只用一本书提高英语听力能力!重温经典名著双语阅读小编推荐:跟着纪录片学英语不背单词和语法,轻松学英语
返回列表 回复 发帖

[影片快递] 【整理】2008-06-29 Funny Games 趣味游戏

提高英语听力能力 找对方法很重要!

[影片快递] 【整理】2008-06-29 Funny Games 趣味游戏

Movie Minutes:(45)两位风度翩翩的白衣青年造访了正在度假的一家三口,却在进门后露出邪恶的面孔,美好的假期变成了噩梦般的炼狱





电信下载1:
Video download         Mp3 download

电信下载2:
Video download         Mp3 download

【网通/教育网】 RealVideo / mp3

听写事项: 只需听写旁白影评部分,电影原声作为欣赏即可,不必听写。

版主提示:
一、若是自己的听写稿, 请发帖时标注'Homework'.
二、若是改稿, 请发帖时标注'on 某某人'并在修改处标红.
三、为了达到最快的下载速度,推荐使用迅雷高速下载本站音频/视频材料.

 

Transcription

 

Funny Games is one of the more repellent and disturbing movies I've seen in quite some time. I suspect that Michael Haneke might take those words as compliment or at least as affirmations that he is doing what he's set out to do.

 

In some way, this is a straightforward slasher film. You have a bunch of attractive, innocent people who are tied up, abused, tortured, beaten, made to beg for their lives. But this movie also has, or I would say, pretends to have, a much loftier and more critical, intellectual and artistic agenda. It doesn't want to just reproduce dread and horror, but it wants to rub our faces in it and expose our, I mean in particular an American movie audience's, moral complicity, our voyeurism, the relish with which we consume spectacles of suffering and pain and violent brutality. And it wants to make us feel ashamed and guilty and queasy about that appetite.

 

I don't think Haneke really lends very many of his criticisms. This movie I don't think succeeds in really disturbing the audience and getting us to think about what we are looking at. Instead, it just functions as a kind of highbrow exploitation film that allows you to enjoy what it's doing while also pretending that, you know, you're doing something more serious or self-reflective.

 

I'm no big fan of movies like the Saw movies or the Hostel franchise that were sometimes called "torture porn." But I have to say that those films have a lot more integrity, a lot more honesty about their intentions, and maybe a lot more self-awareness and self-critical potential than Michael Haneke's Funny Games, which is a very smug, complacent, arch, superior movie that tries to rub our noses in our own experience other than make us somehow responsible for it. But we're not in fact responsible for it, Michael Haneke is responsible for it, and he's responsible for perpetrating, I think, one of the bigger cinematic frauds of the year.

[ 本帖最后由 luweiji 于 2008-7-22 21:37 编辑 ]

普特在线文本比较普特在线听音查字普特在线拼写检查普特文本转音频

支持普特英语听力就多多发帖吧!您们的参与是对斑竹工作最大的肯定与支持!如果您觉得还不错,推荐给周围的朋友吧~

homework

词汇量太小了~~

 

 

"Funny Games"is a new film from the Austrail director Michael Haneke .I said it's a new film,but in factually almost shot-by-shotit remake of the1997 German language film of the  same title that he directed.

 

The story is very stright forward.Naomi Watts and Tim Roth play Ann and George,a couple who were quite weathy from the look a bit who arrived at their beautiful gated country house in some Hampetons likes place with their young son and their dog in a sailboat.And I almos immediately taking hostige by a pair of well-spoken well-mannered young sociopaths played by Michael Pitt and Brady Corbet.

 

His fellow proceed to abuse tall man,tall ?treatening , otherwise make life very prepares and unpleasant in the course that won't very long in the comfortable evening.

 

Funny Games is one of the more repalent and disturbing movies I've seen in a quite some time.I suspect that Michael Haneke might take those words as compliment.Afermation?but he is doing what he's set out to do.The name of the game is"The loving wife".Now on the B is finishing accounting and can this side who's up next?

And,??

 

In some ways,this is the straight forward slash of Yongyang.The branch of attractive,innocent people who are tight up abuse ,torcher and beatening to beg for their lives.But this movie also has ,or I will say pretends to have a much loftier and more critical ,interllectual and intistic agenda.It does't want to just reproduce dried and hard but wanted a rub of face in its end,exposed hour and in perticular and American movie audiences.More complicities are V  them.The relish which we consumes spectical of suffering and pain in violence /pretail/ to make a feel a shame and guilty and /quizz/ about that /epitaid/.

 

I don't think Haneke really land very many of his critisism .This movie I don't think succeed in really disturbing the audiences and getting us to think about what we are looking at instead.It just function as a kind of high broad exploitation film that allows you to enjoy what it's doing or also pretending that you know,you doing something more serious self factor.

 

I'm now being fan of movies like the song,movies of hostle ? as they what sometimes called "/torchpoin/".But I have to say that,those films have a lot more integrity ,a lot more honesty about they're intensions,and maybe a lot more suffer way in the sincere critical protencial than Michael Honeke's Funny Games.Which is a very smag compleasant /artch/ ,movie that try to rub our noises in our own experence of making up somehow responsiable for it.But we are not responsiable for it.Michael Honeke's responsiable for it. I think  one of the bigger s and he's responsiable for purpose trading.I think he is one of the s in this year.

1

评分次数

  • luweiji

立即获取| 免费注册领取外教体验课一节

hw

What ?

Just given to them!

what hell is going on sir?

He ask for *, the dog attacked, and they broken.  now ,he would likes more. what's so difficulty to understand?

you better watch your tone young man.

you better be careful, old man.

well, we broke your eggs.

now please leave. right now.

Mr P

funny games is a new film from oscar film maker Mikle Harner. I said it is a new film. but almost * by * remake of 1975 German film of the same title he directed.

the story is very straightforward. M , T play Ann and Jodge. A couple quite wealthy from Q at their beautiful gated country house in **Hamton place with their young son and their dog. They sail boat. Almost immideatly taking hostage by a pair of well spoken well mannered young social pats played by Mikle Pet and Belie Cober.

this two fellows proceed to abuse, torment, torture, and other wise make ** very precious. ** uncomfortable evening.

funny games is one of more repellent and disturbing movies I have seen quite some time . I suspect that Mikle take those words as compliment. Because **do what he is set to do.  

in some devise is straightforward **. you have a brunch of attractive innocent people who are tied up and abuse, torture and let beg for their lives.

but this movie also have what I say pretends to have a much loft ear, more **agenda. it doesn’t just want reproduce dread and hearb but once rub our face in it and expose our I mean particular American move audiences. **. I wants to make a shame and guilty q** about that appetite.

 I don't think A really like many of its critics. this movie I don’t think succeeds in really disturbing audiences and getting us to think about what was looking at. instead it just functions kind of high brow explore allows you to enjoy what is doing also pretending you know doing something more serious, self-reflective.

I am not a big fan like movies **, but I have to say those movies have lot more **about their intentions. maybe a lot more self-awarenes, self critical  potential. then Mikle funny games which is very smug ** that trys to rubby our noses in our own experiences. and some how make us responsible for it. but we won't in fact responsible for it. Mikle Honneyer responsible for it. he is responsible for **. I think one of big ** of the year.  
实现无障碍英语沟通

on sherrycream

 

"Funny Games"is a new film from the Austrail director Michael Haneke .I said it's a new film,but it is actually almost shot-by-shot remake of the1997 German language film of the  same title that he directed.

 The story is very straightforward. Naomi Watts and Tim Roth play Ann and George,a couple , quite wealthy from the look a bit who arrived at their beautiful gated country house in some Hampetons likes place with their young son and their dog and they sell boat.And I almost immediately taking hostage by a pair of well-spoken well-mannered young sociopaths played by Michael Pitt and Brady Corbet.

this two fellows proceed to abuse torment ,tocture, threatening and otherwise make life very prepares and unpleasant in the course of one very long and comfortable evening.

 Funny Games is one of the more repellent and disturbing movies I've seen in a quite some time.I suspect that Michael Haneke might take those words as compliment.Afermation?but he is doing what he's set out to do.The name of the game is"The loving wife".Now on the B is finishing accounting and can decide  who's up next?

And,with which device.  

 In some ways,this is the straight forward slash of Yongyang. you have a branch of attractive,innocent people who are tight up abuse ,torture , beatenly to beg for their lives.But this movie also has ,or I will say pretends to have a much loftier and more critical ,intellectual and artistic agenda .It does't want to just reproduce dried and hard but wants to rub our faces in it and exposed our , I mean in perticular and American movie audiences. Moral complexity,  them.The relish which we consumes skeptical of suffering and pain in violence /brutality/. He wants  to make us feel a shame and guilty and /quizz/ about that /  .

I don't think Haneke really like very many of his criticisms .This movie I don't think succeed in really disturbing the audiences and getting us to think about what we are looking at. instead,It just function as a kind of high broad exploitation film that allows you to enjoy what it's doing or also pretending that you know,you doing something more serious of  self .

 I'm not big fan of movies like the song,movies of hostle ? as they what sometimes called "/torchpoin/".But I have to say that,those films have a lot more integrity ,a lot more honesty about their intensions,and maybe a lot more self-awareness self-critical potentials than Michael Honeke's Funny Games.Which is a very smug, complacent /arch/ superior movie that try to rub our noises in our own experience of making up somehow responsible for it.But we are not responsible for it.Michael Honeke's responsible for it. and he's responsiable for purple treading. I think he is one of the synonymic forge of the year.

 

1

评分次数

  • luweiji

口译专员推荐—>口译训练软件IPTAM口译通

homework

Funny Game is a new film from the Australian director Michael Haneke. I say it’s a new film, but it’s a actually almost shot by shot remake of the 1997’s German language film by the same title that he directed. The story’s failure is straight forward. Naomi Watts and Tim Roth play Ann and George , a couple quite wealthy from the local/ who arrived at their beautiful gated country house in some Hampton’s like place with their young son and their dog and their sail boat. And almost immediately, taking hostage by a pair of very well spoken, well mannered young social/ played by Michael Pitt and Brady /. He’s / to abuse torn and torture, threaten that otherwise make life very/ and pleasant in the course of one very long and comfortable evening. Funny Games is one of the repenent and disturbing movies I’ve seen in some time. I suspect that Michael Haneke might take those words as complements at least as affirmation that he is doing what he said he had to do. In some way this is a straight forward slash of film of bunch of attractive innocent people who are tied up abuse, torture to beg for their lives. But this movie also has or I’ll say pretends to have a much laugh tier and more critical intellectual and artistic gender. It doesn’t want just reproduce dread and hard but wants to rob our faces in it and expose our in particular American movie audients more complicity of / the relish which we consume spectacles of suffering all pain and violence. It wants to make us feel shame and guilty and guizy about that appetite. I don’t think Haneke really lands very many of his criticism. This movie, I don’t think succeeds in really disturbing the audients and getting us to think about what we are looking at. Instead, it just functions as kind of high//film that allows you to enjoy what it’s doing while also pretending that you know your are doing something more serious or silf effective. I’m no big fan of movies like the / movies or the hos/friend/ what someone calls torture porn. But I have to say that those films gave lot more integrity a lot more honesty about their intentions and maybe a lot more self-awareness and self-critical potential than Michael Haneke’s Funny Games which is very smug , complacent arch superior movie that tries to rob our noses in our own experience and make us somehow responsible for it. But we’re not infact responsible for it. Michael Haneke is responsible for it. And he is responsible for perpetrating. I think it’s one of the big sy// of the year.

on zhongshan2008

"Funny Games" is a new film from the Austrian director Michael Haneke .I say it's a new film, but it is actually an almost shot-by-shot remake of a 1997 German language film of the same title that he directed.

 The story is fairly straightforward. Naomi Watts and Tim Roth play Ann and George, a couple , quite wealthy from the look a bit who arrived at their beautiful gated country house in some Hampetons-like/ place with their young son and their dog and they sail boat. And they are almost immediately taken hostage by a pair of very well-spoken well-mannered young sociopaths played by Michael Pitt and Brady Corbet.

These two fellows proceed to abuse, torment, torture, threaten/ and otherwise make a life very precarious and unpleasant in the course of one very long, uncomfortable evening.

Funny Games” is one of the more repellent and disturbing movies I've seen in / quite some time. I suspect that Michael Haneke might take those words as compliment, or at least as affirmations that he is doing what he's set out to do. /

In some way/,this is a straightforward slasher film. You have a bunch of attractive, innocent people who are tied up, abused ,tortured , beaten/,made to beg for their lives. But this movie also has ,or I would say, pretends to have a much loftier and more critical ,intellectual and artistic agenda. It doesn’t want to just reproduce dread and horror, but it wants to rub our faces in it and expose our, I mean in particular in American movie audiences, moral complicity, our voyeurism, the relish which we consume/ spectacle of suffering and pain in violence brutality. And he wants to make us feel ashamed and guilty and wheezy about that appetite.

I don't think Haneke really lends very many of his criticisms. This movie I don't think succeeds in really disturbing the audience/ and getting us to think about what we are looking at. Instead, it just functions as a kind of high broad exploitation film that allows you to enjoy what it's doing while also pretending that, you know, you’re doing something more serious or self-reflective.

 I'm not big fan of movies like the Saw movies or the hostile franchise that what sometimes is called "torture porn". But I have to say that, those films have a lot more integrity, a lot more honesty about their intensions, and maybe a lot more self-awareness self-critical potential/ than Michael Honeke's Funny Games, which is a very smug, complacent, arch, superior movie that tries to rub our noses in our own experience other than make us somehow responsible for it. But we are not in fact responsible for it. Michael Honeke's responsible for it. And he's responsible for perpetrating, I think/ one of the bigger cinematic frauds of the year.

 

1

评分次数

  • luweiji

on jjmm

您的改稿有点问题

"Funny Games" is a new film from the Austrail director Michael Haneke. I said it's a new film, but it is actually almost shot-by-shot remake of the1997 German language film of the same title that he directed.

 The story is very straightforward. Naomi Watts and Tim Roth play Ann and George, a couple, quite wealthy from the look a bit who arrived at their beautiful gated country house in some Hamptons-like place with their young son and their dog and they sail boat. And I almost immediately taking hostage by a pair of very well-spoken well-mannered young sociopaths played by Michael Pitt and Brady Corbet.

This two fellows proceed to abuse torment, torture, threatening and otherwise make life very prepares and unpleasant in the course of one very long and comfortable evening.

 Funny Games is one of the more repellent and disturbing movies I've seen in a quite some time. I suspect that Michael Haneke might take those words as compliment, at least as affirmation studies, doing what he's set out to do. The * name of the game is "The loving wife". Now on the * is finishing accounting and can decide who's up next? And, with which device. 

 In some ways, this is the straight forward slash of film. You have a branch of attractive, innocent people who are tight up abuse, torture, beatenly to beg for their lives. But this movie also has ,or I will say pretends to have a much loftier and more critical ,intellectual and artistic agenda .It doesn’t want to just reproduce dried and hard but wants to rub our faces in it and exposed hour and in particular and American movie audiences. Moral complexity, a voyeurism. The relish with which we consumes skeptical of suffering and pain in violence /brutality/. And he wants to make us feel a shame and guilty and crazy about that *.

I don't think Haneke really like very many of his criticisms .This movie I don't think succeeds in really disturbing the audiences and getting us to think about what we are looking at. instead, It just functions as a kind of high broad exploitation film that allows you to enjoy what it's doing or also pretending that you know, you are doing something more serious of self fricative.

I'm not big fan of movies like the sore, movies of hostile French as they what sometimes called "torture porn". But I have to say that, those films have a lot more integrity, a lot more honesty about their intensions, and maybe a lot more self-awareness self-critical potential/ than Michael Honeke's Funny Games, which is a very smug, complacent, arch, superior movie that tries to rub our noises in our own experience of making up somehow responsible for it. But we are not responsible for it. Michael Honeke's responsible for it. And he's responsible for purple treating. I think he is one of the bigger synonymic fronts of the year.

 

[ 本帖最后由 luweiji 于 2008-6-29 10:24 编辑 ]
实现无障碍英语沟通
on jjmm (楼上在做什么,改的是jjmm吗?)

Funny Games is a new film from the Austrian director Michael Haneke. I say it's a new film, but it's actually an almost shot-by-shot remake of a 1997 German-language film of the same title that he directed.

The story is fairly straightforward. Naomi Watts and Tim Roth play Ann and George, a couple, quite wealthy from the look a bit who arrive\ at their beautiful gated country house in some Hamptons-like place with their young son and their dog and their sailboat, and \ are almost immediately taken hostage by a pair of very well-spoken, well-mannered young sociopaths played by Michael Pitt and Brady Corbet. These two fellows proceed to abuse, torment, torture, threaten and otherwise make \ life very precarious and unpleasant in the course of one very long, uncomfortable evening.

Funny Games is one of the more repellent and disturbing movies I've seen in quite some time. I suspect that Michael Haneke might take those words as compliment or at least as affirmations that he is doing what he's set out to do.

In some way, this is a straightforward slasher film. You have a bunch of attractive, innocent people who are tied up, abused, tortured, beaten, made to beg for their lives. But this movie also has, or I would say, pretends to have, a much loftier and more critical, intellectual and artistic agenda. It doesn't want to just reproduce dread and horror, but it wants to rub our faces in it and expose our, I mean in particular an American movie audience's, moral complicity, our voyeurism, the relish with which we consume spectacles of suffering and pain and violence and brutality. And it wants to make us feel ashamed and guilty and queasy about that appetite.

I don't think Haneke really lends very many of his criticisms. This movie I don't think succeeds in really disturbing the audience and getting us to think about what we are looking at. Instead, it just functions as a kind of highbrow exploitation film that allows you to enjoy what it's doing while also pretending that, you know, you're doing something more serious or self-reflective.

I'm no big fan of movies like the Saw movies or the Hostel franchise that were sometimes \ called "torture porn." But I have to say that those films have a lot more integrity, a lot more honesty about their intentions, and maybe a lot more self-awareness and self-critical potential than Michael Haneke's Funny Games, which is a very smug, complacent, arch, superior movie that tries to rub our noses in our own experience other than make us somehow responsible for it. But we're not in fact responsible for it, Michael Haneke is responsible for it, and he's responsible for perpetrating, I think, one of the bigger cinematic frauds of the year.

[ 本帖最后由 ktdid 于 2008-6-29 01:31 编辑 ]
1

评分次数

  • luweiji

專業代查字典兼回答一切可google到答案的問題
普特听力大课堂

on ktdid

 

Funny Games is a new film from the Austrian director Michael Haneke. I say it's a new film, but it's actually an almost shot-by-shot remake of a 1997 German-language film of the same title that he directed.

The story is fairly straightforward. Naomi Watts and Tim Roth play Ann and George, a couple, quite wealthy from the look a bit who arrive at there at their beautiful gated country house in some Hamptons-like place with their young son and their dog and their sailboat, and \ are almost immediately taken hostage by a pair of very well-spoken, well-mannered young sociopaths played by Michael Pitt and Brady Corbet. These two fellows proceed to abuse, torment, torture, threaten and otherwise make \ life very precarious and unpleasant in the course of one very long, uncomfortable evening.

Funny Games is one of the more repellent and disturbing movies I've seen in quite some time. I suspect that Michael Haneke might take those words as compliment or at least as affirmations that he is doing what he's set out to do.

In some way, this is a straightforward slasher film. You have a bunch of attractive, innocent people who are tied up, abused, tortured, beaten, made to beg for their lives. But this movie also has, or I would say, pretends to have, a much loftier and more critical, intellectual and artistic agenda. It doesn't want to just reproduce dread and horror, but it wants to rub our faces in it and expose our, I mean in particular an American movie audience's, moral complicity, our voyeurism, the relish with which we consume spectacles of suffering and pain and violence and brutality. And it wants to make us feel ashamed and guilty and queasy about that appetite.

I don't think Haneke really lends very many of his criticisms. This movie I don't think succeeds in really disturbing the audience and getting us to think about what we are looking at. Instead, it just functions as a kind of highbrow exploitation film that allows you to enjoy what it's doing while also pretending that, you know, you're doing something more serious or self-reflective.

I'm no big fan of movies like the Saw movies or the Hostel franchise that were sometimes \ called "torture porn." But I have to say that those films have a lot more integrity, a lot more honesty about their intentions, and maybe a lot more self-awareness and self-critical potential than Michael Haneke's Funny Games, which is a very smug, complacent, arch, superior movie that tries to rub our noses in our own experience other than make us somehow responsible for it. But we're not in fact responsible for it, Michael Haneke is responsible for it, and he's responsible for perpetrating, I think, one of the bigger cinematic frauds of the year.

It's most fortunate
that we do not know exactly
what kind of world we live on.

It would be necessary
to have existed very long,
decidedly longer
than the world.

If only for comparison
to get acquainted with other worlds.

One must soar out of the body
which cannot do anything
but limit
and create difficulties.

For the sake of research,
clarity of the picture,
and the final results,
one must rise above time,
in which everything drives and whirls.

From this perspective
you must once and for all get rid of
details and episodes.

Counting the days of the week
must seem
a meaningless activity,

throwing letters into a mail box
is a whim of foolish youth,

the plaque "Don't trample the grass" is
a senseless one.
好栏目推荐之美国口语俚语

homework

“Funny Games” is a new film from the Austrian director Michael Haneke. I say it's a new film, but it's actually an almost shot-by-shot remake of a 1997 German-language film of the same title that he directed. The story is fairly straightforward. Naomi Watts and Tim Roth play Ann and George, a couple, quite wealthy from the look a bit who arrive at there at their beautiful gated country house in some Hamptons-like place with their young son and their dog and their sailboat, and \ are almost immediately taken hostage by a pair of very well-spoken, well-mannered young sociopaths played by Michael Pitt and Brady Corbet. These two fellows proceed to abuse, torment, torture, threaten and otherwise make \ life very precarious and unpleasant in the course of one very long, uncomfortable evening. “Funny Games” is one of the more repellent and disturbing movies I've seen in quite some time. I suspect that Michael Haneke might take those words as compliment or at least as affirmations that he is doing what he's set out to do. In some way, this is a straightforward slasher film. You have a bunch of attractive, innocent people who are tied up, abused, tortured, beatenly to beg for their lives. But this movie also has, or I would say, pretends to have, a much loftier and more critical, intellectual and artistic agenda. It doesn't want to just reproduce dread and horror, but it wants to rub our faces in it and expose hour, I mean in particular an American movie audiences, moral complicity, a voyeurism, the relish with which we consume spectacles of suffering and pain and violence and brutality. And it wants to make us feel ashamed and guilty and queasy about that appetite. I don't think Haneke really lends very many of his criticisms. This movie I don't think succeeds in really disturbing the audience and getting us to think about what we are looking at. Instead, it just functions as a kind of highbrow exploitation film that allows you to enjoy what it's doing while also pretending that, you know, you're doing something more serious or self-reflective. I'm no big fan of movies like the Saw movies or the Hostel franchise that were sometimes called "torture porn." But I have to say that those films have a lot more integrity, a lot more honesty about their intentions, and maybe a lot more self-awareness and self-critical potential than Michael Haneke's Funny Games, which is a very smug, complacent, arch, superior movie that tries to rub our noses in our own experience other than make us somehow responsible for it. But we're not in fact responsible for it, Michael Haneke is responsible for it, and he's responsible for perpetrating, I think, one of the bigger cinematic frauds of the year.

homework

-

Funny Games is a new film from the Austrian director Michael Haniker. I say it's a new film, but it's actually an almost shot-by-shot re-make of a 1997 German-language film of the same title that he directed.

The story is fairly straightforward. Naomi Watts and Tim Roth play Ann and George, a couple, quite wealthy from the look a bit who arrive at there at their beautiful gated country house in some Hamptons-like place with their young son and their dog and their sailboat, and are almost immediately taken hostage by a pair of very well-spoken, well-mannered young sociopaths played by Michael Pitt and Brady Corbet. These two fellows proceed to abuse, torment, torture, threaten and otherwise make life very precarious and unpleasant in the course of one very long, uncomfortable evening.

Funny Games is one of the more repellent and disturbing movies I've seen in quite some time. I suspect that Michael Haniker might take those words as compliment or at least as affirmations that he is doing what he's set out to do.

In some way, this is a straightforward slasher film. You have a bunch of attractive, innocent people who are tied up, abused, tortured, beaten, made to beg for their lives. But this movie also has, or I would say, pretends to have, a much loftier and more critical, intellectual and artistic agenda. It doesn't
wanna just reproduce
dread and horror, but it wants to rub our faces in it and expose our, I mean in particular an American movie audience's, moral complicity, our voyeurism, the relish with which we consume spectacles of suffering and pain and violence and brutality. And it wants to make us feel ashamed and guilty and queasy about that appetite.

I don't think Haneke really lends very many of his criticisms. This movie I don't think succeeds in really disturbing the audience and getting us to think about what we are looking at. Instead, it just functions as a kind of highbrow exploitation film that allows you to enjoy what it's doing while also pretending that, you know, you're doing something more serious or self-reflective.

I'm no big fan of movies like the Saw movies or the Hostel franchise that were sometimes called "torture porn." But I have to say that those films have a lot more integrity, a lot more honesty about their intentions, and maybe a lot more self-awareness and self-critical potential than Michael Haniker's Funny Games which is a very smug, complacent, arch, superior movie that tries to rub our noses in our own experience other than make us somehow responsible for it. But we're not in fact responsible for it, Michael Haneke is responsible for it, and he's responsible for perpetrating, I think, one of the bigger cinematic frauds of the year.

 

返回列表