Occulto Supersovrano

However, objectively speaking, Monson does have something vaguely Nirvanian about it (let's be clear: I'm not saying Tokyo Hotel = Nirvana, for goodness' sake!)

great album, just a step below Cunning Stunts

@Enea: the unfortunate comparison to A Clockwork Orange is a load of nonsense (I’d bet on it) thrown out by the Italian distributors just to attract a few more viewers. As for tension & psychological violence, I can't think of any film that can be considered superior... the peculiarity of this one is that here the victims of psychological violence are primarily the viewers themselves, rather than the characters. Because fundamentally, Haneke hates the bourgeois, who are actually his audience, the ones who watch his films. The protagonists of his stories (Benny's Video, Funny Games, La Pianista, Caché) are always well-off, presumably cultured bourgeois families, where his audience can easily identify: that’s why when Haneke sadistically torments his characters, he’s essentially tormenting the viewers themselves. And this is much more effective than any splatter-ultraviolent gimmick. Then again, I’m talking about the original, I haven’t seen this one yet, but I assure you that the cast from '97 was something phenomenal, perfect, with all due respect to the (albeit talented) Watts.

better Vol. II... even though I prefer (by far) Ciudad and Corsario Negro, in my opinion their best albums

To err is human, but to persist is diabolical.

@jack: I don't think so, but to express an opinion I'm waiting to see it (a matter of days)

Aeneas of two-hour films full of gratuitous violence, as they say, "the ditches are full of them"; I haven't seen this remake, but I believe that those 5/10 minutes of stillness following the death of the little one are much, much more effective than 2 hours of ultra-violence super-splatter. Usually, this type of film, whether they end well or badly, is aimed at some kind of final catharsis: here, Haneke denies any form of catharsis, the cruelty and suffering exist for their own sake, with no possibility of redemption, making them practically unsustainable. And that’s what makes the film (I’m still talking about the original, okay) a brilliant film, which you either love or hate without any middle ground.

I'm sorry, but why would Psycho be useless and this not? They are both tributes, Van Sant's to Hitchcock and Haneke's to himself.

@Bartle: yes, although perhaps among all his films it's the least successful; nevertheless, it boasts an excellent setting, the very talented Isabelle Huppert (the one from La Pianista), and the sense of despair/disorientation it manages to convey (the idea of not explaining the nature of this phantom catastrophe is also lovely)... didn't you like it?

I believe that Haneke is the greatest living European director, and Funny Games (the one from '97) is one of my absolute favorite films: when I saw it, I was completely fascinated by the director's sadism, his ruthless assault on the sensitivity of the audience; definitely one of the most "evil" films ever made. However, I am a bit skeptical about the usefulness of this self-referential remake for the benefit of the Yankee market (but I'm not surprised, considering Haneke's boundless ego), especially since it’s very hard to imagine anyone ever matching Arno Frisch's performance (even less so that dolt Pitt) or Ulrich Mühe...