range!" The wholly authentic delivery by a seemingly possessed young actor (largely unknown) yields a chilling result to make neck hairs stand upright. That actor is an appropriately scrawny Michael Pitt (who Gus Van Sant discovered for the main part almost seven years before shooting), and the talented thespian actually wrote the film's two key songs that he also performs with equally haunting effect.

In fact, haunting is exactly, overwhelmingly, the sensation that encapsulates Last Days: from the familiar red and black long-sleeved striped shirt to those wide-framed vintage yellow sunglasses; how that dirty blonde hair hangs limply in front of his eyes; and, again, the way that verdant landscape with its fluttering leaves starkly looms against the gray of a seemingly decayed and wintery miniature castle, the resolute sky of slate, and that haggard figure frequently fleeing across the spellbinding canvas between the two, caught somewhere between backdrop and foreground, simply trying to escape. Nature’s green hues have rarely looked so macabre.

Then there are those two quintessential songs that are performed onscreen. Fittingly, the first one showcases the electric guitar with a gradually building composition and then frenzied culmination (all part of a lengthy, and likely arduous, tracking shot), while the second song is more pensive and utilizes the acoustic guitar (with a different, closer, and fully stationary camera technique). Both scenes are similarly hypnotic and provide an intimate experience that very few people—if any—ever encountered with Blake's real life counterpart.

As an afterthought, with all of the focus on the individual and inner distress, the success of Last Days and its captivating narrative appears particularly impressive in light of daily current events that reveal an increasingly unjust world plagued by socio-economic, political, and environmental turmoil. Doubtless confronted by similar global circumstances (since such has been the state of most of civilization since the industrial revolution and, the environment aside, for much of human history), combined with the irreconcilable ironies of the ludicrous music industry and international fame, Blake's demise is not surprising. Along with every insignificant acquaintance, door-to-door missionary, phone book salesman, third-rate private detective, and record company exec out to suck every bit of marrow from his bones, it literally looks like this, the entire weight of the world, is pressing down on his emaciated body and posture, crushing this already very disturbed and clinically depressed shred of a man. Whatever Blake's unspoken pre-existing mental and physical conditions (Cobain reportedly became addicted to heroin as a painkiller for his untreatable and excruciating ulcers), none of the external forces driving him to withdrawal down this bleak subterranean path were ever going to help.

Michael Haneke's FUNNY GAMES U.S. (a remake of his own film of 1997) explores (inexorably) the precariousness inherent in bourgeois lifestyles, especially in the world of those Reaganite winners whose summer enclaves--gated, cloistered within high walls of shrubbery, alienated from the dark forces of social life in a constantly degraded America and also from contact with neighbors--conceived as bastions of liberty and independence, easily convert into prisons. The Farbers (Tim Roth, Naomi Watts, Devon Gearhart) have retreated for a spate of sailing and barbecuing, with the dog, the cellphone, and the blithe attitude that bespeaks a complete denial of Wordworth's line, "The world is too much with us, late and soon." The world is not with the Farbers at all, except as snippets of opera they can quiz one another about as they shuffle along the interstate. Unctuously insinuating themselves into this pristine little world--not really so little, perhaps, but more than utterly pristine, with its polished cabinets and lush broadloom, its flatscreen, its refrigerator full of sirloin--are two sweet-looking preppies (Michael Pitt, Brady Corbet), schizophrenic, perhaps; or gay; or just plain full of hate for everything that American success means--even though they are nothing if not success stories themselves: clean as kleenex, decked out in tennis whites, well-spoken, polite to a fault.

These two do horrible things to the Farbers, and--to void the film of just a tiny bit of its mystery--finally kill them all; but not before demonstrating, through Haneke's golden touch, a richly analysed vein of duplicity and arrogance in what Christopher Sharrett calls the "American civilizing project." The etiquette, for instance, which becomes almost painful, would be required in a tightly packed island society (such as England) as a way of buffering possible interpersonal and class collisions (preserving the prerogatives of class here meaning keeping the uppers from having to actually produce friction by rubbing against their "inferiors"). In the Farbers' summer spot, however, the neighbors are separated by the lake, or by high shrubs, and do not really interact; each man is in his castle. Etiquette is hardly necessary--as in the golden days of the West. Yet brushed young Paul and Peter apologize and "please/thank you" their way through every depraved torture they inflict, disconnected from the violence the commit and watch much as the Farbers are disconnected--willfully--from the violent world in which they live.

I am watching The Dreamers right now.  I haven't seen this film in several years and I forget about how great it is.  Well written and intelligent with some damn sexy actors.  In 2003, when it was made, it was given an NC-17 rating but still sold tickets.

Gotta love independent films - check it out!

Funny Games (U.S.)

Grade: A-
Cast: Tim Roth, Naomi Watts, Michael Pitt, Brady Corbett
Director: Michael Haneke
Rated R for terror, violence and some language.
Runtime: 112 min
Release company: Warner Independent Pictures
www.funnygames-themovie.com

'Funny Games', a shot-for-shot remake of Michael Haneke's Austrian 1997 film, is the sort of film that really shouldn't be spoiled, so I'll simply sum it up by saying that two young imps (Pitt and Corbett, who are decidedly more adorable than their Austrian counterparts) thrust themselves into the lives of a family (Watts and Roth), and force upon the family their own unique brand of entertainment. As for the product itself, it is a very solid piece of filmmaking from all angles; visually exacting, with strong performances from all parties (particularly enjoyable from the cruel duo), though Watts... Watts tries her darnedest, and we appreciate that. I daresay that Watts needs to take it one step further and lose herself in a role, because all I tend to see is a person who is trying sooooo hard.

Haneke clearly doesn't believe that the purpose of art is entertainment, or a celebration of human accomplishment and emotion, or perhaps an expression of love - for Haneke, a film is a lesson, though really more like a performance piece. Basically, Haneke's method of artistic expression is to walk up to you and resolutely slap you in the face, just to demonstrate to yourself how you will react. Then he steps back, grins and mutters, "There, now wasn't that edifying?" His work can be construed as deeply nihilistic, pessimistic, and is always discomforting. The purpose of 'Games' is to probe the distinction between fiction and reality, and more specifically, to test our own reactions to violence.

I cannot, in good conscience, compliment Haneke without mentioning these detriments. So, conversely, the film is not without its pleasures and is actually quite interesting and, if you know what you're getting into, often quite funny (now that I've seen both versions of 'Funny Games,' I view it as a comedy, albeit a sick and rather dry one). Haneke is a terrifically talented filmmaker - which makes it more of a shame that his interest in story is dwarfed by his agenda, namely that of driving his point home - into you, like a railroad spike. Talent notwithstanding, this pretty much undisputibly makes Haneke, the man, somewhat monstruous. If you can get past that - if you want to - then his films become enjoyable on a different level. The catch is that you have to be in on the joke. In regards to violence, the force of the aggressor that disrupts the peaceful man will always be be the louder, more noticeable thing. It is on this level that Haneke is to be regarded - as a force that cannot be denied.

Delirious

Grade: C+
Cast: Steve Buscemi, Michael Pitt, Alison Lohman, Gina Gershon
Director: Tom DiCillo
Rated:
Runtime: 107 minutes
Release Company: Peace Arch
www.delirious-lefilm.com

Some are pretty and/or blessed, while quite a few more people inhabit less prestigious social rungs - and it sucks to suck.  So observes Tom DiCillo (Living in Oblivion, The Real Blonde), well-to-do MediocriVille inhabitant.  With a thoughtless smear of jet black, "kinda-funny-lookin" Buscemi's character Les is painted - a misanthropic scavenger of celebrity, a paparazzi photographer.  Aside from being, like us all, a human being, he has not one redeeming quality.  Les encounters a charming, self-effacing young vagrant named Toby and takes him on as an assistant, letting him just-adequate closet space for sleep.  To no great surprise, seeing the two men stand side-by-side in public illuminates Les's complete lack of character, kindness, and patience, especially when other warm bodies instinctively gravitate towards Toby.  Les gives Toby plenty of reasons to better-deal him, which Toby naturally ends up doing through no fault of his own (as he is virtually faultless).  Wannabe actor Toby is inevitably spotted and becomes involved in a perfect cover-story union with a perpetually cleavage-baring pop diva, performed well, as usual, by Alison Lohman.  The question becomes how can the utterly bitter Les go on living, having now had a true taste of the celebrity he's whored himself for for years?

Really, celebrities, pretty people, happy stories, beauty personified in others – its why many people go to the movies in the first place; the vicarious experience of celebrity, fame, beauty, lust, adoration.  Could it be that those who view art, and don’t create it, are nothing more than paparazzi of a different nature?  Delirious is successful in its choice of subject matter – beyond that, it’s about as piercing as a TV movie.  The film is like the character of Toby - decent, earnest, but rather simple and ineffectual.  Alas, DiCillo.  He illuminated a world in which a select few are born into adoration and talent - God save the rest.

I've obviously been sending all the right vibrations into the catmosphere because my favorite hood-cat came for a visit, and the mysterious Siamese that lives across the street did too, and then at night I saw a cat hanging out in the a parking lot and had a little photo shoot before overhearing a girl in distress talk about her missing cat, so I directed her towards said kitty.

Possible explanations for all my cat luck:

- I'm turning into a cat, so obvious, my hypnagocic states are getting more powerful, which maybe explains why cats seem almost sentient, but unwilling or unable to read and write and only have an elementary grasp of spoken languages, uh, meow.

- Chemistry, i.e. pheremones, like some residual after effect of consuming massive quantatities of a plant that's cousin to catnip over the last ten years.

- New world of mostly sober thinking (almost straight edge revenge).

- Anything-goes composting experiment in the frost yard could possibly smell really good to some cats, who doesn't love coffee grinds and carrot tops.

Oh yeah, Haneke's shot-for-shot remake of his own film Funny Games is only slightly less effective in English, and because of the famous actors, but I did enjoy not having to read subtitles and the North American setting. As always anything that periodically breaks down the fourth wall is right up my alley, and for sure Michael Pitt is just a genius, so yeah, great. I sort of fail to see the hype about that Brady Corbet kid though, but I mean, he was on 24.

Funny Games passe d'un continent à l'autre et c'est aussi surprenant que logique. Surprenant de la part de Michael Haneke qui s'évertu à réaliser des films en marge du marché commercial régenté par les Etats-Unis. Logique parce que cette histoire de séquestration à domicile prend une nouvelle ampleur sur le sol américain.

Remake au plan par plan, seuls les acteurs changent. On retrouve Naomi Watts (également productrice du film), Tim Roth et Michael Pitt. Le choix des comédiens est ma première critique. Seule Naomi Watts me convaint totalement. Mais Michael Pitt était un choix trop évident. Il joue dans tous les films indépendants américains, il est blond et on sait bien que les psychopates font encore plus peur quand ils sont blonds. Je dois avouer qu'il joue très bien, mais je ne peux m'empêcher de faire la comparaison avec Arno Frisch, dans la version autrichienne du film. Ce dernier était beaucoup plus subtil dans ce rôle de tortionnaire.

Dans le premier Funny Games, l'ambiance me semble plus glauque, plus sombre et plus subtile à nouveau. Ce qui change considérablement, c'est la photographie du film. Dans la version U.S. les images sont plus lisses, plus claires, plus en contraste avec le sang qui tâche les murs. Il m'apparaît alors plus manichéen...

Mais ce qui est très intéressant dans ce remake c'est le propos nouveau qui y est apporté. Le premier film s'inscrivait dans l'héritage impossible du III° Reich, dans cette suite on entend encore les échos du 11 septembre et de la guerre en Irak. L'utilisation des armes à feux, à portée de main des enfants, prend beaucoup plus d'ampleur dans cette version U.S. et le sadisme castrateur du film attaque de plein fouet l'image idyllique de la famille chrétienne américaine. C'est pour cela que ce n'est pas un simple remake, ce n'est pas une volonté de faire un meilleur film. C'est véritablement une suite. Et cela rappelle le remake au plan par plan de Psychose par Gus Van Sant.

]]> http://cinephile.wordpress.com/?p=866 Tue, 05 Aug 2008 17:00:44 +0000 Canadian Cinephile http://cinephile.wordpress.com/?p=866

Francois Girard, the Canadian director who started things off so well in 1993 with Thirty Two Short Films About Glenn Gould, certainly has taken a bit of a creative dive. In 1998, Girard directed The Red Violin. Almost ten years later, Girard would finally direct again and 2007’s bland, tepid Silk was the result of the long wait. A film adaptation of Italian author Alessandro Baricco’s novel of the same name, Silk is a good-looking film with little-to-no substance lurking beneath the surface.

The problems with the film originate with the screenplay and with the casting, for the most part. Baricco’s novel is about a simple love triangle, yet Girard manges to fudge any and all simplicity out of the fabric of the film and leaves us with a convoluted yarn that tries so hard to use its environment that it almost winds up abusing it with overkill.

Michael Pitt, who played a Kurt Cobain-inspired rocker in Gus Van Sant’s Last Days, stars here as Hervé Joncour. Joncour’s job is to travel the world looking for silkworms to bring back to his village in France. He does this because silkworms in Europe are infected with some sort of virus or disease. Joncour first heads to Africa to get new silkworms, but it turns out those are infected as well so he has to go to Japan. His boss, Baldabiou (Alfred Molina), oversees the proceedings back home while Joncour heads out around the world to get worms.

Joncour is madly in love with his wife, Hélène (Keira Knightley), but manages to become rather smitten with an elusive concubine (Sei Ashina). On a second journey to Japan, Joncour sees the concubine again but this time has sex with another concubine instead. He heads back home again, still smitten with the first concubine. Joncour is still madly in love with Hélène, too, so things remain normal at home for quite some time. The film follows this apparent love triangle to its fruition and takes the longest, windiest road to get there.

Keira Knightley is good as Hélène, but the role seems stupid and wasteful. She simply waits at home while we follow a much less interesting character to Japan and back a few times. Instead of pressing on what must be going through her head, we are given scenes of reunited love and a few steamy sex scenes. The relationship between her character and Michael Pitt’s character seems tasteless and lukewarm, at best, as the love scenes lack passion and fervour.

Michael Pitt is the real problem with the cast, though. While Alfred Molina certainly tries hard enough in his unfortunate role, Pitt is the opposite and could not seem more bored. Unluckily, he is also given the task of narration and this plunges the already half-hearted film into some serious snoozer territory. I half-expected Pitt to begin sentences with a series of “um, well” variations and the idea that he was supposed to be French was just outright hilarious. None of the characters even tried for an accent, which I guess demonstrates that the filmmakers do know of the concept of mercy.

The soundtrack to Silk actually serves to increase the film’s blandness and adds silly piano punctuations at all the wrong moments. There are scenes in which a light tinkle of piano is nestled in between a paused pair of sentences and the results are as though a light bulb went off in a character’s head. This sort of unintentional silliness really fries the core of this movie, making it above and beyond an average bore and moving it slowly and begrudgingly into the territory of the ultimately silly snoozefest.

Skip Silk.

2/10

Trailer:

Comienza una película con su típica y tópica música orquestal, en este caso operística, un plano cenital aéreo sigue a un coche por una carretera. Una pareja juega a adivinar el autor de la composición que suena en el coche... y de repente una música brutal, ruidosa y molesta irrumpe en escena para avisarnos del título: FUNNY GAMES. Sólo eso basta para indicar por dónde van los tiros en la película del díscolo Haneke, un hombre habituado a generar sensaciones incómodas en el espectador.

Esta película austríaca de 1997 (hace pocas semanas se estrenó en España la versión americana, un calco plano por plano de ésta) es uno de los thrillers más difíciles de ver que recuerdo. Es imposible no revolverse en el sillón ante los acontecimientos, desde el mismo momento en el que aparecen los dos jóvenes perturbados en escena. Todo es incómodo: los personajes, las situaciones, la tensión latente, los planos fijos interminables, y los guiños que hace uno de los jóvenes al espectador, dirigiéndose especialmente a él.

Las interpretaciones sobre la película pueden ser múltiples y todas satisfactorias. Es inevitable acabar con la sensación de que Haneke ha jugado con el espectador de manera ruín, "rebobinando" las situaciones para demostrarnos que él es el que controla lo que pasa y que pasará lo que su mente enfermiza ya ha decidido. No importan los sentimientos del público, ansioso porque la acción cambie, que esas personas dejen de sufrir y sean los psicópatas los que empiecen a ver truncados sus planes. Haneke no deja apenas resquicio para la luz. No le interesa mostrar el lado bonito de la vida, sino enseñar una violencia real, palpable y a la que está expuesta cualquier persona.

Se puede entrever una crítica al tratamiento de la violencia en el cine, sobre todo en el americano (de ahí que quizás sí tenga sentido un remake plano por plano diez años después de que se estrenará la original), donde se suele mostrar como un elemento gratuito. Aquí no hay apenas violencia explícita, pero el visionado se hace eternamente más duro y resulta más sádico que en películas absurdas como Hostel (qué mejor ejemplo de la sangre por la sangre).

Por otro lado Haneke juega a ver cuánto es capaz de soportar el espectador. Parece estar diciéndole: "Yo estoy enfermo y soy un sádico porque he hecho esta película...Pero, ¿y tú? ¿Cuánto eres capaz de soportar?". Yo aguanté hasta el final, asustado, repugnado y a la vez maravillado ante la inteligencia del director, grandilocuente y hedonista sí, pero magistral.

Trailer (Funny Games 1997, original)

Trailer Funny Games 2008 (en español)

Storia strambalata di due giovani che si divertono a terrorizzare famiglie in vacanza. Il film ha ricevuto un sacco di critiche positive, a me sembra una cavolata con i fiocchi. L'unica nota positiva è la recitazione. Gli attori sono tutti bravi. Per il resto film inconsistente e palloso. Lentissimo e sconclusionato. I paragoni con Arancia Meccanica che molti hanno fatto non stanno in piedi. andate a mare è meglio.

Social bookmark:

Una tranquilla famiglia vede rovinarsi le vacanze da due ragazzi, apparentemente timidi e cortesi ma nella pratica sanguinolenti seviziatori, che per combattere la noia visitano le case da vacanza di ricche famiglie torturandole per, alla fine, ucciderle.

Già nei titoli di testa - dove dalla musica lirica si passa improvvisamente al frastuono antimelodico di John Zorn - si intuisce la tensione del contrasto del film. Un film che pretende di essere violento ma non mostra mai la violenza pura dei cattivi sulle loro vittime, preferendo soffermarsi sull'indifferenza dei seviziatori. Ottime le inquadrature scelte, quasi tutte lunghe a camera fissa, che possono appesantire ma rendono particolare la pelliccola. Altra nota di merito è il cast, una splendida Naomi Watts affiancata da Tim Roth e Michael Pitt, che paiono insuperabili. Manca invece la suspance e le due ore del film finiscono per appesantire lo spettatore.

Purtroppo il trailer italiano aveva paragonato il film ad Arancia meccanica al quale però è molto diverso nei metodi di racconto, nel messaggio e nella storia. In comune hanno solo la noia esistenziale dei giovani protagonisti che li porta a commettere giochi e atti violenti sulle loro vittime innocenti. Il lavoro di Kubrick vuole essere un film realista, spaventare. Funny games oltre a spaventare molto poco - anche se inquieta in diversi punti - ha il chiaro intento di convincere lo spettatore che le differenze tra finzione e realtà sono sottili e per nulla scontate. Più volte nel film il protagonista ammicca alla telecamera e il concetto è ripreso anche in un altro punto

"Perchè non ci uccidete subito e la fate finita?"
"E che ne sarebbe dello spettacolo?"

E' l'intento del regista, criticare la società della spettacolarizzazione e la disinvolta rappresentazione della violenza sull’essere umano. Questo è l'aspetto più innovativo ed interessante del film.

Voto 7, nonostante tutto un film interessante.

(tratto da Nuovo Oggi di giovedì 17 luglio 2008) - Spesso quando si parla di remake ci si trova davanti ad un prodotto scadente o perlomeno deludente. Questo perchè quando si gira il remake di un film si parte da due presupposti, il primo è che il prodotto originale sia stato amato dal pubblico (altrimenti non avrebbe senso l'operazione), il secondo è che siano passati moltissimi anni dall'uscita. Per questi stessi motivi però quasi sempre non si ottiene nulla di buono. Qualcosa che è stato molto amato difficilmente può essere sostituito nel cuore della gente, ed il passare degli anni cambia la mentalità del pubblico, le tecniche di regia e di produzione.
'Funny Games' è l'eccezione che conferma la regola. Il regista tedesco Michael Haneke, dopo l'infinita insistenza del produttore Chris Cohen, ha deciso che poteva dare nuovamente vita alla sua opera più conosciuta.
'Funny Games' è un film tedesco del 1997, un piccolo goiello, che per diversi motivi non ebbe il successo che meritava. Innanzi tutto, quello che mancava dieci anni fa era una distribuzione di grande impatto della pellicola. L'idea di produrre il film negli Stati Uniti, con un cast tecnico ed artistico americano, quindi ha convinto Haneke a tentare l'impresa. Il risultato è egregio.
'Funny Games', con degli attori perfettamente calati nelle loro parti, è forse anche meglio dell'originale. Per quanto sia completamente identico nella sceneggiatura, nello script, nella trama, nelle musiche, ha una marcia in più. Forse proprio è proprio bravura degli attori scelti a fare la differenza. Inutile dire qualcosa di un Tim Roth che tutti conosciamo. Ci teniamo a sottolineare invece il bravissimo Michael Pitt, i più giovani, che lo ricordano certamente per il suo ruolo in un'intera stagione della serie tv Dawson's Creek, si troveranno davanti un'attore ormai maturo e artisticamente irriconoscibile, se non per il suo volto sempre più somigliante a Leo Di Caprio.
La storia è semplicissima Ann, George e il piccolo Georgie sono in cammino verso la loro seconda casa, dove passeranno le vacanze estive. I vicini di casa, Fred e Eva, sono già arrivati e si organizzano per vedersi tutti il giorno dopo per una partita di golf. Mentre suo marito e suo figlio sono al lago per sistemare la barca a vela messa recentemente a nuovo, Ann inizia a preparare la cena. All’improvviso si ritrova faccia a faccia con Peter, un ragazzo estremamente gentile, ospite dei vicini di casa, venuto a chiedere delle uova. Ann si appresta a dargli le uova ma, tutto a un tratto, esita: come ha fatto Peter a entrare in casa? Le cose prendono rapidamente una strana piega e si precipitano verso un’inaspettata esplosione di violenza.
'Funny Games' è chiaramente ispirato all'ultraviolenza di 'Arancia Meccanica', ma solo nel contesto generale, nel particolare è un film ispirato, con una fortissima critica a chi descrive il pubblico come vittima passiva di ciò che si vede al cinema. Per Haneke il pubblico è il primo responsabile di ciò che accade sul grande schermo, perchè il cinema ci da quello che noi vogliamo avere. Assolutamente imperdibile uno dei protagonisti quando a più riprese interagisce con il pubblico in sala.
Disturbante ed inquietante (tenetevi pronti alla colonna sonora che dalla musica classica passa ai Bonehead), non un remake ma un clone geneticamente modificato, i cultori del genere non possono perderlo.

"Dov'è il telecomando?!?"

"E voglio il pezzo su Funny Games sulla mia scrivania per le 9 di domani!"

Ok, non è proprio così, non ho nessuna scadenza, ma ero abbastanza indeciso su quale film recensire questa settimana, e rischiavo che i giorni passassero senza aver buttato giù neppure qualche riga :) . Alla fine, invece di lanciarmi nel commento del secondo capitolo di HellBoy (che comunque andrò a vedere) in uscita questo mercoledì, ho preferito raccontarvi le mie impressioni su Funny Games, un film che mi aveva incuriosito non poco sin dalla prima visione dei trailer.

La pellicola è un remake di un film del 1997 dello stesso regista e autore, Michael Haneke e racconta le violenze subite da una dolce famigliola (interpretata da Tim Roth e Naomi Watts) per mano di una coppia di ragazzi psicopatici. La trama è facilmente riassumibile così, anche per non svelare troppo dello sviluppo della storia e degli stratagemmi adoperati dai due criminali.

Sono stati fatti dei paragoni con Arancia Meccanica, e devo dire che, per quanto il capolavoro di Kubrick partisse dall' "amata ultraviolenza" per affrontare temi più importanti (il libero arbitrio, per esempio), il confronto non è per nulla inopportuno (anche se la scena iniziale ricorda tantissimo quella di Shining). Il film è una doccia fresca in questa calda estate 2008, assolutamente coinvolgente, elettrizzante e, ovviamente, violento. Paurosamente violento. I vestiti e le acconciature da ragazzi per bene, la passione per il golf, l'estrema educazione a tratti irridente nei confronti delle vittime, rimarranno nell'immaginario collettivo così come l'humour e alcune battute del film.

Il cast, composto da pochi attori complessivamente, è di valore e capace di trasmettere tutte le emozioni che i personaggi devono comunicare: ferocia e pazzia i carnefici, disperazione e terrore le vittime. I due ragazzi sono semplicemente perfetti, soprattutto Michael Pitt, davvero inquietante e determinato nel proprio istinto omicida; d'altro canto Naomi Watts e Tim Roth danno vita a un'interpretazione convincente e drammatica (sebbene io parteggiassi ovviamente per i due ragazzi...sono fatto così che ci volete fare :roll ), malgrado la staticità del personaggio di quest'ultimo a causa di una brutta ferita e della sua vigliaccheria.

Il film regala anche qualche trovata particolare, come quella del telecomando, e il fatto che spesso e volentieri il personaggio di Michael Pitt guardi dritto in camera e si rivolga direttamente allo spettatore è a tratti spaventoso ma anche divertente. Un titolo che mi è piaciuto molto, sarà per il genere di film che sta uscendo in questo periodo, buoni prodotti, ma forse un po' piatti, troppo "stagionali". Funny Games invece, malgrado una trama non proprio originalissima, riesce a tirarsi fuori dall'afa di questa estate, proponendo due ore diverse all'insegna delle emozioni forti. A un prezzo ragionevole, credo lo comprerò anche in dvd.

Voto:7,5

Note a margine:

• Belli i tempi in cui Tim Roth sanguinava sul retro di una macchina! A giudicare da questo film, tiene le botte ancora abbastanza bene...altro che Abominio :roll ;
• Se volete farvi qualche risata senza troppi pensieri (e ammirare la bellezza di Anne Hathaway :roll ) vi consiglio di andare a vedere Agente Smart: Casino Totale; ho preferito non recensirlo, ma mi è piaciuto parecchio per essere un film del genere.

In sala Agente Smart, furbo e intelligente, è proprio il caso di dirlo. “Casino totale” è la trasposizione cinematografica di una fortunata serie degli anni ’60 di Mel Brooks.Dopo un periodo di inattività, Maxwell Smart (Steve Carrell) viene incaricato di fermare un complotto contro la città di Los Angeles e viene affiancato all’agente 99, la bella Anne Hathaway. Max è un tipo sbadato e presto finisce nei guai. Per la regia di Peter Segal, il film piacerà a molti. C’è stato “Casino Royale” che ha appassionato ancora una volta gli amanti del genere e adesso “Casino Totale”: l’agente 86, ha perso qualche chilo e ha guadagnato la licenza di uccidere al fianco di una Bond-girls che sopravviverà alla fine del film. A differenza del suo rivale nel genere, non è misogino, indossa un abito elegante ma è un affascinante disadattato.

In uscita “Nel 1971 Arancia Meccanica vi sconvolse”, così recita la voce che racconta il film “Funny Games”. Jim Roth, Naomi Watts e Michael Pitt, gli attori principali del film, remake del suo omonimo del 1997 diretto dallo stesso regista, Michael Haneke. Ann, George e il figlioletto sono in cammino verso la casa dove trascorreranno l’estate, i loro vicini di casa ospitano Peter con cui Ann si trova improvvisamente faccia a faccia. Lui le chiede delle uova, ma mentre è intenta a cercarle, Ann indugia: come è entrato in casa quel ragazzo? "Cerco di mostrare la violenza per come essa è davvero: una cosa difficile da mandar giù. Voglio mostrare la realtà della violenza, il dolore, le ferite inflitte da un essere umano a un altro”, ha dichiarato il regista. Questo film vi terrorizzerà perché non ci metterà molto ad entrare nei meandri più profondi della vostra psiche.

A casa Cain è nata da poco la piccola Lily e fin da subito in “Joshua” inizia a manifestarsi qualcosa di strano: il bambino sembra educato, ma si sa, l’apparenza inganna. Il film di George Ratliff ci propone una storia angosciosa, una di quelle che con magistrale tecnica ci riporta al filone del classico thriller psicologico. Joshua è il male incarnato nel corpo di un bambino, qualcosa di cui dubitare, qualcosa che si vorrebbe controllare ma che cova in sé inevitabilmente il suo essere diabolico.

In un paese del Canada la Depressione ha causato penuria di ricchezze, tanto che la proprietaria di una birreria decide di indire un concorso: chi eseguirà “La canzone più triste del mondo” riceverà un premio di 25mila dollari. Per la regia di Guy Maddin, il film ci propone una storia surreale dove si mescolano sogno e realtà e dove le immagini in bianco e nero e le “vecchie” voci sembrano riportarci al cinema sonoro delle origini.

Déjà vu Film del 1993 di Jonathan Demme, “Philadelphia” racconta la storia di Andrew Beckett (Tom Hanks), un brillante avvocato gay. Un giorno, di punto in bianco, Andrew viene licenziato perché, dicono, “inefficiente sul posto di lavoro”. Il motivo ufficioso Andrew lo comprende subito: è stato licenziato perché affetto da AIDS. Così, senza perdersi d’animo, ingaggia un altro avvocato interpretato da Denzel Washington e porta avanti una causa contro lo studio legale per cui lavorava. Quando il film uscì nelle sale, l’AIDS dilagava e non tutti conoscevano la malattia. Significativa in questo senso è la scena in cui l’avvocato Joe Miller stringe la mano ad Andrew e inizia a temere di aver contratto la malattia. Tom Hanks vinse il premio Oscar come migliore attore protagonista. Il film si pone come denuncia verso ogni tipo di intolleranza.

A cura di Roberta Migliaccio

La intención de Haneke al hacer una copia 100% idéntica de "Funny Games" pero en inglés y con actores anglosajones es darle una difusión a la historia que no tuvo la primera película, rodada en Austria y en alemán, lo que hizo que se convirtiese en una cinta de culto muy poco conocida para el gran público, sobre todo estadounidense.

Para este remake Haneke cuenta con Naomi Watts, Tim Roth y Michael Pitt para contar la misma historia:  una típica familia feliz de vacaciones recibe la visita inesperada de dos jóvenes que convierten su idilio en un terrorífico y brutal juego por la supervivencia.

Al igual que en la original, con esta película Michale Haneke quiere denunciar la violencia consumista de ciertos tipos de películas y cómo ésta es aceptada acríticamente por el espectador que se convierte, así, en cómplice de lo que está sucediendo.

Frente a ese tipo de violencia, Haneke contrapone otra igualmente brutal pero mucho más realista; y al realizarla en EE.UU. y con actores anglosajones, pretende hacerl reflexionar a los espectadores estadounidenses sobre su papel en otro tipo de películas donde la violencia es totalmente aceptada.

Fragmento de la película original (en alemán subtitulado en inglés).

Entrevista a Michael Haneke.

]]> http://quemovida.wordpress.com/?p=1289 Wed, 02 Jul 2008 17:20:25 +0000 Redhill2008 http://quemovida.wordpress.com/?p=1289

Titulo: Funny Games

Titulo Original: Funny Games

Género: Thriller Psicológico, Terror

Nacionalidad: USA, Reino Unido, Francia

Año: 2007

Director: Michael Haneke

Guion: Michael Haneke

Reparto: Naomi Watts, Tim Roth, Michael Pitt, Brady Corbet, Devon Gearhart, Boyd Gaines, Siobhan Fallon Hogan, Robert LuPone, Susanne Haneke, Linda Moran

Sinopsis: Remake de la película del mismo título dirgida en 1997 por el mismo Michael Haneke.
Las vacaciones comienzan con Ann (Naomi Watts), George (Tim Roth) y su hijo Georgie (Devon Gearhart) de camino a su casa de verano. Los vecinos, Fred y Eva, ya están allí. Se citan para jugar a golf la mañana siguiente. Es un día perfecto. Ann empieza a preparar la cena, mientras su marido y su hijo están ocupados con el barco de vela recién renovado. De repente, Ann se encuentra cara a cara con Peter (Brady Corbet), un joven educado e invitado de sus vecinos, que ha venido a pedir unos huevos porque a Eva se le han acabado. Ann está a punto de darle a Peter los huevos, pero tiene dudas. ¿Cómo ha entrado en su propiedad? Peter explica que hay un agujero en la valla – se lo enseñó Fred. Desde el principio las cosas parecen extrañas. Pronto, estalla la violencia...

O Panda do Kung Fu, Hancock e Brincadeiras Perigosas são as estreias da semana.

”O Panda do Kung Fu” é a nova aposta de animação da Dreamworks Studios e como tal, seria de esperar que chegasse agora no Verão aos cinemas. Apesar de estar longe da genialidade da Pixar, o estúdio não desiste da animação.

E se quanto à qualidade do novo filme ainda é cedo para tirar conclusões, já o elenco vocal, esse podemos afirmar que é de luxo. Senão vejamos…

Jack Black (”King Kong“, “O Amor não tira Férias“) lidera o elenco e dá a voz a Po (um panda), o animal mais preguiçoso do Vale da Paz. Com poderosos inimigos às portas do Vale, todas as esperanças recaem numa antiga profecia que vaticina o aparecimento de um herói que irá “salvar o dia” e o Vale. Mas, entre todos os peritos em artes marciais que entretanto vão aparecendo e reclamam tal título, nenhum parece possuir a marca d’ O Escolhido… até agora! Quando o preguiçoso Po aparece no meio da competição, os masters do Kung Fu ficam em choque ao descobrir que o (nada motivado) Panda é o portador da marca… torna-se então necessário transformar o animal num verdadeiro Kung fu Fighter antes que seja tarde demais. Um grupo de 5 masters em artes marciais, desde sempre ídolos de Po, irão ajudá-lo.

Dustin Hoffman (”Encontro de Irmãos“) dá a voz a Shifu, um panda vermelho, e o master do Kung Fu mais duro de toda a China. É o líder do grupo e terá a difícil tarefa de transformar o indisciplinado Po num kung Fu Fighter.

Jackie Chan (”Hora de Ponta“), ele próprio um expert em artes marciais na vida real, empresta a sua voz a Master Monkey, um forte e ágil guerreiro de Kung Fu, cuja principal tarefa é lembrar a Po tudo o que ele não é… ainda.

Angelina Jolie (”Um Coração Poderoso“) é Tigress, uma tigre fêmea do Sul da China que se junta a Po, e lhe dá valiosos ensinamentos. Sem medos, corajosa, ela fará tudo para “salvar o dia”…

Ian McShane (”Deadwood“)  dá a voz ao vilão Tai Lung, um leopardo das neves feroz e poderoso, que foge da prisão com a intenção de usar as suas aptidões para destruir o Vale da Paz.

Lucy Liu (”Ally Mcbeal“, “Kill Bill“) é Master Viper, outra das professoras de Po, uma víbora que pode ser muito gentil e feminina ou quando for preciso, uma guerreira letal.

David Cross (”Arrested Development“) dá a voz a Master Crane, o mediador do grupo, que tenta a todo custo evitar uma luta… mas quando tal não é possível fará tudo para a vencer.

Seth Rogen (”Superbaldas“, “Um Azar do Caraças“) é Master Mantis, o mais pequeno dos cinco, apesar de nunca o admitir. Possuí um temperamento especial e está pronto para atacar ao mais pequeno insulto.

“Kung Fu Panda” conta na realização com a dupla John Stevenson e Mark Osborne. Êxito de bilheteiras nos Estados Unidos, poucas semanas após a sua estreia já se fala numa sequela.

[escrito por Nuno Santos]

BRINCADEIRAS PERIGOSAS

A violência sempre foi um cunho da presença humana, realizando-se nas suas mais diversas facetas de interacção. Algo que se tenta eliminar, mas que invariavelmente reside sempre no nosso mais recôndito íntimo. Não choca por isso reconhecer a sua importância na evolução do Homem, quer enquanto indivíduo, quer enquanto animal social, apesar de chocar muito boa gente a relativa insensibilidade com que, de certa forma, se banaliza a violência nos dias que correm. O constante bombardeamento da desgraça pela retina acaba por criar anticorpos e nesse passo, acabamos por perder um pouco de nós. O fruto desta traição reside na tecnologia, assim como para outras eras, outros instrumentos, outros recreios. Não, a tecnologia não é a doença. Apenas é. É parte fundamental de nós e sempre o foi e não somos nada sem ela. Mas o que somos é um conceito completamente lixado.

“Funny Games“, de Michael Haneke, deambula um pouco nestes caminhos, tecendo uma alegoria sobre a trivialidade da violência. Tudo gira em torno de um casal (Naomi Watts e Tim Roth) que é feito refém na casa onde passava férias por dois jovens (Michael Pitt e Brady Corbet) que os torturam sem razão aparente a não ser pelo puro prazer do sofrimento. Não será a primeira vez que Haneke contará esta história, já que a mesma é baseada (consta que é uma reposição literal) num filme seu de 1997, com o mesmo nome.

Tudo estaria a postos para a elaboração de um convencional thriller, ainda por mais quando, ironicamente, o próprio cinema ajuda a banalizar o conceito de violência nas suas mais diversas formas, seja pelo voyeurismo sádico de “Hostel” ou a moralidade distorcida da saga “Saw“. Mas “Funny Games” subverte a tendência, relegando os choques explícitos para a imaginação do espectador, criando um clima de verdadeira tensão psicológica num espaço de interacção reduzido, e por isso, mais intimista.

Mas afinal, o que leva um realizador como Michael Haneke a, aparentemente, se deixar levar na onda de remakes de obras estrangeiras para o mercado americano ? Segundo o próprio, e com certa lógica bem doseada pela confrangedora realidade (mas não exclusiva), a história sempre foi pensada como sendo uma história americana, precisamente pelo peso que a violência tem, anormalmente, na sociedade dos E.U.A.. E por aqui se percebe onde é que este estudo intimista de um acto hediondo se torna mais incisivo: numa sociedade que abraça de tal forma a violência, a morte deixa de fazer sentido, passando a ser apenas mais uma distracção. Resta saber é se a inversão de valores chegará a um ponto tal em que questionaremos quem são os párias: aqueles que matam ou aqueles que os condenam ?

[escrito por Pedro Almeida]

HANCOCK

Will Smith encabeça o elenco como um super-herói, outrora famoso, que cai em desgraça na opinião pública, relegando-se a uma vida de completo desleixo e que se envolve com a mulher (Charlize Theron) de um relações públicas (Jason Bateman) que tenta reabilitar a sua imagem.

Leia mais AQUI

Posts Relacionados:

• Hotvnews presents... Kung Fu Panda (Nuno Santos)
• Kung Fu Panda, Novas Imagens (Márcio Pereira)
• Hotvnews presents... Funny Games (Pedro Almeida)
• Hotvnews presents... Hancock (Pedro Almeida)
• Hancock - Novas fotos divulgadas (Márcio Pereira)

If our current cinema is an indication of anything, it's that we really like movies about sadistic bastards. We're experiencing the season of the Killers Without Motives. And my, how stylish they are. From Anton Chigurh's Dorothy Hamill bob in No Country for Old Men to the blank-eyed masks worn by the soulless trio in The Strangers, these murderers know how to make a sartorial impression. Really, however, no villains have been as well-dressed, or left me as unsettled, as Peter and Paul, the rag-tag duo in Michael Haneke's Funny Games. Sporting their finest tennis whites, these boys are courteous and unfailingly polite, the perfect products of a very expensive finishing school. Everything is "please" and "thank you," "miss" and "sir." It's only what they ask of their captives, not how they ask it, that's a tad on the rude side.

The trailer for this movie is brilliant. In fact, if Haneke would've just released this instead of the full-length film, I'm sure the reviews would've been more favorable. That's not to say I didn't enjoy the movie -- it still had me thinking five days after I saw it -- but after seeing the original, which starred German actors, was also helmed by Haneke and released internationally in 1998, I just thought it could've been better. The whole thing was a commentary on how movie audiences, particularly American audiences, are complicit in the heinous crimes unfolding onscreen. There are many instances where the killers, especially Paul (Michael Pitt), break the fourth wall and comment on what's going on: "What should happen next? Should they live or should they die?" It's a great idea, but perhaps executed more effectively in A Clockwork Orange. The trailer alludes to these experimental touches, but still advertises the movie as your typical slasher flick. It was all a ruse to get mainstream audiences excited about this weird movie, but ultimately one that couldn't work. You see, Haneke is an esteemed director, and extremely European. Would Joe, the 18-year-old kid who works at the local Shell gas station, go into this thinking it was another Hostel and leave miraculously enlightened about violence in the media and viewer dynamics? No. He'd just be like, "Needs more guts."

Still, there's something about Funny Games that I really liked, something I can't quite put my finger on. For starters, if nothing else, it was extremely entertaining. It was fun to see these kids enter a home and become progressively creepier. It was fun to see Haneke breaking some horror-movie commandments, like Thou Shalt Not Kill Children. It was fun to see Tim Roth, who usually plays the hard-ass, be reduced to broken legs and bitter tears. And it was super fun to see Michael Pitt, an actor I lovingly refer to as The Crotch as a guestimation of what he smells like, play this extremely clean, extremely evil guy. It was all very Bad Seed, and I loved it. In fact, in about half an hour, I'm heading to Blockbuster to go buy it on DVD.

Talk about letting sickos into your home.