Autumn Sky

If you don’t remember, I rated Funny Games as something to make you look forward to 2008. For me, it was something that did make me look forward to this year. I’ve been waiting for this movie to be released ever since 2007. My expectations were exceeded for this film. It is a remake of the 1997 German film Funny Games, both with the same director (Michael Haneke). I have yet to see the German version, but I would really like to.

Summery: This film begins with the typical American family who go out to their cabin for vacation. When stopping to chat with their neighbors, they notice that the neighbors are acting odd around two new guests. The plot slowly moves on when Anne (the mother, played by Naomi Watts) is confronted with one of the first guests who asks to borrow eggs. He clumsily ends up breaking eight eggs before the next guess arrives along with the father and the son. The two young men (Peter and Paul) attack the father and break his leg. They then make a bet with the family that the family will not be alive tomorrow by 9 o’clock.

Rating: Four stars out of Five This was a superbly written and directed psychological thriller. It reminds me of Red Eye and the French film Merci Pour le Chocolat, if you enjoyed those two films you will also enjoy Funny Games. I must warn you, this movie is not Black Dahlia, Saw, or Hostel. Don’t expect fast pace scenes with blood and gore. This is an intelligent movie, and will not be received well by the typical movie goer. If you have already seen the movie

What I liked: Casting There were many things I adored about this film. The casting was very well done. Naomi Watts did a spectacular job, so did Michael Pitt. I hope this puts Michael Pitt in the limelight for more acting opportunities, he is certainly the next Cillian Murphy. Intelligence This was a very intelligent film. Like I’ve said before, it’s not for everyone. I’ve read many short lived reviewers call this movie “boring”, but this movie is far from boring. It perfectly portrays the family’s raw emotion when they loose their son. At times, this film can keep you at the edge of your seat.

What I didn’t like: Casting I think the film would have been better if Macaulay Culkin had been casted as Peter and Stellan Skarsgård for the role of the father. No motive One of my pet peeves for films like this, is that they never show the murders’ motives. I find in unacceptable to deny that the murders have no motives what so ever. Maybe it went over my head, since at the point when Peter and Paul sarcastically “explain” why they’re doing this to the family, the father finally says, “I get it!” I still don’t really get it unless the two men are just doing it to do it. I understand that sociopaths do outrageous things for thrills, but I do not accept that every movie’s bad guy is a sociopath. It deludes from the film. Slow plot Haneke remade this film so it could be enjoyed by Americans, since it was inspired by American’s love for “blood and gore”. I feel bad though, because I know most Americans will see this and not be able to fully enjoy it. The plot moves too slow at times and is too subtle for the American public to receive.

The ending: It’s a harsh reality for anyone to accept that the bad guy wins. In this film, the viewer is given two realities. One is where the good guy wins, and one is where the bad guy wins. Many people have described this split in the road as “The Scene”, and it really is not only THE scene of the movie it’s one of THE scenes you will remember for a very long time. I’m talking of course, of the rewind scene. It’s a very unAmerican approach to film, but refreshing none-the-less.

I have my own theory about Peter and Paul, most specifically I believe Peter and Paul to be one man, Paul (Michael Pitt). I don’t know, any thoughts on this?

This film has alternative perspectives on both reality and victim-murderer relationship. It is a must see.