What Films Have You Seen Recently?

[J Harker]

Originally Posted by Demdike@Cult Labs

I've never seen Funny Games. Never really fancied it. Home invasion like that isn't really a genre i buy a lot of. I tend to think once you've seen them then that's it. I think it's because generally they are set in just one or two rooms and events tend to blur into one.

I prefer Haneke's own American remake with Tim Roth and Naomi Watts.

[Demdike@Cult Labs]

Originally Posted by J Harker

I prefer Haneke's own American remake with Tim Roth and Naomi Watts.

I'll get round to it at some stage.

Thinking back i might have seen the original on tv tears ago. Were the couple sat on a sofa in a white room? Something about it being white rings a bell.

Sorry to be so vague.

[J Harker]

Originally Posted by Demdike@Cult Labs

I'll get round to it at some stage.

Thinking back i might have seen the original on tv tears ago. Were the couple sat on a sofa in a white room? Something about it being white rings a bell.

Sorry to be so vague.

Sounds right but i wouldn't want to say for definite. A good chunk of it does take place in living room on a sofa. The US version is practically a shot for shot remake as i recall.

[Demdike@Cult Labs]

Originally Posted by J Harker

Sounds right but i wouldn't want to say for definite. A good chunk of it does take place in living room on a sofa. The US version is practically a shot for shot remake as i recall.

I've just had a browse of screen shots. The assailants both wear white. I knew white had something to do with it.

[Nosferatu@Cult Labs]

Originally Posted by J Harker

I prefer Haneke's own American remake with Tim Roth and Naomi Watts.

I'm not sure why, but I couldn't get away with the remake, whereas the original was a fresh and original – albeit irritating – meta piece of cinema. There was something galling about being 'told off' for liking horror films and being informed, in a moralistic way, that if I had any scruples, I should stop watching immediately.

[J Harker]

Originally Posted by Nosferatu@Cult Labs

I'm not sure why, but I couldn't get away with the remake, whereas the original was a fresh and original – albeit irritating – meta piece of cinema. There was something galling about being 'told off' for liking horror films and being informed, in a moralistic way, that if I had any scruples, I should stop watching immediately.

It is a long time since i watched the original but i don't recall it bring much different to the remake. To be fair if i watched them now i might prefer the original as i want so open minded with world cinema back then. Neither are masterpieces but with a watch. As for the films mostly judgmental tone i just think its a somewhat cumbersome way of trying to make the audience complicit in the horrors onscreen. Something done far better when subtle.

[Nosferatu@Cult Labs]

Originally Posted by J Harker

It is a long time since i watched the original but i don't recall it bring much different to the remake. To be fair if i watched them now i might prefer the original as i want so open minded with world cinema back then. Neither are masterpieces but with a watch. As for the films mostly judgmental tone i just think its a somewhat cumbersome way of trying to make the audience complicit in the horrors onscreen. Something done far better when subtle.

As far as I remember, they are basically the same, with the American one being practically a shot-for-shot remake, even with the 'rewinding' gimmick.

I agree with you that the idea of making the audience complicit in something better to do subtly so you only realise very late on – or perhaps afterwards in conversation with someone – that you have been siding with the villain. I think this 'sympathy for the Devil' part of storytelling is what made those who saw Psycho and Peeping Tom in 1960 so uncomfortable.

[J Harker]

The dinner table scene in Texas Chainsaw Massacre. When the family have Sally tied up and a hammer in grandpas hand trying to get him to brain her. First time i ever saw it i was in hysterics. Second time even, even now it is funny in the blackest sense. But when you stop and think what is actually taking place in the scene it means i have been laughing at something pretty nasty and unpleasant. That i think makes me somewhat complicit. Films like Natural Born Killers does it to some extent. I'm sure there are other better examples. Funny Games just kind of gets in your face with it, which is a problem because the film isn't exactly entertaining in the strictest sense.

[bizarre_eye@Cult Labs]

Originally Posted by Demdike@Cult Labs

I've never seen Funny Games. Never really fancied it. Home invasion like that isn't really a genre i buy a lot of. I tend to think once you've seen them then that's it. I think it's because generally they are set in just one or two rooms and events tend to blur into one.

Funny Games is excellent, Dem.

I prefer the original to the remake but both have their merits.

[Demdike@Cult Labs]

Some Girls Do (1969)

Three years after his first outing, Richard Johnson returns as Hugh 'Bulldog' Drummond as he sets out to prevent his old foe, Carl Peterson, this time played by James Villiers, from sabotaging the test flight of a brand new supersonic aircraft. In true Bond sequel style more is always best as Peterson employs beautiful female assassins again, but this time seven of them, however things aren't quite what they seem.

A second thoroughly entertaining outing for Drummond. Richard Johnson seems at home as the suave and cool Bulldog and adds a touch more laconic wit to the role. As with the first film Drummond is up against some beautiful opponents this time in the stunning forms of Daliah Lavi, Beba Loncar, Yutte Stensgaard, Vanessa Howard and Sydne Rome, in her first film role, as double agent Flicky.

Some Girls Do is perhaps more entertaining than Deadlier Than the Male, it's certainly a lot more action packed and the story a tad more challenging with a couple of cool twists at the end. It makes for a fun hour and a half's entertainment.

Recommended.