Was it good?

>>87190791
Are you good?

>>87190791

Nothing is objectively good or evil anon, life is just an absurd series of events unfolding entirely dependent on chance.

Didn't you watch the fucking movie?

>>87190791
wasn't very funny

>>87190791
Underrated gem

>>87190791
It was okay, but Haneke is awful; whereas as a thriller it was very tense, as a commentary it fell into the very thing it wanted to criticize. It left absolutely no room for interpretation or thought, it was just Haneke's thoughts shoved down your throat.

>>87190951
*tips fedora*

File: 15037026389782.jpg (92KB, 782x440px) Image search: [Google]

92KB, 782x440px

>>87190791
Wannabe Batemen.

>>87190791
Better then the original

>>87191537
this is true but i still like the original

I only watched it for Michael Pitt. I wish the dude did more movies.

>>87190791
>rewind scene
Nope

>>87191607
too busy doing heroin and getting kicked off productions

>>87191620
What's wrong with it

No. Everything that is meta sucks. If you don't like exploitation flicks, fine. Criticize it all you want, but don't go around being a pretentious asshole by making a movie where you're showing off "how you get it" and commenting on how it's done and why it's garbage.
If you've made something that's garbage as a "joke" or "statement" or whatever, it's still garbage.
But man I'd pay a lot of money just smell Naomi Watt's panties in this movie. My god she's fucking hot.

>>87191620
literally what did they mean by this scene?

I thought it was really good, maybe even better visually but I prefer the original even if just because I didn't recognize the actors. The whole "foreign" and unfamiliar aspect of it made it seem so much more terrifying for whatever reason. As much as I like Naomi, Tim Roth and Michael Pitt that recognition kind of takes away from the experience.

Why did he make the same movie 2 times?

>>87191740
I'd agree if it was written nowadays, but the original was released in 1997. The whole meta aspect wasn't such a meme at that point, and I think it's done relatively well. It's not just making a piece of garbage and winking at the audience, the movie is the "wink". Its openly acknowledging that the meta stuff is part of the narrative. All it does is reveal a sort of reality about these kinds of movies, I don't agree with >>87191537 I don't think it's "telling" you how to feel at all. It's just forcing you to acknowledge something and I think that's fine. Any further contemplation on what it's pointing out is dependent on the viewer.

I don't think it's just saying "exploitation films are garbage and you should feel like garbage for enjoying it" but moreso "why the fuck do we enjoy exploitation films?" It's a question, not a statement.

The original in German was better.

Why didnt they rape the women and the boy before they kill him?

>>87192137
because of irony.

you know how some people think they are more deep than they actually are?

>>87192167
It's literally the exact same movie, just with a lower budget and worse actors.

>>87192137
>>87192192
Shut the fuck up. He made it twice because the original was made under budget constraints. He wanted it to be set in America, so he decided to just do it again.

>>87192273
*tips fedora*

>>87192141
>Its openly acknowledging that the meta stuff is part of the narrative.
Of course it does. That's what meta is. It's lazy, and it's pretentious.
If Haneke really wanted to criticize exploitation flicks in the form of a movie, he should have just made the most cookie-cutter exploitation flick ever. Just fired on all the lazy tropes, without any of the comments, and just raked in the dough.

>>87190994
This

>>87191620
i bet you hate evil dead

>>87192368
But that would be making a completely different point. That prove that audiences like exploitation films, no shit. Funny Games is deliberately asking the audience "why". If it's deliberately and especially concerned with how the audience is reacting to something then that meta aspect is necessary.

Nothing about being meta is inherently lazy or pretentious. People have been acknowledging the frame as a part of the painting for centuries. You're just saying that because people who use it nowadays are generally being lazy and pretentious. I don't think it was in Funny Games. That's what I meant when I said "it's a part of the narrative" in the sense that it wasn't just gimmick. The point the movie is trying to make is dependent on that meta aspect, it's essential. You can still think it's lazy and pretentious but you actually have to make that argument. You can't just call it that simply because it's meta.