There is nothing funny about Funny Games, or at least it wasn't for what I saw. The movie is marketed as an "important" social commentary about violence in cinema, but I left the movie without any new information. INstead the movie is a gratuitous torture porn flick that is constantly relentless. The word "relentless" is usually associated with movies when giving a positive review. Do not confuse my choice of words as a recommendation of any kind. Relentless it is. Stupid and pointless it is also.<br /><br />The plot is obvious and almost arbitrary. A moderately new family is brutally tortured by two psychotic individuals. They wager a "bet" with the captives. The bet: The twisted minds believe they can kill this family before a certain time, while the family believes in survival. Of course, such bet could end with three gunshots at point blank range, but that would be too easy. Literally the largest chunk of the movie involves the family being tortured with random objects. As seen by advertisements, golf clubs are used frequently.<br /><br />Naomi Watts stars and produced this film. Why would she attach herself to such a project? Because while some people will criticize the film for being without any redeeming merits, others will praise the "originality" and the "daring" aspect involved in creating something so "deep and meaningful". I should probably say at this time that this film in question is a shot for shot remake of an 11 year old Austrian version directed by the same individual. So much for originality. So why remake something so soon? Because as we all know, Americans can't enjoy a movie unless it is made domestically. Maybe we should make a commentary about that problem.<br /><br />There is currently a debate about art versus entertainment. It is being suggested that even though the film contains hardly (if any) entertainment value, it should be accepted because of its artistic quality. Call me naive, but I feel that art and entertainment should be mixed. And while some film snobs will suggest that the film is "complicated" and needs a high intellect to enjoy, I say that it is too simplistic and predictable. Within the first ten minutes I was very aware of what was to follow. I knew how the ending was going to turn out. The only thing I didn't realize is the amount of manipulation that was to be used. At one point a remote control is used to rewind the action that just happened while the audience is scolded for rooting on the heroine in a violent act that they would have booed for if the villain was the one with an upperhand. The scene is then played out in a now grim way, leading to an ending that is so "original".<br /><br />The sad thing about all of this horrible movie is that it is being marketed like a fresh horror satire. Scream was a very good horror satire that accomplished what it set out to do, which was to show the audience how horror films were clichéd, violent and unoriginal without actually producing a clichéd and unoriginal horror film. Without such false advertising, I can't see why anybody would want to watch Funny Games. It promises an explanation for the current audience's fascination of torture porn, but yet resolves to become an exhausting and manipulative torture porn story.<br /><br />The psychopaths (played by Michael Pitt and Brady Corbet) constantly break the fourth wall in which they want to know what the audience is thinking. They assume that the audience is rooting for Anne, George and little Georgie. I didn't. Forgive me for not caring for one of the dumbest families captured on film. Forgive me for wanting to walk out of this inspired 100 minute rant about violence in cinema. Forgive me for hating Funny Games. Forgive me for advising that you avoid this movie like a plague.<br /><br />Rating: zero stars out of ****