Upcoming
June 12
Call of the Wild 3D
Youssou N'Dour: I Bring What I Love
June 16
June 19
Dead Snow
Whatever Works
June 24
Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen
June 26
Cheri
Fireflies in the Garden
July 1
Ice Age: Dawn of the Dinosaurs
July 3
The Girl from Monaco
I Hate Valentine's Day
July 10
July 15
Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince
July 17
July 24
All Good Things
The Answer Man
In the Loop
July 29
July 31
The Cove
August 7
When in Rome
August 14
A Perfect Getaway
District 9
The Goods: The Don Ready Story
Ponyo
Pool Boys
Spread
The Time Traveler's Wife
August 21
Five Minutes of Heaven
Goose on the Loose!
It Might Get Loud
World's Greatest Dad
August 28
The Boat that Rocked
September 4
Amreeka
Carriers
Citizen Game
Shanghai
September 9
September 11
The Red Canvas
Tyler Perrys: I Can Do It All Myself
September 17
The Burning Plain
September 18
Brand New Day
Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs
Jennifer's Body
Splice
September 25
October 2
A Serious Man
Toy Story/Toy Story 2
Olsen's "Funny Games" story
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?
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.â€
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
T. Holly
says ...
Making your movie over again is reverse filmmaking. It's the ultimate pre-vis; I'd love to know how many days it took and the tech craft involved.
For endings, let's not forget the fracus over The Sopranos.
Not sure I need my name twice, so I'm abbreviating.
Posted by T. Holly
at March 12, 2008 12:48 PM
comment #9
korryer
says ...
Did you ever posted it on a celebrity and millionaire dating site called wealthysoulmate.com. I saw it there a few weeks ago.
Posted by korryer
at March 13, 2008 1:07 AM
Post a comment