Stylish and undeniably European, there is a real Michelangelo Antonioni vibe coming off this onesheet (even though this is the work of a graphic designer hired by the production, as per usual, one cannot help but wonder how much of an influence the master of merging psychology and landscape had on Michael Haneke considering both filmmakers bodies of work). Also very attractive is the off center placement of text within the image. The poster for the remake of Funny Games is quite simply a work of grim pop art that would make Andy Warhol smile if he were with us. The larger version is over at Cinematical. Say what you will about the necessity of what appears to be a shot-for-shot remake of his own 1997 film; if this is how Michael Haneke chooses to recharge his batteries after back-to-back brilliance of Time of the Wolf and Caché it is certainly all right (note the increase in quality of Gus Van Sant's work after the Psycho fiasco, although to be fair, I'm strategically ignoring Finding Forrester and thinking along the lines of Gerry, Elephant, Last Days). Whether or not the verdict on this remake is great or unnecessary, I shall be first in line in January when the film starts offending middle-brow audiences in multiplexes across America.
I like Haneke quite a bit but a shot for shot remake is just plain lazy.But hey if it gets him some Hollywood cash to do some personal stuff more power to him.
I don't think it's lazy considering what the film is all about. Bringing it to a larger audience makes a lot of sense and not adding anything makes even more sense because its the same story of senseless violence retold shot-for-shot with bigger stars in the role of the victims. That's the heart of Haneke's argument, our necessity to watch. I think unleashing this on an unsuspecting American audience is exactly what he wants.
It's like calling Van Sant's remake of Psycho lazy. He wanted to make a statement so he did it shot-for-shot. That's not laziness, that's having an idea and executing it.
What I call laziness is Sin City: I can read those comic books and imagine whatever celebrity voices I want. If the sole reason for making the film as strict an adaptation as that, there's no point in seeing the film because Rodriguez and Miller redoing Miller for the sake of doing Miller right and not to really say anything other than "Sin City the movie is like Sin City the comic because it makes no changes whatsoever."
On a random tangent, I just saw the trailer for Ryuhei Kitamura's Midnight Meat Train and boy, does it look stupid but for some reason like it could be watchable, though I'm really not sure why. It's basically Blow-Up set in the world of Marebito but with a lot more gloss than it needs. Still, Kitamura's first English language film should be at least an interesting failure.
I think that Van Sant's PSYCHO remake is one of the great artist-gets-one-over-on-a-studio practical jokes in cinema. Van Sant wanted to play around and have some fun for the exercise, and he got A-list talent and a budget to do so.
Does it add anything (other than Van Sant's indulging himself) to the world of cinema, etc.? I think not. But again, a fun project in anticipation of better things to come.
Whether or not as you say "Getting a larger audience is entirely the point" - I don't quite know. Pulling a fast one on the audience that does not necessarily want this kind of movie (and will probably be surprised based on the marketing, etc.) will just write it off or blank it out. SO I'm not sure what will be accomplished in the end. But I'll certainly be watching in case anything does happen. Naomi Watts has been on a bit of a roll with good film selections, and it is a pleasure to watch Tim Roth in anything. And of course, Michael Pitt is due to be noticed more than he is (Check out the fascinating and fantastic RHINOCEROUS EYES if you can find it, as well as Hedwick and the Angry Inch and the Dreams - that in and of itself is a great resume!)
Trailer looks really strong. I'll be looking forward to this one.