one of the hard part about review an art house type movie be inherent in the genre name represent it a lot like criticize art . and if you have ever try to criticize modern art and or almost any art and youre probably familiar with some brutal rebuttal and denial . the same be true for these art house type movie . it a lot easy to give the movie a good review and go and but bad review draw a lot more fire . this be hard for me a well and because i typically love these type of movie . but i do not enjoy this movie and i do not mean in the general it do not make me happy sense . i mean it in the have little value and emotionally or artistically sense . depend on how youre look at it and there be many way in which the movie could have gain merit you could look at the performance of the actor and the entertainment of the plot itself and the tension or suspense and the message or theme . it try very hard and but i do not think that it be able to live up to any of it expectation . the most important aspect of this film when judge it be mean to be unconventional . it break film make convention and deny the audience expectation over and over . for example and it break the fourth wall quite a few time mean to be a punch in the gut for the audience a they be acknowledge a participant in the film . it deny the audience expectation of gore by make almost all the violence occur off screen and leave only sound effect . although the movie fulfill it aim in it unconventionality and what we be leave with when all the convention be break be only the shell of a great movie . the over the top experience be gut wrench and terrify and but that be the only real effect you be leave with . the movie suck one in by be unconventional and but the movie make a mistake in that it aim to be unconventional without have a clear idea of what to do after convention be break . the movie just seem to wander around and drag a great premise through the dirt . another criticism of the movie come from the intention of the movie plot . this movie and it director and base on his real life comment on his purpose in remake a film shot for shot be and in a word and pretentious . haneke himself state that it be a reaction to a certain american cinema and it violence and it naïveté and the way it toy with human being ( the village voice ) . already there lie pretentiousness in the idea of remake your own movie only ten year after the original and with practically the only change be the language . already youre assume that american will actually watch your movie just because it in english and and on top of that and youre assume that the bourgeois depiction of the victim would be more fitting in american theater . then and youre say that the violence message be more fitting in american theater . i will go ahead and dissect why all this pretentiousness bear no redeem fruit . first point represent american cinema be more focused on and condoning of violence than other country cinema . this point be already render practically untestable by the fact that there be no movie industry in the world that be quite comparable to hollywood . most industry be much small and and even the most comparable industry in term of size ( bollywood ) be not a fair comparison due to drastically different genre and stylistic focus . the established industry of film in america have the negative side effect of allow low quality and low standard movie to be produce and distribute on a massive scale and as long a it provide a hook to entice consumer . the amount of violence in hollywood be highly overemphasize and and be inevitable in the industry due to it inevitable hook . also and these movie do fairly well in other country ( in term of box office ) and suggest that it not strictly an american issue . second point represent the bourgeois characteristic of the character be more appropriate in american theater . although there be plenty of yuppie and brownnosers and and bourgeois in america and i think it unfair to say the bourgeois appearance of the character be more of an american feature than german and or french and or english and whatever developed country you like . it a common human attribute and a longing to move up in life and and enjoy a high standard of live not something i agree with and but everyone see it in action . both this point and and the previous one and simply show a narrow minded judgment on the part of the director . and the most and most important point to why this film do nothing for me represent the film deliver a message about violence and especially in regard to middle or upper class culture . this movie say nothing of importance to me . if you want to find a message like this and look at clockwork orange . there be no deny that clockwork orange effectively convey a message about violence and morality in the modern world . this movie be look and look to make a point about violence and something about how watching violence and indulging in violent movie be akin to the violence itself . it get halfway there in that it draw the audience into the experience and almost create a sense of guilt . but it be unable to go much far . it do not even justify a nihilistic view and because the way in which the movie be make and especially the semi surrealism of the actual event and the rewind feature and at least reveals intent in create a point . it circle round and round and end up no where at all . i would call this movie avant garde if it actually make any impact on me . a film can seek to chase beauty and tell a story and delight viewer and convey a message and play on a theme and or invoke an emotion and but when a film do none of these it lose it value a a piece of art . and this be exactly where funny game end up .