I’d like to say that Michael Haneke out did himself with this US remake of his 1997 Austrian version of Funny Games, but I’ve never seen that one. And I kind of have to say that after seeing this update, I’m not exactly inclined to seek it out either. The violence here depicted is as graphic as it is emotionally disturbing. At times it’s exceptionally hard to watch, and while I believe that’s the point, I don’t think we’re serviced by that fact very much. Plus, the film features a few creative flourishes that are meant to add context and insight, but they are really just gimmicky and jarring.

What starts out as an idyllic vacation for Ann and George (Naomi Watts and Tim Roth) and their son Georgie (Devon Gearhart) in an exclusive lakeside community turns into a nightmare. Two fair-haired young men named Paul (Michael Pitt) and Peter (Brady Corbet) come calling to ask if they can borrow four eggs. But what starts a simple request turns out to be a bizarre and deadly mind game, or rather a series of mind games. Paul and Peter toy with the family and have deadly intension, a good question is why, but a better question is how will the family get out this situation alive?

I will say that the film does an impressive job inducing menace and getting the audience rattled almost right off the bat. Even before Paul and Peter show up, there’s a stilted reality that’s disconcerting to the point where you can’t stand all the waiting for something to happen. And the feeling of forebode is what really works in favour of Funny Games, the violence, although implicitly graphic, does not go over the top with a lot of blood and guts. It is a visceral type of violence – frightening in its intent, rather than revelling in Hostel like grossness.

Here’s where things get dicey and some if it will require us to veer drastically into spoiler territory. I’ll start with something non-spoilery to give you an opportunity to avert your gaze… The one particularly annoying aspect of the film is the way Paul breaks the proverbial forth wall to engage the audience. One can practically hear the filmmakers winking from off screen, “See, we know how violent we’re being, isn’t it ironic?” Paul and Peter make a bet with the family about whether or nor they’ll survive the night before Paul turns to the screen and says, “What do you think? Think they stand a chance?” Snap! That takes me out of the moment, blowing all that disconcerting momentum Haneke was building.

The second part of this, the more spoiler part, is during the climax when Ann gets the upper hand and shoots Peter with a shotgun. Naturally, this is a reprieve moment for the audience that, even though Ann might not survive, she’s gotten at least some small share of revenge. So of course after the deed is done, Paul finds a remote control and rewinds the scene in order to stop Ann from shooting the partner he not so affectionately refers to as ‘Tubby’. Well, if you thought the self-referential winks throughout the movie were egregious, if you’re like me, this will make you lose your mind.

Both these things are huge missteps in the narrative flow; they take you out of the movie by getting you to focus more on the gimmick than the story and the performances. And while I appreciate that Haneke is trying to do something unique and different with the age old story of innocent hostages held by psychos, I can’t help but feel ripped, especially by that whole rewind thing. There’s no point in creating sympathy for the characters if the filmmaker has no sympathy for the audience. Of course, the film did provoke a strong reaction in me, which is better than a blasé film about psychotics I guess.