edited by Jonathan Doyle

Cloverfield [BLU-RAY] (Paramount Home Entertainment, 6.3.2008) Disguised under deliberately goofy, yet deliciously edible-sounding, aliases such as Cheese and Slusho, Matt Reeves' Cloverfield was produced and rushed into theaters under an equally appetizing shroud of secrecy. From last year's incredibly elusive Super Bowl ad to the film's viral marketing campaign, Cloverfield had everybody scratching their heads and drooling in anticipation. Aside from the as-yet untitled title and the Blair Witch-ian visual style, the film's biggest appeal was the enigmatic creature who was last (un)seen hurling the decapitated head of the Statue of Liberty onto the crowded streets of New York City. All we knew about the mysterious beast was that it was big and angry. Now that the highy-anticipated project has come and gone, one question has fortunately been answered: Cloverfield was a major success. (continued)

Upcoming

August 27

Traitor

August 29

Babylon AD

College

Disaster Movie

Goal II: Living the Dream

I Served the King of England

My Mexican Shivah

Sukiyaki Western Django

Year of the Fish

Young People F*cking

September 3

The Pool

September 5

A Secret

August Evening

Bangkok Dangerous

Everybody Wants to Be Italian

Mister Foe

Ping Pong Playa

Save Me

Surfer, Dude

Olsen's "Funny Games" story

email this story
read comments (9)
post a comment

Mark Olsen's 3.9 L.A. Times interview with Funny Games director-writer Michael Haneke mentions British-based producer Chris Coen buying the U.S. remake rights, but it doesn't explain why the people at Warner Independent saw it as a worthwhile film to distribute. If it had been my decision, I would have said no.

Consider, for example, what a guy who calls himself "Mr. Mystery" wrote earlier today about seeing a Funny Games preview last weekend at a suburban theatre: "Total silence until the end when someone said 'fuck you!' to the screen, [and] the audience applauded." What loon would say to him or herself, "Now that's a film I want my company to distribute." I respect Funny Games for what it is and I admire Haneke tremendously, but what could Warner Independent president Polly Cohen have been thinking?

Olsen writes that Haneke "insisted on casting Naomi Watts -- he said he would likely have not made the new film if she had said no." But why is Watts listed as the film's executive producer? What was that about? Did she agree to cut her price to nothing so she could have a juicy role to play?

Bush sings<< previous | next >>"Funny Games" = Clinton campaign

Posted by Jeffrey Wells on March 11, 2008 at 4:35 PM

comment #1

T. Holly says ...

Why would she have to cut her price to get passive payments on prequel and sequel rights? They could terrorize another family.

Posted by T. Holly at March 11, 2008 5:51 PM

comment #2

Gordie Lachance says ...

First No Country and now this. I love the whole fat, lazy, illiterate American sense of entitlement (ie. "I paid my $9.50, and I DEMAND an ending).

We can't see what's coming, but boy do we deserve it.

Posted by Gordie Lachance at March 11, 2008 7:29 PM

comment #3

T. Holly says ...

someone has to acknowledge this, it's a script ripe for mumblecore

http://weblogs.variety.com/thompsononhollywood/2007/11/no-country-for.html

Posted by T. Holly at March 11, 2008 10:22 PM

comment #4

George Prager says ...

C'mon Jean Luc Godard, how about a shot by shot remake of WEEKEND starring J-Lo?

Posted by George Prager at March 12, 2008 6:00 AM

comment #5

George Prager says ...

Reviewing the original version of “Funny Games,” the critic J. Hoberman wrote: “His movies are founded on the denial of catharsis and, to compound the creepiness, Haneke insists he is occupying the moral high ground. . . . The wheel is rigged so only Haneke can win.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/23/magazine/23haneke-t.html

Posted by George Prager at March 12, 2008 6:10 AM

comment #6

OtownRog says ...

Is it the ending that has people saying "Fuck you," or the smug, talk to the camera pitiless pointlessness of it all?
It's enough like the original to make it watchable, but he takes you out of the movie time and again, and it's not the sort of thriller where that is going to pay off for you.

Posted by OtownRog at March 12, 2008 8:45 AM

comment #7

monsieur hire says ...

I've seen the original and the new version, and this one feels more powerful to me, perhaps because of my admiration for the depths that Watts goes to in what has to be one of the all-time great pieces of acting in a thriller. She really blows you away, particuarly in the middle of the film when she and Roth get some alone time. But my problem with the original still nagged me here, which is that I disagree that Haneke's director's tricks, including the self-conscious and asides and the rewind, have much impact in diffusing the actual barbarism and emotional torture he conjures up. This is a painful movie, and that Haneke believes the hogwash that he is making a profound statement about our desensitized tolerance level for movie violence and willingness to applaud "acceptable" acts while deriding others. The artifice does nothing but remove us from the drama, and someone should clue him that in a thriller as extreme as this, we are obviously going to indentify with the victims and applaud their retribution against their persecutors. While it has power, Funny Games is more than pretentious and fails to justify its premise. It is an ugly, mean and cruel experience, and Haneke gets his last laugh all right, making us care deeply for characters then....well, it is what it is.

Posted by monsieur hire at March 12, 2008 10:11 AM

comment #8