Not what it says on the tin: Funny Games

[About as funny as Family Guy: The Video Game]

A film so great that Michael Haneke made it twice. Or one would think so, judging by the obsessive attention to detail in its remake. Near enough a shot-for-shot, word-for-word remake, Funny Games '07 only avoids complete pointlessness thanks to it being slicker and directed by the same fella as the original piece. Shitty remakes have come before and shitty remakes have come after, but few will be shitty on quite the same (shitty) level as Funny Games.

Arthouse torture porn, that's how the broadsheets describe Funny Games. A bit like AntiChrist or Martyrs, but more pretentious, self-regarding and with a tabloid mentality. If you enjoy any of Funny Games' goings-on, then you're a bad person. To his credit, Haneke puts Naomi Watts in her underwear and makes it unenjoyable. For that, I think Michael Haneke is a bad person. Tim Roth and Naomi Watts are pretty much the only watchable people in the '07 version of the movie. The killers are too smug and twattish, whilst the family's kid is just a cheap gimmick.

In the '97 original piece, there's the advantage of having relative unknowns playing out the cast. It makes the movie feel a little more powerful, creepy and less Hollywood. All involved give good performances although, again; the killers are too smug and twattish, whilst the family's kid is just a cheap gimmick.

There's nothing wrong with subtexts that critique violence in movies, but Funny Games is just heavy handed, judgemental nonsense. I'm not sure who the target audience is supposed to be: it's too intense for those who don't like horror, and spends too long insulting those who do. It'd be like someone making a romcom and then having the male lead be an emotionally abusive sparkler asshole who sparkles treats the heroine like crap. Although I daresay its US cinema release may have confused the occasional gorehound looking for another cheap torture guff fix. Bollocks as Funny Games is, this thought kinda amuses me.

Both versions do have their worthwhile moments. Haneke's use of tension is exceptional, particularly during the antagonists' initial conversations with the respective couples. Likewise, his use of violence works very well. There's very little physical violence depicted onscreen, although you'll think there was. Perhaps It'd work better if Haneke had let his work speak for itself, rather than having the characters lecture us throughout. But therein's the problem with auteurs, I suppose. Technically brilliant - ego up the wazoo. In not liking Funny Games, its detractors are easily dismissed by Haneke as bloodthirsty horror idiots. The following score stands for both versions:

Two fer' one: [REC] and Quarantine

Because there's a sequel out now. And writing two seperate reviews for a virtually identical set of films would have been too much work. [REC] (2007) which is the best of the two - and came first - sees a news reporter and her trusty cameraman trapped at the centre of a zombie outbreak in Barcelona, Spain. Quarantine (2008) tells the same story, only set in LA, America and with Dexter's sweary sister from off'a Dexter. There aren't nearly enough horror movies set in Barcelona. You don't get to see much outside of the apartment complex, but it's still a neat setting. The remake being relocated from lovely Barcelona to overused LA is just one of the things that makes it a slightly less interesting movie.

Baaaaaarceloooonaaaaaa. Just out of shot: zombies.

The way the movies are filmed is like Cloverfield crossed with The Blair Witch Project crossed with the Dawn of the Dead remake crossed with The Descent. Not only is that as awesome as it sounds, in the case of [REC], it's even better. It's like the nightvision bits of The Descent, dragged out for feature length. It works very well in both cases - largely managing to sidestep the "why are they still lugging that damn camera around?" question that tends to plague films of its ilk - making for tense, properly scary viewing. Very few horror movies tend to stick in this jaded horrorphile's memory nowardays, but [REC] is one that really manages to dig itself into one's psyche. Quarantine, not quite so much...

Whilst there's nothing wrong with Quarantine per-se (well, Jennifer Carpenter's latter-half screaming and shrieking gets annoying fast - to the extent that her character here is almost as irritating as the one she plays in Dexter), it just suffers mightily in comparison to its inspiration. It functions extremely well as a zombie movie, but if you've seen [REC] then it just feels overfamiliar and redundant. Unsurprising, considering that it's mostly a shot-for-shot remake. Much of the original flick's power is in the use of relatively unknown actors and a powerhouse performance from the adorable Manuela Velasco. Watching Jennifer Carpenter and Jay Hernandez go through the very same motions doesn't really seem to have the same impact. Plus I just can't buy Hernandez as a fireman. Or as anything other than a torture Hostel victim, really.

If you've not seen [REC], then consider your enjoyment of Quarantine doubled. It's well shot, well acted (perhaps a little too well) and gripping throughout. But as with most things, the original is unbeatable. In this time when most zombie movies need a comedy element to be succesful, [REC] is proof that there's still plenty of mileage in playing things straight. And if this set of films teaches us anything, it's that "AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAGGHHHHHHHHHH" sounds the same in any language.

[REC]:

Quarantine: