Free Online Multiplayer Casual Gaming Channels
Play Free Online Games, sports games, massive multiplayer games,
action games, puzzle games, flash games and more.
Click HERE to play multiplayer games.

Un film di Michael Haneke. Con Christian Friedel, Leonie Benesch, Ulrich Tukur, Ursina Lardi, Burghart Klaußner.
Titolo originale: Das Weiße Band. Drammatico, durata 144 min. Austria, Francia, Germania 2009. Lucky Red, uscita venerdì 30 ottobre 2009.

Germania, 1912. L’apparente tranquillità di un villaggio protestante viene messa a repentaglio dal susseguirsi di incidenti spiacevoli e misteriosi. Prima, una fune trasparente tesa a mezz’aria provoca la caduta da cavallo del dottore del villaggio, che si infortuna gravemente e viene trasportato all’ospedale. Poi, la morte accidentale della moglie di un contadino al servizio del barone locale provoca forti dissidi fra i braccianti e il loro datore di lavoro. Ma questi due episodi saranno solo i primi di una lunga serie di misteriosi eventi che sconvolgeranno la piccola comunità. La già di per sé delicata situazione non viene agevolata dalla mentalità chiusa, dalla grettezza e dalla crudeltà che dimostrano gli abitanti del villaggio, soprattutto quando si tratta di educare i propri figli, che spesso subiscono punizioni corporali severissime e crescono in un clima di tensione repressa.

Il nastro bianco che viene legato sul braccio dei bambini è il simbolo dell’innocenza. Viene applicato quando il bimbo dimostra immaturità, viene tolto quando invece raggiunge un adeguato livello di maturità. Questo è il significato che gli adulti del villaggio danno a tale simbolo. Ma il nastro bianco è ben più di questo, in realtà: esso rappresenta il microcosmo stesso del villaggio, con tutta la sua crudeltà, la sua meschinità, la sua rabbia nascosta. Gli adulti lo legano alle braccia dei figli solo dopo averli picchiati selvaggiamente e quindi il nastro è il simbolo dello sfogo, dell’oppressione e del terrorismo che il genitore-mostro esercita sul figlio. E il figlio cova, fa crescere dentro di sé il rancore e la rabbia repressa, non si ribella apertamente, anche perché non potrebbe, a questo mondo così apparentemente perfetto. Ma l’apparenza inganna e il bambino in qualche modo dovrà far “esplodere” la sua rabbia, dovrà sfogarsi, proprio come il genitore che sfoga su di lui la sua mostruosità. Diventerà, anche lui, un piccolo mostro.

Il regista Michael Haneke (Il Tempo dei Lupi, Funny Games) torna dietro alla cinepresa con l’obiettivo di dimostrare una tesi ben precisa: non è infatti la semplice storia che interessa al regista, lo spettatore non deve concepire il film come un giallo, trascorrendo le due ore e mezza della visione a chiedersi chi sia il colpevole. No, ad Haneke interessa il messaggio che si nasconde dietro ai fatti rappresentati; vuole dimostrare che l’educazione, che la famiglia in primis, ma anche la scuola e la comunità riservano al bambino, è di estrema importanza perché è in grado di cambiare in positivo o in negativo il suo carattere e di determinare le sue azioni future. Tale messaggio potrebbe sembrare scontato, ma non lo è se, dietro le righe dell’educazione riservata dagli adulti della comunità protestante ai bambini, leggiamo uno dei motivi che hanno scatenato il nazismo nella società tedesca di vent’anni dopo.

Le premesse son buone, il film è ancora migliore: realizzata in un bianco e nero splendido, l’opera del regista austriaco è di una freddezza disarmante, è distaccata e angosciosamente cupa. La stessa fotografia in bianco e nero, unitamente a una telecamera che spesso e volentieri rimane fissa sulla scena per diversi minuti (questa è una delle cifre stilistiche di Haneke), conferisce allo spettatore non sentimenti passionali, non pathos, ma un senso di angoscia e di sbigottimento per ciò che vede. Il bianco e nero “dissangua” il film del suo colore, toglie la vita alla rappresentazione di un luogo che di vitale ha ben poco.

I lunghi silenzi sono, per usare un ossimoro, ancor più rumorosi delle parole. Certo, i dialoghi sono accuratissimi, ma lo scricchiolio di una porta che si chiude, o il vento che fa muovere le spighe di grano o le fronde degli alberi, si rivelano molto più oppressivi e angoscianti per lo spettatore. Tutto, del resto, lo è. Anche la musica è totalmente assente e il motivo, a questo punto, è chiaro e preciso: la musica suscita emozioni spesso forti, suscita passioni e sentimenti calorosi, ma, come detto, non è questo lo scopo di Haneke.
Dirigere un film nel quale non c’è musica, dai titoli di apertura a quelli di coda, genera l’effetto contrario, genera freddo, genera distacco e assenza di emozioni. Esattamente le sensazioni provate dai piccoli figli degli abitanti del villaggio. Oltre alla storia, alla regia, alla fotografia e alla sceneggiatura già citate, è questo forse il grande merito del film di Haneke, che gli è valso una (meritatissima) Palma d’Oro al Festival di Cannes, ovvero quello di generare nello spettatore le stesse sensazioni che provano i piccoli protagonisti nel film. Non c’è modo migliore per convincere qualcuno di qualcosa, che fargliela provare sulla pelle, per due ore e mezza.
Poi, lo spettatore esce dalla sala e si scrolla di dosso la tensione accumulata. I bambini invece restano imprigionati in questo mondo chiuso e senza via di uscita, continuano il loro processo di disumanizzazione. E a noi non resta che immaginarceli vestiti da SS vent’anni dopo.

Voto 9

David Parasporo

Funny Games is an Austrian movie by writer/director Michael Haneke starring Susanne Lothar, Ulrich Mühe, Arno Frisch and Frank Giering which he then remade shot for shot ten years later with Naomi Watts, Tim Roth, Michael Pitt and Brady Corbet.

Plot:
A well-off family travels to their weekend getaway at the shore of a lake. While the father Georg(e) [Ulrich Mühe/Tim Roth] and the son get the boat ready, the mother Ann(a) [Susanne Lothar/Naomi Watts] stays in the house to prepare dinner. Suddenly a young man, Peter, [Frank Giering/Brady Corbet] comes from the neighbour’s house to ask for some eggs. He’s joined by another young man, Paul, [Arno Frisch/Michael Pitt] and while both of them are very polite, things become threatening really quickly. When the father and the son return to the house, Peter and Paul take the whole family hostage to play “games” with them.

Both movies are heavy cost – a thorough and deep analysis of violence in movies and what it does to the viewer. Haneke uses the horror genre conventions to hammer home a point – and hammer it he does. This is no subtle pointer that maybe violence in movies is not such a good thing but a huge, blinking neon sign that screams about the depravity of the average movie consumer.

[SPOILERS]

I watched both movies basically back to back (U.S. version first) because I was curious if I could find out how detailed a Haneke script is. Two things I have learned from this:

1: Don’t watch these two movies back to back if you are not completely stable and have either already lost all faith in humanity or have some magic formula to retain your faith. One of them is bad enough, but seeing the whole thing twice is soul shattering.

2: Haneke scripts are very detailed. But interestingly enough they detail other things than I would mention in a script of mine. For example, in the U.S. version pretty much everything’s white, not only the clothes of Peter and Paul, but also the complete interior design. So, as I’m personally a little obsessed with colour in movies, I figured this would have some significance. But in the Austrian version, only the two guys are dressed in white, the interior design isn’t. On the other hand, the entire layout of the house is completely identical – something I would have thought unnecessary.

After watching the first movie, I desperately needed a break. I felt like throwing up and crying. Just not knowing what to do first kept me from doing either. Seeing the second movie (sometimes I’m a mean bitch towards myself) was a little better. I don’t think it had anything to do with the quality of the films – honestly, all performances were great and other than that, nothing much had changed – but with knowing what to expect.

Because the thing about it is: Haneke doesn’t let the audience be an audience; he incorporates them into the film in the form of Paul. Paul, one of the perpetrators and the leader of the two, turns round in the middle of the film and winks at the viewer. I first I thought nothing much about it – it was a shock, being pulled out of the comfortable role for a second, but you quickly settle back into it.

And then Paul does it again. But this time, he talks to you, asks you about your expectations etc. And this time, you can’t just wave it away, can’t just pretend like nothing happened: you are forced to consider your own role in this. And you can feel the judgment, the nagging question: “Why would you watch such a movie in the first place?”

But the coup de grace is when Ann(a) manages to grab the gun and shoot Peter. Paul is thrown off for a second, searches for the remote control – and just hits the rewind button. The movie, obediently, rewinds.

Up until this point you might have still been able to kid yourself, but even the most unreflected movie goer surely most have felt the pressure Haneke built on the viewer at this point.

Because – or maybe despite – of this pressure, what I felt while watching the movie was not horror or even disgust, but desperation: Desperation that the family’s siuation was so completely chanceless, but even more desperation about us humans as a species who watch stuff like that as an entertainment [I'm not judging here, I watch these movies myself and I do enjoy them. (Even after Funny Games.)]. The conclusion of this film seems to be that we’re all completely fucked. [Which might be true, but do I really want to think about that?]

And Haneke manages to invoke all of this without showing us any act of violence directly. Contrary to what is usually the case, he only shows us the effects the violence has: The physical and emotional wounds.

So, if you want to be challenged – intellectually and as a movie goer - one of these two films will be perfect. Just make sure that you’re sufficiently anchored. But it’s definitely worth to give the movie a try and examine yourself in the course of it.

Zostałem znokautowany przez „Funny Games”, ale „Ukryte” było dla mnie chyba zbyt ukryte. Na nowy film Michaela Hanekego udałem się więc w pozycji wyprostowanej. A wyszedłem z kina na kolanach…

Akcja filmu rozgrywa się w niemieckiej wiosce – gdzieś w połowie drogi pomiędzy Dogville, a tropikalną wyspą z „Władcy much”. Zwykli ludzie i zwykłe życie, ale wystarczy drobne pęknięcie w tej gładkiej skorupie pozorów, by na świat wydostały się brzydkie, śmierdzące i głodne demony. Niby bogobojni, pracowici, skromni i zdyscyplinowani wieśniacy, a przecież sadyści, zawistnicy, zboczeńcy… Spokojne ujęcia, niemrawe dialogi, dłużyzna na dłużyźnie, więcej niedopowiedzeń niż konkretów – a jednak trudno wysiedzieć w fotelu, tyle w tym trudnego do zniesienia napięcia. I nie spodziewajcie się happy endu. Ba, nie spodziewajcie się nawet jednoznacznego, rzetelnego rozwiązania. Gdyby takie było, moglibyśmy o „Białej wstążce” zapomnieć już parę minut po wyjściu z kina. Ale Haneke zadbał o to, żebyśmy się zbyt dobrze nie poczuli we własnej skórze. W swoich rodzinach, wśród swoich sąsiadów, w swoich wioskach. Przy tego rodzaju opowieściach nie możemy się cieszyć, że jesteśmy lepsi od schwarzcharakterów, bo wszyscy jesteśmy umoczeni.

Nie skarżę się. Jak sądzę, jeszcze gorzej po obejrzeniu „Białej wstążki” muszą się czuć rodacy reżysera. Zdemolował tu przecież najpiękniejsze niemieckie cnoty – posłuszeństwo, porządek, protestanckie umiłowanie pracy. Mogę też powtórzyć za mądrzejszymi ode mnie recenzentami, że chciał w ten sposób wskazać źródła nazizmu. Ale choć to pewnie prawidłowy trop, możecie śmiało oglądać „Białą wstążkę” poza kontekstem historycznym. To nie musi być film o rodzącym się hitleryzmie, za to na pewno jest o paskudnej ludzkiej naturze.

Esta semana ví dos tremendas películas que quiero compartir con uds.

Por Christian Quezada

Funny Games U.S

Dirección y Guión: Michael Haneke.
Países: USA, Francia, Reino Unido, Alemania, Austria e Italia.
Año: 2007.
Duración: 111 min.
Género: Thriller, drama.

Interpretación: Naomi Watts (Ann), Tim Roth (George), Michael Pitt (Paul), Brady Corbet (Peter), Devon Gearhart (Georgie)

SINOPSIS: Las vacaciones comienzan con Ann, George y su hijo Georgie de camino a su casa de verano. Los vecinos, Fred y Eva, ya están allí. Quedan de acuerdo en jugar al 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 arreglado. De repente, Ann se encuentra cara a cara con Peter, 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 cerca, se lo enseñó Fred. Desde el principio las cosas parecen extrañas y bastará un pequeño incidente para que estalle la violencia. “Funny games” es un remake de la película de mismo título dirigida por el propio Michael Haneke en 1997.

COMENTARIO: Interesante y perturbador film, realmente a ratos se hace enfermizo ver algunas escenas. Si bien el punto de inflexión en la historia al inicio, en lo personal, me parece débil y absurdo, la película te logra meter en su trama y ver como estos dos tipos (Meter y Paul) desarrollan esta masacre sicológica con esta familia adinerada. Pensando en el año de la primera versión de este film (1997) se logra plasmar perfectamente un grado de inhumanidad y violencia explícita digno de estos días o de un noticiario como de Chilevisión o Mega. Lo curioso del remake, es que además de ser su mismo director, la construcción en cuanto a planos, es idéntica a la original. Un tremendo trabajo sicológico de Michael Haneke (su director) que plasma sobre los personajes. En resumen una película más que recomendable. A ratos desesperante, y ojo, que en un par de secuencias, dirás que fome y lenta se está poniendo, pero justo hay un momento que deja marcando ocupado y pidiendo más de esta repugnante y controversial cinta. Al final pensé. “Que película de mierda más buena”, te hará pasar un momento tenso y de no entretenimiento, si bien a ratos es muy absurda, el trabajo sicológico realmente es muy descatable.

DESCARGA Vía Torrent, versión año 2007 / Subtítulos AQUÍ

DESCARGA Vía Torrent, versión 1997 / (Incluye Subtitulos)

Trailer comparativo, al costado izquierdo la versión de 2007 (la que vi) y el costado derecho la versión del año 1997 (la que estoy descargando)

Trailer Funny Games año 2007

Slumdug Millionaire  ¿Quien quiere ser Millonario?

Dirección: Danny Boyle.
País: Reino Unido.
Año: 2008.
Duración: 120 min.
Género: Drama, comedia, romance.
Interpretación: Dev Patel (Jamal Malik), Freida Pinto (Latika), Madhur Mittal (Salim), Anil Kapoor (Prem Kumar)

SINOPSIS: Jamal Malik (Dev Patel), un joven huérfano que vive en un barrio extremadamente pobre de Bombay, decide presentarse a la versión india del concurso  ”¿Quién quiere ser millonario?”. Ante la sorpresa de todos, Jamal responde correctamente a todas y cada una de las preguntas. ¿Cómo es posible que un chico como él sea capaz de conocer todas las respuestas? Cuando Jamal está a punto de responder a la última pregunta, la que le hará ganar 20 millones de rupias, la policía lo detiene y se lo lleva para interrogarle. Jamal deberá explicar por qué conocía las respuestas, teniendo que recurrir para ello a relatar diferentes momentos de su vida, que además nos ayudarán a descubrir la verdadera razón de su participación en el concurso.

COMENTARIO: INCREIBLE!!!. Es genial de inicio a fin. Yo hace tiempo que la tenía en DVD y por flojera no la había visto. Sabía que era una colaboración Hindú-británica y que había ganado 8 premios Oscar en el 2008. Esta historia muestra la realidad de un país totalmente estancado como India. Donde hay un hacinamiento y pobreza de su gente que asusta y conmueve. Lo particular de la cinta es la forma en que logran conectar el pasado y el presente de Jamal, su personaje central. Como tiene que explicar porqué sabe todas las respuestas del programa “Quien quiere ser millonario”.

Estas historias son tremendas y no es nada más que su vida misma. Al inicio del film entran en acción los co-protagonistas, que son Latika y Salim. Amigos de niños que verán como la vida los separa y junta por distintas situaciones. En sí, esta película es de montaje muy veloz y no te da respiro en ningún momento, mezcla perfecta de imágenes, colores y música que son realmente increíbles, pero lo excelente de esta película es que es un complemento y no logra distraerte del eje central de la historia.

Es uno de esos films que sí los analizas, piensas que trata sobre la típica historia de amor, pero nada que ver. Nos refleja una vez más como en el Occidente nos estamos equivocando con los valores imperantes. Acá afloran y prevalecen los valores y sentimientos más sencillos. Es una búsqueda constante de los sueños y del amor más verdadero y profundo, con un camino tan crudo, que a diferencia de las películas de EE.UU, son reales, violentos e impactantes, lo cual logra que al final, uno sienta tanta alegría, emoción y satisfacción como los propios personajes de la película.

DESCARGA Via Torrent / Subtitulo AQUÍ

Trailer Slumdog Millionaire

I’m going to do a best of the decade in late December, along with my best and worst of the year. However, as I’ve been useless recently, and Xi and Wolf have got their lists started I thought I’d chip in with my bottom of the decade list.  Which I feel I can do because I don’t think I’ll see anything worse than this lot before the year end.

This isn’t actually as easy as it sounds. Honestly. I had to narrow down a longlist from about 1000 pieces of absolute garbage. To be absolutely fair, I’m going to define the rules first:

1) These are all films without a single redeeming feature

2)These must be films that aren’t just bad but offensively awful and manage to piss me off in some way.

3)No more than one Superhero film can make it- I could quite easily have filled the list with about 10.

4)Only 1 of original and sequels can make it.

5No Platinum Dunes remakes. I could have filled the list with them

Anyhow, criteria defined- here we go. In reverse order:

Dishonourable Mentions:

Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of The Crystal Skull, The Terminal, Van Helsing, Cabin Fever, Head Cheerleader Dead Cheerleader, Countless Superhero movies, Watchmen, Transformers, Matrix Sequels, Twilight, Scary Movie 2, Get Over It, The Sweetest Thing, The Last Kiss, Hannibal Rising, The Da Vinci Code, Poseiden, Oceans 12, Rob Schneider’s canon, The Cat in The Hat, Kill Bill 2, The Pirates of The Caribbean Sequels, Shrek 2 and 3, Swordfish,  The Heartbreak Kid, Battlefield Earth, anything with Eddie Murphy/ Martin Lawrence  in a fat suit.

*edit*

Since I wrote this I’ve been reminded of these other stinkers, that are actually worse than DM, but not quite bad enough to make it into the top 10:

Atrocious, but not quite top 10 level

13)9 Songs

Utter shit. Basically, just a slightly more explicit porno than Lust Caution. The reason it loses out to Ang Lee’s magnum snoozefest is that the chick in it shaves her armpits. Mediocre music combined with characters that aren’t so much ciphers as vacuums and the most explicit sex outside of hardcore porn.

To be honest, you’re better off putting on some music you actually like then watching hard core with the sound off.

12) Diary of the Dead

Romero proves Renton right once and for all: “You get old, you cannae hack it any more then you die”. All that’s left is for him to die.

Utterly dreadful, the central character is a complete cunt and he’s not alone. Romero needs to retire. However, like Xi, I’ve got battered wife syndrome with it, and will no doubt watch his next film.

11)Inland Empire

Unwatchable. Like putting your brain in a blender. As much fun as having your nipples electrocuted while some cunt asks for help with The Times crossword. By the end of this pretentious garbage you will be bleeding from the ears and your frontal lobe may have killed itself to relieve the pain.

The 10 Biggest Bags of Shit in the Last 10 Years

1o: Death Proof

Catastrophically dreadful. Completely boring. Totally useless. What the fuck was Tarantino thinking? This was billed as some kind of 70’s Grindhouse experience. It isn’t. What it is is hours and hours of boring self-indulgent women talking Tarantino (proving once again that he can’t write for women) before a ham fisted car chase. However, what makes this film a platinum stinker is that the climax of the film involves Kurt Russel crying.

Go and fuck yourself Quentin, you cunt. This is our Kurt, this is Snake Plissken, Macready, Jack Burton and you’ve made him cry. May the fleas of a thousand camels infest your arsehole.

Absolutely unforgivable.

9: Lust Caution

The film that finally confirmed to me that I just don’t like Ang Lee films. A UK critic coined the term “Boredom Porn” to describe it and he’s completely right. It redefines dull for an hour, then there’s some nasty sex between two unlikable twats for an hour. Then it ends.

Dreadful. If you want to watch two people fucking, watch porn. Strictly for people too embarrassed to purchase dirty films. Or for dwarves to small to reach the shelf with real porn on it.

8: 2 Days in Paris

Before Sunrise was wonderful. Before Sunset was even better. This is, however, atrocious. Someone told Julie Delpy that she had some talent for writing, so she rips off those 2 films wholesale. Except for one thing, one tiny, important detail: the characters in those 2 films weren’t complete and utter cunts. Boring exposition following 2 self-indulgent twats around Paris. Julie Delpy’s character in particular is such an obnoxious bitch that I’m amazed he didn’t dump her yonks before the break up at the end.

Seriously, she shows naked pictures of him to her parents. And expects him not to be upset. And as if that wasn’t insulting enough- it turns out this is a picture she takes of all her boyfriends. Cow.

Oh, and there are far too many gratuitous cock shots of Goldberg.

7: Hostel

A plague on torture porn. This is, in my opinion, the absolute worst of a genre that frequently rips up the bottom of the barrel and then burrows towards the Earth’s core. The whole plot is simple: unlikable assholes get tortured to death in Europe. It fails for several reasons but most importantly, that you just don’t care about the people getting tortured. Diabolically bad, relentlessly dull and proof positive that that terminally useless cunt Eli Roth couldn’t direct piss into a urinal without help.

6: Funny Games

Personally, and I don’t know about you, but I don’t like being told I’m a complete cunt for watching a film by the fucking director of said film. Boring rubbish with delusions of grandeur and a completely pointless remake to boot.

Did I mention that it’s the only film I’ve ever seen to tell me I’m a cunt during the film?

5: Attack of the Clones

There’s been so much written on the Star Wars prequels in general (fuck you Lucas you soulless cunt), and yes, it is true that they do suck and probably did interfere with everyone’s favourite childhood memories. This one however, manages to comfortably be the worst of the 3. There are so many different reasons that this film makes this list, but I’ve included it because it’s the only film that I have ever successfully got my money back from the cinema for. That’s how bad it is- I managed to get Camden Town Odeon to refund me after the film.

And no, the last half an hour of it is not good- unless Yoda bouncing around like a demented ping-pong ball floats your boat.

4: Shrooms

I ACTUALLY OWN THIS PIECE OF SHIT AND CAN’T BRING MYSELF TO THROW IT OUT.

I admit it. I fell for the tag line. I’m a complete and utter cunt.

Dismal, predictable, ridiculous, boring, stupid, annoying, badly written, worse direction and just not scary. For some inexplicable reason they do a “hallucinogen cam” that just induced a migraine in me. If you can’t work out who the killer is within three seconds of turning it on then you should be banned from watching horror films.

Luckily, I saw this after OUTLANDER (motherfuckers), because if I hadn’t then the presence of Jack Huston in Outlander may have stopped me from seeing it. And that would have been tragic.

And now for the top 3 hall of shame:

3: Spider-Man 3

The presence of this film here in absolutely no way validates Superman Returns.

Ouch. This is the 21st Century equivalent of Batman and Robin. To be absolutely honest, it was a toss-up between this and Superman Returns for this spot, but this gets the honour for the following reasons:

1)Dunst sings. Twice

2)Tobey Maguire struts his funky stuff.

3)Tobey Maguire dances.

4)Sandman kills Uncle Ben (nb- I usually don’t give a fuck about abusing funny-book canon, but this was daft)

5)Plotholes you could park the QE2 in.

6)Sympathetic villain that wasn’t sympathetic.

7)Far too much crying.

8)Incomprehensible final fight scene with annoying cut away to reporter telling us what’s going on, as clearly we don’t want to see it in a film called Spider-Man 3. No, we came for the song and dance numbers.

9)For some inexplicable reason Spidey fights a Power Ranger.

10)Butler with the power of Wikipedia who only exists to explain the whole plot to Harry.

I could go on and on with this, but you get the idea. Raimi just clearly didn’t give a toss, and I suspect that it was that massive cunt Arad’s fault for shoe-horning Venom in.

Spider-man 3 is just a shit film, and very, very nearly a franchise killer.

2: Sex and the City

This is actually a contender for number one. Not just a bad film but a truly dreadful effort that reeks of cash in. Who in their right mind wants to follow 4 horrid self-indulgent cows in their various and terminally boring adventures.  Not to mention the fact that the damned thing is over 150 minutes. This film is nothing short of offensive- every male character, bar one that gets appallingly treated by slut in chief, is a complete cunt and don’t get me started on the women.

Bear in mind that nothing of any interest to man or beast happens in that time.

Mrs. Jarv, in a moment of weakness that got her Lovefilm privileges removed for 6 months rented this. Even she admitted it was shit.

1: Alien v Predator: Requiem

Fuck me. Where to begin?

How about this- setting it on Earth in the present day. Or what about the fact that some cunt forgot to turn the lights on when they were shooting? There isn’t a redeeming feature to this fetid pile of garbage.

However, the real reason it’s number 1 in the Hall of Infamy is: The Predalien

Who in their right mind thought this piece of depressing fanboy wankery was a good idea? Who? Tell me, and I’ll feed them their own entrails.

A bad idea, poorly executed and even were the rest of the film as good as Alien (which it isn’t) then this would still be enough to make it the worst film of the last ten years.

However, when you add this little touch to the aforementioned poor effort, then you get what I think is the worst film for the last 20 years.

Alien v Predator: Requiem is a film so bad that it makes Uwe Boll look like Stanley Kubrick.

If anyone wants to give me more suggestions, then I’ll gladly expand this- it’s fun to do and I can summon up some real hatred for a lot of these films.

Cheers

Jarv

]]> http://ejweztobejrz.wordpress.com/2009/11/18/biala-wstazka-das-weise-band-2009/ Wed, 18 Nov 2009 21:38:58 +0000 120daysodomy http://ejweztobejrz.wordpress.com/2009/11/18/biala-wstazka-das-weise-band-2009/

Po remake’u znakomitego Funny Games, przeniesionego w realia amerykańskie, Haneke powraca do Austrii i cofa się o kilka dekad pokazując widzom demony ukryte w pozornie spokojnej, przedwojennej wiosce. Wizualnie w czerni i bieli, choć w charakterystyce bohaterów znajdziemy, na szczęście, wiele odcieni szarości. W kinach opisywany jest jako “thriller” i faktem jest, że całkiem sprawnie trzyma w napięciu, jak na film, który, przy okazji, porusza kilka innych kwestii takich jak wojna, hipokryzja, przemoc czy nadużycia wobec dzieci. Pozostawia też głęboki ślad po wyjściu z kina, zwłaszcza zaraz po końcówce seansu. Ale czy to wszystko sprawia, że “Biała wstążka” to film dobry? A nawet jeśli dobry, to czy godzien wszystkich nagród, które otrzymał, i które pewnie jeszcze otrzyma?

Szykując sie na seans ostatniego filmu Michaela Haneke trzeba przygotować się na poważny cios. Dla jednych będzie to cios nudy, dla innych cios intrygi, dla innych cios psychologiczny, a dla jeszcze innych irytacji. Pewne jest jednak to, że film emocje wywołuje, więc i warto go obejrzeć w grupie, dla konfrontacji, pojawiających się po filmie, kłębów myśli, i interpretacji. Haneke stworzyl prostą historię kryminalną, która staje się pretekstem do wejścia w świat rodzin zamiszkujących wspomnianą już wioskę. Wioskę z tradycjami, z austryjackim porządkiem, z ufnością wzajemną mieszkańców i sąsiedzką naturą obserwacji innych. Wioskę, pod której idylliczną prostotą kryją się zawiłości ludzkiej psychiki i trudności we wzajemnych relacjach. Już po paru minutach widzimy jak nad domami unoszą się “opary” amoralnej, negatywnej strony mieszkańców, niczym w herzogowskim “Woyzek’u”.  Ciężko znaleźć tutaj pozytywny charakter wśród dorosłej społeczności. Nawet nauczyciel, będący jakby obok wszystkiego, narracją przybliżający widzowi swoją perspektywę wydarzeń, wydaje się głupi, zbyt “szorstki” i niemiły. Wsród tego wszystkiego, bohaterami niejako drugiego planu, są dzieci. Dzieci, które padły ofiarą błedów wychowawczych, przemocy, nadużyć, hipokryzji, braku uczuć, molestowania czy wreszczie wzajemnego okrucieństwa. Zwłaszcza z perspektywy dzisiejszego trendu wychowywania bezstresowego czy zwyczajnego zliberalizowania obyczajów wychowawczych, ówczesny świat dziecka i relacje z dorosłymi wydają się koszmarne i nie do zaakceptowania. Lecz coś w dzieciach z tytułową białą wstążką (i w innych pojawiających się w filmie) jest tajemniczego. Coś co widz spodziewa się odkryć pod koniec filmu. Jednak czy odkrywa? To już pozostawiam do własnej oceny. Reżyser pozostawia wiele pytań bez odpowiedzi, kończy film bardzo naturalistycznie – dla wielu pewnie zbyt naturalistycznie. Co jakiś czas jednak podrzuca widzowi wskazówki, które trzeba sobie samemu poskładać, niczym Sergio Leone w “Dawno Temu w Ameryce“.

Czy film warto zobaczyć? Nie wiem. Myślę, że większość ludzi “Biała wstążka” zmęczy. Osobiście uważam, że film wnosi niewiele, jest ciężki w odbiorze, momentami wręcz irytujący. Jeśli ktoś chce się posiłować z austryjackimi dysfunkcjami społecznymi i rodzinnymi patologiami w postaci czarno-białego realizmu – go on. Ja jednak pozostaje fanem pierwowzoru “Funny Games” i Haneke’go wciąż szanuję, a “Białej wstążce” daje 1+/3 za męczarnie w trakcie seansu i brak długotrwałego wrażenia. Niestety nasze noty nie pasują mi tutaj wogóle, zwłaszcza w swoich opisach ale dla formalności daje “przeciętny obraz”. Nie jest przeciętny, jest po prostu męczący i nieco tendencyjny.

'The White Ribbon'

OK, I admit it: that title doesn’t make a lot of sense. Pun-notwithstanding, there are very few film-makers working today who are less likely to branch out into light romantic comedy than Michael Haneke. In the last decade, with work like The Piano Teacher, Code Unknown and Hidden, the Austrian director has established a reputation for himself as the master of certain kind of austere, serious and confrontational cinema that is about as far from Hollywood schmalz as it’s possible to get.

This week sees the UK release of Haneke’s latest film, The White Ribbon (Das weisse Band), in which he tells the story of a small German farming community plagued by a series of unexplained outrages sometime before the outbreak of World War One. A barn is burned down, a tripwire throws a doctor from his horse, and the local baron’s son is beaten by assailants unknown. The powers-that-be – the baron, the pastor, the doctor – respond to this anarchy with a wave of violent discipline against their social inferiors and the children of the village. These latter will, we realise, grow up to form part of the Nazi generation, and Haneke has spoken of setting out to explore the movement’s roots in the kind of repressive, petty and suspicious community portrayed in the film. 

If this all sounds a bit heavy, then consider for a moment the subject matter of some of the director’s other work. In The Piano Teacher (2001) he dealt with self-mutilation and repressed sado-masochistic fantasies, in Time of the Wolf  (2003) with the aftermath of an apocalypse, and in Hidden (2005) with post-colonial guilt. Watching a Haneke film can often feel like undergoing a trial of some sort; like being provoked and lacerated from the other side of the screen by a scrupulous, cunning intelligence.

It was this provocation that critics focused on when the director’s break-through film Funny Games played at Cannes in 1997. The tale of a middle class Austrian family who are set upon, tormented and killed by a couple of cartoon-like nihilists provoked walkouts and hostile reviews, with calls to ‘ban this evil filth’ and suchlike. Haneke could quite reasonably respond that his film was much less violent than most mainstream action movies, and that much of the violence in Funny Games is implied or happens off-screen anyway. But still, by toying with his viewers’ expectations, and by revealing the audience’s own bloodlust in the notorious scene where an act of retaliatory violence is ‘rewound’ and undone, Haneke had touched a raw nerve. ‘Perverted poison,’ wrote Rex Reed in The New York Observer. ‘The lurid sickness inherent in the director’s desire to shock and repel is grim enough, but worse, his movies make no sense.’

'Perverted poison.' 'Funny Games' (1997)

Most intelligent critics have since realised that provocation for provocation’s sake was never Haneke’s point. Indeed with his subsequent films the director has shown himself to be, if anything, perhaps the most stern moralist at work in today’s cinema (as if that big white beard wasn’t enough of a clue). The subject to which he returns again and again is guilt.  If he makes us see things that we would rather ignore – and he does this rather a lot – it is to force us confront them. So, in Hidden, he addresses head-on France’s – and by extension much of Europe’s – racist colonial past. In Code Unknown (2000) the subject is immigration and social tension in Fortress Europe. And in The Piano Teacher, we follow the life of a woman whose desires are, to all extents and purposes, forbidden and repressed by the ‘free’ society in which she lives.    

You don’t need to know a lot about Austrian history to see where some of this stuff comes from. The post-war republic in which Haneke grew up was keen to portray itself as the victim of foreign aggression, and to forget quietly about its own complicity in the crimes of the Nazis. Ex-Nazis could, and did, hold high office in Austria right up until the 1980s. The 1990s saw the rise of Jörg Haider’s far-right Freedom Party, which brought a heady brew of xenophobia and historical revisionism to the country’s elections, and captured the state of Carinthia. 

To put the pop psychology handbook to one side for a moment though, Haneke’s films work because the kind of guilt he addresses is not specifically Austrian but pan-European, pan-‘Western’ even. It is the guilt that rich countries owe to the poor, and that we owe to one another for looking the other way ten times a day. It is the guilt of those who refuse to do anything to change the world for the better. Importantly, he never lets the individual off the hook. Daniel Auteuil’s journalist in Hidden and Juliette Binoche’s actress in Code Unknown are complicit in the society in which they live. Society’s shame is their shame. They’re as guilty as everyone else, including us popcorn-munchers. 

Bad Santa? Michael Haneke, yesterday.

But the upside of all this is that it is within our power to change things. For all of their formal rigour and seriousness, the implication in Haneke’s films is that things can get better, if only we choose to look at the world unflinchingly and to act. Take, for example, the famously ambiguous final scene in Hidden, which both gives us a possible solution to the film’s puzzle and suggests that the next generation will start to undo and overcome some of the problems created by their parents. In Time of the Wolf too, Haneke finds the good as well as the bad in a society that is rebuilding itself from scratch, and suggests that kindness and solidarity are at least as inherently human as selfishness and brutality.

A stern optimist then, I would say. And, if the definition of a great artist is someone who looks unflinchingly into the abyss on behalf of the rest of us, then a great artist too. 

Now how’s about a remake of Pretty Woman Mike?

Play free online games, Action Games, Addicting Games, Adventure Games, Arcade Games, Board Games, Card Games, Car Games, Cooking Games, Dress Up Games, Drinking Games, Fighting Games, Flying Games, Funny Games, Kids Games, Math Games, Motorcycle Games, Puzzle Games, Racing Games, Room Escape Games, Shooting Games, Sports Games, Strategy Games, Word Games

Only at

www.OnlineGamesArcade.com

فیلم بازی‌های خنده‌دار “Funny Games“ را یک بار چند روز پیش توی گوگل ریدر معرفی کردم. امروز قرار است در یک جلسه‌ی نقد کمی درباره‌اش حرف بزنم. دیدم بد نیست چیزهایی که به ذهنم زده است را با خواننده‌هایم در میان بگذارم. پیشتر تذکر بدهم که در پاراگراف بعدی می‌خواهم داستان را لو بدهم بنابراین اگر می‌خواهید فیلم را ببینید و به نظرتان با دانستن قصه مزه‌اش می‌رود٬ بهتر است اصلن این‌ها را نخوانید.  

فیلم داستان یک خانواده‌ی سه نفره است که قرار است تعطیلات آخر هفته را به عادت همیشگی در ویلای کنار دریاچه‌شان بگذرانند ولی از بخت بد گرفتار بازی خطرناک دو جوان سپیدپوش می‌شوند. آغاز بازی این دو نفر انگار فقط یک مردم‌آزاری بچه‌گانه است ولی خیلی زود خشونت منفعل (Passive Aggression) این دو به خشونت فیزیکی فعال و سپس خشونتی سادیستیک تبدیل می‌شود. از این دو جوان یکی که شخصیت غالب دارد و مانند یک مرشد و مراد رفتار می‌کند قطعن سایکوپد Antisocial است و شخصیت آن دیگری را شاید راحت نشود نام‌گذاری کرد؛ چیزی ست بین سایکوپد و هیستریونیک (Histrionic) تا حتی یک اختلال مغلوب تحت تاثیر (Shared Disorder). هانکه ٬نویسنده و کارگردان فیلم٬ پیش از این هم یک بار دیگر همین داستان را در سال ۱۹۹۷ به زبان آلمانی و با هنرپیشه‌گان آلمانی به تصویر کشیده است.کارهای معروف دیگری هم مثل معلم پیانو دارد که به توصیف سادومازوخیزم پرداخته است. بازی‌های خنده‌دار اولین فیلم انگلیسی زبان اوست. او داریوش خنجی را برای فیلمبرداری انتخاب کرده است؛ کسی که می‌تواند یک تنه نصف حرف‌های فیلم را با دوربینش به خورد مخاطب بدهد. نگاه کنید به فیلم هفت (Seven) و ببینید چقدر از فضای دلهره‌آور فیلم مدیون دوربین خنجی ست. نگاه کنید به شبهای تمشکی من (My Blueberry Nights) و ببینید اگر دوربین خنجی را از آن بگیرید٬ چقدر از فیلم می‌ماند. اما هانکه گویی به دستان و خلاقیت خنجی قفل زده است. دیگر از کلیشه‌های رایج فیلم‌های ژانر وحشت خبری نیست. کلوزآپ قیافه‌های وحشت‌زده یا اتفاقات بدی که در ظلمات شب باید بیافتد یا بازی با رنگ سیاه را نمی‌بینید. بازی‌های خنده‌دار شما را در حسرت یک اتفاق خوب می‌گذارد و آدم‌های بی‌گناه را یکی یکی به کام مرگ می‌فرستد. هانکه دستهای قهرمانان فیلمش را هم مثل فیلمبردار می‌بندد و آن‌ها را اسیر ضدقهرمان می‌کند. تا آن‌جا که وقتی در یک سکانس کار از دست ضدقهرمان در می‌رود و همکارش را با گلوله‌ای به دیوار دوخته می‌بیند٬ ریموت کنترل را بر‌می‌دارد و فیلم را به عقب می‌برد و حق‌به‌جانب می‌گوید چون مطابق میل او نیست باید فیلم از نو گرفته شود. هانکه انگار می‌گوید نیاز به حقه‌های سینمایی و شعبده‌ی دوربین نیست تا شما درد و نکبت خشونت را حس کنید. نیاز به دیدن خون و تکه پاره شدن آدم‌ها در مقابل دوربین نیست که تنتان بلرزد. همین مسلوب‌الاختیار بودن و بازنده بودن محتوم از هر طرف که بروی٬ همین بی‌دلیل آزار دیدن و بی‌دلیل کشته‌شدن‌ها٬ و همین مقابل جبری بیمار دست تسلیم بالا بردن نکبت است و لرزه به چهار ستون آدم می‌اندازد.  

راستش بعد از دیدن فیلم اگر این‌ها را از زبان هانکه خوانده بودم٬ تعجب نمی‌کردم: «چه فکر کرده‌اید؟ چون روز آفتابی‌ست؛ چون بچه بی‌گناه است؛ چون زن تا آخرین لحظه تلاش می‌کند و تسلیم نمی‌شود؛ چون در و دیوار خانه سفید و حتی قاتلین سفیدپوشند٬ خشونت و مخافت آن می‌رود پی کارش؟! قرار نیست چون شما دوست دارید فلان اتفاق بیافتد، همان اتفاق بیافتد. اصلن شما عددی نیست که بخواهیدخداوندگار فیلم را به تمکین سلیقه تان وادار کنید. مهم نیست چه درست است و چه حق؛ مهم آن است که همین است که هست. فکر کرده‌اید چون یک چاقوی تیز و برنده را از همان اول انداخته‌ایم یک گوشه که شما تا آخرین لحظات فیلم فکر کنید کورسوی امیدی هست و حق بر باطل پیروز می‌شود و این همه ظلم بی‌عقوبت نمی‌ماند، من نباید امیدتان را ناامید کنم؟! من باید برایتان هپی‌اند تدارک ببینم؟! کور خوانده‌اید عزیزان من.» و البته هر بهانه‌ی کوچکی مرا به یاد روزگار نکبت خودمان می‌اندازد؛ حتی شاید این هانکه و باز‌ی‌های شوم تراژیکش. اندیشه‌ی این جبر سمج که دست بر نمی‌دارد از سرمان عذابم می‌دهد. نمی‌دانم چقدر خود را گزاف حوالت می‌دهیم به آینده‌ای بهتر و نور امیدی که نمی‌دانیم کی و از کدام روزن به پاداش صبر و پایمردی و بی‌گناهی امروزمان خواهد خزید بر زندگی‌.

In un villaggio della Germania del Nord, Michael Haneke (regista di altre pellicole importanti, come La pianista, Niente da nascondere e Funny Games) concentra tutta la sua forza espressiva in una storia dove ogni tassello, qualsiasi personalità (molti sono i personaggi rappresentati) si scontrano con quegli anti-valori predominanti in quel periodo storico o comunque il riflesso della Germania che sta per arrivare (nazismo in primis).

E’ proprio a essere l’educazione, talmente “imposta” (dolorosa e inneficace) a far nascere bramosie e vendette, probabilmente perchè il contesto (rarefatto e chiuso) e la troppa differenza “sociale” sono più forti e prevalicano il senso del giusto. Il contrappeso del buono e dello sbagliato è sempre in continuo mutamento in questo film, la ruota spesso si inceppa, l’equilibrio (solo apparentemente bilanciato, l’ira è nascosta, spesso rinchiusa nelle quattro mura domestiche) sfocia nel caos, le pedine impazziscono, per poi ritornare in uno stato di quiete, sconvolti da accadimenti più grandi, è la Storia a intervenire. Tutta la messa in scena, ben congegnata e mai banale (il racconto è parziale perchè ci viene raccontato da uno dei protagonisti che inevitabilmente racconta per sentito dire o per aver vissuto solo parzialmente quelle vicende) si fa carico di mostrare psicologie, violenze verbali e fisiche (questa volta ben mascherate dal fuori campo) sino a quel finale incongruo (volutamente) perchè non è tanto interessante sapere chi c’è dietro ai fatti (tra l’altro si capisce tutto il meccanismo, anche se non c’è Sherlock Holmes a spiegarlo) ma è proprio l’involuzione di quel meccanismo contorto a essere predominante sul resto. Gli aspetti tecnici a partire dalla solidità narrativa, dalla compostezza del montaggio e dalla fotografia in bianco e nero sono un accrescitivo, in un film che per asciuttezza e forza intrinseca m’ha ricordato Gosford Park di Robert Altman, per non andare troppo lontano potrei citare anche Bergman o altri illustri colleghi.

Vorrei chiudere con una provocazione. Ho letto alcune recensioni (a partire da Stefano Lusardi che sul film scrive: “è glaciale come un referto medico e non disturba come gli altri film dell’autore”. Sarà ma a me a (in più di una scena) ha disturbato eccome, ma forse è il cuore dei critici a volte a essere veramente freddo, perchè non riuscire a cogliere l’emozionalità di fronte alla crudezza di alcuni atteggiamenti è preoccupante. Oppure c’è sempre bisogno di mostrare la violenza nella sua interezza per scalfire l’animo umano? C’è sempre bisogno di essere palesemente diretti, mostrando ossa spezzate o quant’altro per poter “scaldare” l’animo di questi presunti intelletti?

Voto: 8 (su 10)

Che cos’è il nastro bianco? È un segnale, un simbolo, un monito di innocenza e purezza. Viene applicato ai bambini quando rompono le regole, quando peccano, per ricordare loro di tornare sulla retta via. È un nastro bianco, ma è come una lettera scarlatta. Siamo nel 1913/14, in un villaggio protestante della Germania del Nord, alla vigilia della Prima Guerra Mondiale. Nella comunità, dedita all’agricoltura e all’osservanza di rigide regole morali e religiose, cominciano ad accadere strani avvenimenti. Il medico cade da cavallo dopo che una fune è stata tesa appositamente. L’uccellino del pastore viene trovato trafitto da delle forbici. Il figlio del barone viene trovato ferito. E poi capita anche a un bambino handicappato. È una serie di “funny games”, di giochi per nulla divertenti. Parliamo di giochi perché dietro potrebbero esserci i bambini del paese…

E parliamo di “funny games” perché Il nastro bianco è l’ultimo film di Michael Haneke, l’autore austriaco che in questi anni, da Funny Games a La pianista a Niente da nascondere, ci ha abituato a ogni tipo di sadismo. Che qui va indietro nel tempo e scava nel profondo, per raccontarci le radici di quel male e i semi di quella cattiveria che ci ha mostrato così spesso nelle sue opere. Dietro la facciata puritana della comunità protestante c’è una crudeltà profonda, che appare lontanissima dal messaggio di Cristo di eguaglianza e solidarietà. “Ne ho abbastanza di un ambiente dominato dalla malignità, dall’invidia, dalla stupidità, dalla brutalità, da violenze, minacce, da perverse vendette” sentiamo dire a un personaggio del film. È una donna, una categoria che nel villaggio in questione è trattata nella maniera peggiore. Quello di Haneke è un racconto morale importantissimo. Perché spiega come e quando è nata e cresciuta la Germania più cattiva, quali sono state le idee e i comportamenti che hanno costituito il terreno fertile nel quale sono stati seminati i semi del Male, cioè del Nazismo. I bambini crudeli di oggi, cresciuti a pane e castigo, saranno i Nazisti di domani, creature ai quali un sistema fatto di ordini, obbedienze e punizioni sembrerà la prosecuzione naturale della loro vita.

È un film rigoroso, incredibilmente sobrio ed estremamente cupo e inquietante, Il nastro bianco. Una storia in cui la violenza è quasi sempre fuori campo, mai mostrata come in altre opere di Haneke. È una violenza soprattutto psicologica, che nella confezione raggelata che il bianco e nero di Haneke contribuisce a creare risalta ancora di più. È un bianco e nero di altri tempi (sembra di essere un film di Dreyer, o di Bergman), un bianco e nero classico, con i contrasti poco accentuati, ma con infinite sfumature di grigio. Quasi a voler affermare con forza la volontà di avvicinarsi al cinema d’un tempo, un cinema dal forte afflato morale e spirituale. Haneke gira con maestria, alternando inquadrature fisse del paesaggio, che sembrano quadri, a sequenze in cui la macchina da presa è mobilissima, come nella sequenza del valzer, in cui (come in Eyes Wide Shut di Kubrick) si muove insieme e intorno ai due danzatori, quasi a raccontare la leggerezza dell’unico momento spensierato di una storia opprimente, che si apre e si chiude con una lunghissima dissolvenza da e al nero.

È curioso che proprio quest’anno, e proprio partendo dal Festival di Cannes, due autori come Haneke e Tarantino (Bastardi senza gloria), che hanno fatto della violenza uno dei punti salienti della loro poetica, rappresentandola in maniere estetica, o intellettuale, si siano confrontati con una violenza “storica”, effettiva, come quella della Germania pre-nazista e nazista. Con due opere tra loro agli antipodi (classica contro pop, bianco e nero contro colore, controllo contro passionalità), la loro riflessione sul Male e la violenza, incontrando la realtà, è assunta a livelli ancora più alti. Come spesso accade quando l’Arte incontra la vita.

Da vedere perchè: E’ un grande film, rigoroso, incredibilmente sobrio ed estremamente cupo e inquietante

In honor of the day I figured I’d offer my take on the movies that scare me the most. Most of these have terrified me so much that I refuse to watch them. I’m not much for scary movies. I just don’t like that feeling of having to be afraid of something. Life is scary enough. I have also included an honorable mention that doesn’t fall into the genre of a scary Halloween movie but it still scared the willies out of me.

Honorable Mention
Sleeping with the Enemy
The classic Julia Roberts tale of boy meets girl, boy beats girl, girl escapes…maybe. The monster in this movie knows everything. I mean everything. His wife cuts her hair to escape his abuse and control and flushes it down the toilet and HE STILL FINDS IT. Just when she thinks she’s safe she notices the towels in her new kitchen are organized just like he liked them, and she didn’t do it….

5. Arachnophobia
I have always been terrified of spiders. And seeing this movie as a child didn’t make things any better. To this day if I try to rewatch it, I don’t get far and I just give up. Although, John Goodman’s character is always a good draw to sit through it anyway.
A rare South American spider hitches a ride in a coffin and infects an entire town. The only problem is that this spider seems to hunt humans and its bite kills you instantly. Even the spider expert isn’t safe.

4. The Shining
This is one of those movies that scared me the first time I watched it, but I can still watch it over and over. It’s just so ingenious. I’ve got to visit the Stanley Hotel (Stephen King’s inspiration for the book).
A dysfunctional family moves to a mountain hotel to watch over it for the winter season and finds out they’re not the only ones there. The classic moment is when Shelley Duvall, in a fit of fear, finds a man and a person dressed as some kind of animal in one of the hotel rooms.

3. The Wicker Man
This isn’t the Nicholas Cage version, let’s just get that out of the way. After watching this movie late one night on a whim, the only thing I could think at the end of it was “that was messed up.”
A police officer visits an island after receiving a letter asking for help in finding a missing girl. As soon as he steps off his floating plane he realizes this is no normal island. And the people are definitely hiding something. Needless to say he doesn’t discover what this is until the end.

2. Candyman
This movie kept me from being able to really look in a mirror for two weeks. And if I think about the scene in the public bathroom for too long I can’t sleep.
You’ll have to watch the movie to find out the story, I’m too traumatized by it. Moving On.

1. Funny Games
I had no idea what I was in for when I sat down to watch this movie. It’s just realistic enough to happen and it’ll sure make you think twice about opening your door.
From the very first time that blaring music turns on, you know you’re in for a horrifying and nightmare-inducing time. Anyway, meet your movie monsters: two greasy boys who wear white gloves constantly. Trust me, that’s terrifying enough. A family arrives at their vacation home to see their neighbors standing with these boys, who eventually come calling for eggs. What starts next is a huge, horrifying ball rolling down a hill that no one is going to be able to stop.

Funny Games (Michael Haneke, 2007)

Hello all.

I would first like to establish that I am not going to try and argue if this or its shot-for-shot remake is better. I do enjoy this one a bit more, but I think my perspective is skewed because I saw the original first. This film will be severely spoiled for you in this post if you have not seen it. Once again, I highly recommend you see the film prior to reading this post. That being said, those who have seen the film know that there are numerous ways to discuss it. It’s a great film, one that I always recommend (the ending is absolutely brilliant).

Funny Games is an excellent film about the human condition. It explores and even, at times, thrusts in your face problematic notions concerning humanistic qualities. The quality most important to this film is that of what we, as humans, typically find entertaining. I would say, at the surface, that is this film’s primary purpose. The audience is even questioned directly by the characters onscreen just to ensure that the film’s purpose is clearly presented. On the topic of breaking the fourth wall, it happens several times with a shift from very subtle (a slight wink at the camera) to very blatant (questioning/ attempting to antagonize the audience). This shift is absolutely brilliant and makes the ending that much better.

Another profound element of this film is the development of Paul and Peter. They are presented so carefully to the viewer at the start of the film, allowing us to learn as much as we possible we can about the two as individuals, their relationship, and how they interact with others. The use of close-ups throughout is a clear sign that film is mainly about the characters. The film is full of outstanding performances, the best of which being the mother (played by Susanne Lothar). Her performance is highlighted in a scene in which she displays genuine, tragic emotion at the loss of her son. This is an excellent film, and once again, I highly recommend it.

Thank you for reading!

you’ve stated it—on more than one occasion, actually—that i use the big ideas to cover for the little slips of responsibility, implying that i’m in essence a loosed cannon hiding behind a grassy knoll of unpracticed theory to justify… what, exactly?

—anarchy? hedonism? nihilism? godlessness by any other name?

it’s too big, it’s too wide, it’s too strong…

i apologize for not making it simple enough for you, for not chunking down, for not showing you the mashedup meal before you was once a carrot and i most deeply regret your unwillingness to wrap your tongue around the idea that—honestly—this is how i see things.

it’s not an act or a fact. it’s how i’ve programmed myself.

it won’t fit, it’s too much, it’s too tough…

and i truly am sorry, because, to me, of course it’s a game and the way i win is by learning to speak your language. (that’s why i smile when you make me smile.)

and i’m truly sorry that you get caught up in the thick of thin terms like “game” and i hate to rob you of the orgasm of your artificial aha moments but they stand in the way of why we’re here: expansion, exploration, growth, creation, learning. i want to lead you

past what you know to where new ideas are borne inside of yourself, to disrobe you and search for the seat of consciousness in your dark holes and tell you to clasp your fingers around mine because the ride can make you bump like turbulence until you learn to ride the wave and teach me what gets you off because what i’m most sorry about is that i only have a few apologies left and i can’t waste them on caressing your insecurities.

it won’t help me win the game.

…besides, i like pushing you into uncomfortable positions. i like the way your heart breathes on my belly when i cross invisible lines into your personal space. i like the way your eyes roll when i exhale what i’m going to do next into your ear while my left hand pinches the nerve cluster of one of your many  mental clitorises like a dinner party from Chicago in Brooklyn. and, yes, i like to finish my plate.

some call it arrogant, i call it confident.

i love the strongest parts of you. that’s why i bring them out.

she laughs without pretense or forethought; a spontaneoous explosion of all that she is—dishindered, untethered from shame, glorified unto herself. she knows who she is and is free from shrinking humility when showing herself to you. the honor is all yours.

#caution: she remains dangerous beyond measure because of this. a smart bomb in an army of loose cannons. if she goes to war, you will only know her declaration by your ruin: caution#

then, she laughs. and you forget it all.

you are an insect to her. she plays with you, creates your parameters and smiles as you toil as if your machinations have any import beyond her control.

she is divine punishment, a gracious conflict, releasing you to be your own adversary, ready to swallow you whole a thousand times one thousand times plus seven. and she will cradle you as worlds disintegrate beneath you.

[This article, and the slideshow itself, contains spoilers about both versions of Funny Games.]

When Michael Haneke said he was going to remake Funny Games in English shot by shot, you knew he was going to keep his promise, but you might have been surprised at exactly how closely he stuck to his original storyboards. This week I watched them both together, i.e. one on the TV, one on the laptop, and some of the matches between shots in each are quite remarkable. On the one hand, this is a diverting little exercise that proves (as if such proof were necessary) the strict control that Haneke maintains over his mise-en-scene and editing, almost to the point of constricting his actors within rigid frameworks.

That element of control may be part of the point, racking up considerable tension by emphasising not the random terrors of violent assault, but its careful and manipulative deployment by a non-interventionist film-maker. Haneke’s portrayal of the escalation of a murderous home invasion is as calm and indefatigable as the young men who carry it out, and this is clearly demonstrated by his ability to stick to the script and produce the same effects in both films. When asked why he decided to repeat every single shot of his 1997 Funny Games for an American remake, Haneke replied:

Because I have nothing to add. I already did the first film for an American audience, for an audience consuming violence. And it only didn’t reach that audience because it was in German. And so when I got the offer of the remake I said sure. After all, the subject became only more up to date. I mean, the world is only more violent. I wanted to give myself a certain challenge, I wanted to make it a little bit more demanding for myself. And so, I decided to do it shot-by-shot again.

I’ve always been uncomfortable with the didactic nature of the film, but I admire its commitment to unsettling its viewer. It’s still possible, if so inclined, to enjoy it as another extreme thrill ride (I’m often amazed by the ability of horror fans to shrug off even the most gruelling of movies or to compartmentalise them as compendia of bodily destruction in all its variations), though you can see Haneke trying to thwart such attempts at complacency. Funny Games doesn’t play fair – the divisive moment where one of the killers uses a remote control to rewind the film to make it replay in his favour breaks a contract with the spectator that their involvement in the fiction can have an influence on it. We like to believe that because we’re on the side of the innocents, the filmmaker will at least reward us with some relief, some catharsis or vengeance, but there is no comfort here: in this place of carefully applied violence, dogs and children die first. Why? Because they’re not supposed to, and thus is highlighted the artifice of the conventions that usually govern film violence.

This slideshow makes pairs of shots from the 1997 and 2007 versions. Feel free to scroll through and fastforward, because the full version might take a long time to view. Alternatively, you can see the whole set here:

In putting together a slide show of comparisons of shots from both versions of Funny Games, I was struck by how, in combination, the pair of films show how reliant the film is, in either version, on repeated shots of its own. The recurrence of a golf ball as an object of menace, close-ups of knives, eggs, golf clubs, and the remote control itself -  the family use a remote to open and close the gates to their property, and one of the killers uses a remote to resurrect his friend. The gates are shown closing all the way behind the family (the gates in the 2007 version move much more slowly, but the shot carries on nevertheless), completing the symbolic image of the security system that is both a protection and a threat: the family effectively incarcerate themselves as they seek isolation and separation from other people inside their holiday retreat. All of those implements of their leisure and domesticity (sports equipment, kitchen knives, the boat, television) are used against them. Even the codes of polite society are turned into an aggravating weapon – the attackers initially pass off their assault as a failure of manners on the part of a family who refuse to share their space or pay them proper respect.

There are differences between the two versions. Anne’s dress and make-up in 1997 mark her out as a little more tight  and prim than Naomi Watts’ warmer, smilier version, and the colour palette in 2007 is darker, more muted. But when Haneke even goes to the trouble of ensuring that the same subjects are playing on the bloodstained TV (and one of the thugs is seen channel-hopping through footage of hurricane destruction to alight on racing cars in both versions, too), you know that he’s serious about each and every component of his work, and that you’ve already lost this particular game: you have no say in how things are going to turn out. Unless, of course, you switch it off.

his darkness casts two shadows—one light, one dark. each unaware of the other.

the presence of her regret is palpable. it seems to have come to her wholly formed and has no birth certificate. “it can’t be mine,” she says, oblivious to her carrying it to term in her soul’s womb.

she feeds it, nurtures it. she refuses to let anything die, not even the things that must.

she is out of rhythm. she’s a machine of meat, as we all are, and her programming parameters have been set. she’s not willing to upgrade her operating system. she wonders why she gets the BSOD.

control + alt + delete

he knows they’re there. he still feels alone.

there is no ease of flow. the volley of her ideas is violent. she moves to rub out her dangerous static, to silence the electric ball of confusion. it’s wrathful. she’s scared. she does what she does best.

["there's not much to master until you master yourself." who says this? must be the gods, looking down from the Mount. we're not that responsible to speak to ourselves thus.]

he’s forgotten; unsure of why he’s even here in the first place. but he continues.

her potential fury turns kinetic. she doesn’t want to hear the voices. she knows energies don’t form in vacuums. but she won’t accept it. she’s determined to force out her multitudes and quiet the hordes at her gates. she repurposes terms and mixes her metaphors.

[you can't stop to take in the pleasure of accolades which say, "i see you are on your journey and this is great. please, come in and have something to eat. tell me all about it. stay as long as you wish," for that is off the path.]

he thinks he hears gods speaking.

“feel better now?” she asks.

he pauses. ” i feel…” he says, “clear.”

["do you tell her that the clarity scares you?"]

no. he does not.

IMDB link  http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0119167/

IMDB ratings 7.7/10   13,277 votes
Release Date : 11 March 1998 (USA)

Genre : Crime | Drama | Horror | Thriller

Plot : Two psychotic young men take a mother, father, and son hostage in their vacation cabin and force them to play sadistic “games” with one another for their own amusement.

Direct Download links

http://netload.in/dateiM8a2i5kPia/Funny.g.bybochi.part1.rar.htm
http://netload.in/dateivXejiNRnF1/Funny.g.bybochi.part2.rar.htm

Haneke was in London a week ago to present White Ribbon at the London Film Festival. And he’s now back at BFI!

The British Film Institute is conducting a full restrospective of his work in the next 2 weeks. All his films are worth a watch. White Ribbon is part of the program but, to discover him, his original 1997 Funny Games is a must along with: Benny’s video, 71 Fragments of a Chronology of Change, and Hidden.

The retrospective will culminate with a conference with Haneke, on November 22nd. Be there or be square!