Funny Games ***

Director: Michael Haneke

Cast: Naomi Watts, Tim Roth

Michael Pitt, Brady Corbet, Devon Gearhart

Married couple, Ann (Watts) and George (Roth), leave on a holiday to their lake house with their young son Georgie (Gearhart).

Shortly after arriving, two young men by the names of Paul (Pitt) and Peter (Corbet) arrive at their door. They come to borrow some eggs and after a bizarre shift in their behavior they take the family hostage and make a bet: that all members of the family will be dead in less than twelve hours.

What sounds like the premise of your average gore thriller (and probably should sound just like that...) is in fact an explosive study on the nature of violence in the media.

Helmed by the visionary Michael Haneke, this is one of those films that completely divides an audience; you either love it or loathe it.

Making a shot by shot remake of his homonymous 1997 film, Haneke proves to be the kind of filmmaker who decides that when you watch one of his movies you won't be able to get it out of your head (whatever the reasons are).

"Funny Games" is the kind of teasing, brutal spectacle that works both as a genre picture (surprisingly most of the shocking violence here occurs offscreen, proving just how more sadistic the human imagination can be) and as a more artistic treatise.

When the first one was released, it was a time appropriate exploration on how insensitive we have become to violence. The title is both a nod to the torture Paul and Peter subject the other characters to, as well as our own voyeuristic involvement in the whole deal.

Haneke was once quoted as saying that "if you leave the theater you don't need this movie, if you stay you do", his intention seems to be one of preoccupation towards the amount of psychological disturbances his audience can be put through.

But then if this is the case, why bother making a film like this and expect the audience to just walk out of it?

And even more adequate for our times, why would someone go and remake the same film they made a mere decade ago?

The one thing you can't argue about the film is the brilliance of its performers. Watts is hypnotizing, the way her suburban discomfort is followed by a complete mental destruction while layering it with strokes of maternity, slightly awkward sexuality and guilt have to be seen to be believed.

While the usually overpowering Roth completely changes your vision of what he can do, the idea that a few years ago he would've been perfect for one of the torturers might cross your mind.

While Pitt and Corbet become real demonic minions; the actors, who might prove to be the most threatening baby faced thespians this side of McCaulay Culkin, have the ability to haunt your nightmares after this.

Haneke has never been one for subtlety (could there be a clearer metaphor for his accusation as when he implies that we literally open the door to violence?), but what the film lacks in teasing abilities, it more than fulfills with complex brain food.

That he constantly breaks the fourth wall, making the experience more "interactive" is pure wickedness and that he sometimes refuses to move the camera might feel like those times when as kids we were sent to "think about what we did" in the corner.

He treats us like the children who erred, like the adults who should know better and like the kids who chose to become these adults.

Perhaps thinking as an idealist, Haneke assumed that the first film would guarantee a mind shift in our doings, but ten years later, the world is doing worse than ever.

Is the fact that this is an American production a direct nod to the Iraq War? (Films rarely invite to hold such discussions afterwards...).

"Funny Games" often feels like playing hide and seek. The twist is that you don't really know the part you're playing, but you can't help but embrace the challenge.

The Incredible Hulk **1/2

Director: Louis Leterrier

Cast: Edward Norton, Liv Tyler

Tim Roth, Tim Blake Nelson, William Hurt

Last time we saw Hulk he had left the United States in order to learn to control his powers without hurting those he loved and to escape being used as an army guinea pig.

He was also being played by Eric Bana, directed by Ang Lee and had more psychological backstory to it than a patient at Betty Ford.

All of those elements were apparently too much, or not enough, and "Hulk" has gone down in history as a bizarre example of a very good film, with adequate box office, being deemed as a flop.

Five years later comes "The Incredible Hulk" which in a nutshell is everything the original Hulk was not: loud, big and mindless.

Because a complete reboot would've been a waste of time, a summary of what happened before serves as opening credits, Bruce Banner (Norton) is now living in the slums in Brazil where he's trying to learn to control his anger and find a cure to avoid transforming into Hulk.

He takes lessons with a breathing specialist, is careful never to let his heartbeats reach 200 which sets off the transformation and shares information with a New York scientist (Blake Nelson) trying to develop an antidote.

He is being hunted by General Thaddeus Ross (Hurt) who wants to create a whole army of Hulks using Banner and tries a sample of the formula on bloodthirsty bounty killer Emil Blonsky (Roth).

After a forced return to the States, Banner seeks help from his sweetheart Elizabeth Ross (Tyler) who unlike others believes inside the Hulk lies a human conscience and is constantly threatened by General Ross and Blonsky who becomes a creature known as the Abomination.

With an action setpiece around every corner, director Leterrier's film is everything a summer blockbuster should be, but definitely not everything a good film should amount to.

Even when he tries to remove every trace of character development his cast makes this a difficult feat.

Norton, buff but with a geeky, longing attitude, gives Banner a little bit extra despite the fact that the plot insists we should disregard this soulsearch and demand more explosions.

Hulk has never been a superhero in the full sense of the word because Banner wants to get rid of his powers and everyone else fears him.

He has a Dr. Jekyll/Mr. Hyde dynamic which forces a protrait of him to be an internal battle, while Leterrier doesn't care for any of this, Norton gets away with a few moments of great acting, especially in his scenes with the lovely, but dull, Tyler who bats her eyelashes and screams "no!" more often than she has something important to do.

When the film puts their relationship as the epitome of chaste love, Norton gives it a twist during a moment where Bruce can't take his hands off Betty, but his heartbeat starts increasing forcing him to stop.

As many size jokes and "Gamma ray poisoning as birth control" comments as you can come up with, the truth is that this is the only moment in the film where you will feel a connection to these people, the rest of the time they're being treated like Ann Darrow and King-Kong at Skull Island.

Roth and Hurt have delicious star turns as the villains. Roth as the maniac, pure evil one and Hurt as the villain with a chance to undo his wrongs.

But in the end what makes this film bearable is the recent interrelationships take on movies mastered by Marvel Studio, it has to be said that this film ends up being stolen by someone who isn't even billed among the cast, but without who this Hulk would've had nothing really incredible.

It seems we are coming to a completely new era of filmmaking in which for once people will feel the need to return to theaters and live the film experience as it was meant to be lived.

Marvel is starting, but who knows how long will it be before this take is used with different genres and styles?

The idea that a movie, despite its quality as cinema, is able to ellicit gasps and real excitement from audiences comes off as a double edged sword; will it make people think less or will it inspire in them a spirit that demands real quality?

Never before had a film been saved so much by its sense of possibility.