Their white golf attire is spotless and they are unwaveringly polite-- even when they are taking hostage of an upper-middle class family and engaging them in a series of tortuous games leading up to their seemingly inevitable death.

Michael Haneke’s shot-by-shot English remake of his own 1997 Austrian feature Funny Games, is both a unique testament to true and bloodcurdling creepiness and a disjointed hoopla. While Haneke has just about every element of this film working for him, from his precise and subtle direction to the strong performances, some of the quirks seemed like they were thrown in there more than they were cohesively added.

Funny Games gives us Ann and George. They have Georgie, their cute blonde-haired son. They have a Land Rover. They have a summer cottage. They even have a dog named Lucky-- yes, Lucky. This perfect picture is quickly disrupted by a shy teenage boy named Peter, who has come to borrow four eggs, which he breaks. When his delightful friend Paul joins him they decide not to leave. They waste time after Ann asks them to leave and George smacks Paul in the face. After that the games begin and are over at the same time as they inflict both physical and mental torture on the family, even asking them to place their own bets on whether they will be alive the next morning. When Ann asks why they do not just kill them Peter quickly and pleasantly answers,” You shouldn’t forget the importance of entertainment.”

Michael Pitt (Paul) and Brady Corbet (Peter) tap into their psychotic bank, but not by creating the illusory monster so typical in horror films. Pitt perfectly balances cordial demeanor and intense intimidation while Corbet effectively executes his character’s childlike vulnerability. The casualness in which they go about their actions, such as Paul constantly playing on Peter’s insecurities by calling him “Tubby,” makes them seem more like real monsters, monsters that could live next door. They could actually make you think twice about lending someone eggs.

The problem is we get little or no insight into their minds. At one point Paul goes through a series of bogus histories, but its obvious he is just having fun. We can only guess what their motives are-- to teach the well-to-do country club families a lesson?

There are a couple of points in the film that completely interrupt the otherwise brilliantly cohesive film. One point comes when Paul breaks down the fourth wall and talks to the camera, which he repeats once or twice. It is not an element used consistently throughout the film, which only causes a sense of confusion and disruption. There is also a rewind scene that completely breaks down the chilling sense of reality that had been built up to that point.

The movie does also feature gutsy, raw and heartbreaking performances by Naomi Watts (Ann) and Tim Roth (George), bringing life and resolve in the picket-fence couple, while Devon Gearhart (Georgie) face emotes all the fears of a ten-year-old boy. And, the directors choice to omit some of the bloodier scenes and include long shots of intense struggle instead, proves that the blood is not really what scares us, it’s the personal dynamic that does.

Terror is present in almost every shot of this film, but the nuggets that were plopped in takes away from the sharp and forbidding flow. It turns a frightfully delicious experience into a big “Wait…what?” aftertaste.

by Sanela Djokovic