Today marks the opening of Funny Games, writer-director Michael Haneke’s English-language remake of his own 1997 German-language film. I’d never seen the original, and I was quite hesitant about checking out the updated version — as much as I love horror movies, I’m really not into overly explicit violence and watching people suffer. Given that, going to watch a movie about a bourgeois family brutalized as a pair of psychopaths keep them captive in their summer home is something on my "to do" list that falls ... oh, somewhere between “scrub the floor” and “punch yourself in the face.” Earlier this week, though, I caught a screening. The “You really need to see it” urgings I received from a few trusted sources got me thinking about it, but in the end what got me to the theater was the fact that Funny Games stars Naomi Watts.

I’ll readily admit it — Watts is like kryptonite for me. My roommate is a film journalist and just this week had the opportunity to interview Naomi on the Funny Games press junket. While I was all cool as a cucumber on the outside with my “Wow, you’re so lucky I’m so jealous tell me if she’s really pretty I wonder how tall she is man you are soooo lucky,” on the inside I was ... well, let’s just say that I briefly considered buying some chloroform and a wig that looks like my roommate’s hair and going to the press conference in her stead. What? I didn’t DO it, sheesh. And I would have, like, done all the dishes for a week to make up for it. C’mon, man, it’s Naomi Watts!

I’ll see anything she’s in, just to see her. She’s displayed remarkable range in her career, and I honestly believe she’s one of the greatest working actresses today. Oh, and some people might kind of find her maybe a little bit attractive.

A word or two about Funny Games — it’s a harrowing cinematic experience, somewhat akin to seeing Dancer in the Dark or Requiem for A Dream. I appreciate it for what it is; the performances are amazing; I completely get the message; I kind of thought it was incredible; I can’t stop thinking about it ... and I never want to see it again. Funny Games explores the relationship audiences have with on-screen violence. It asks difficult questions, and filmmaker Haneke toys with your desires and expectations. Haneke himself says that he wouldn’t be surprised — or upset — if people walk out somewhere in the middle of it. I found it extremely difficult to sit through, but I’m glad I did. (For more on all that, see my review.)

Now let’s get back to Naomi Watts, who not only stars in Funny Games but acted as Executive Producer. Why would she want to be a part of such gut-wrenching cinema? I caught a bit of a morning TV program the other day because I flipped by and there was Naomi. Mind you, I find morning television to be somewhat akin to “torture porn” — I can’t stomach the stuff (mind you again, I loathe the term “torture porn,” but that’s a topic for another day). Anyway, one of the program hosts suggested that Watts needs to star in a lighthearted rom-com after assaulting our senses with Funny Games and last year’s violent crime thriller Eastern Promises. "Those movies are fine for other actresses," Naomi replied, "but they don’t interest me." Gasp! An actress who wants to be challenged by her work, who would rather push boundaries than worry about fame and box office? It’s like capturing a glimpse of Bigfoot. A really, really beautiful Bigfoot. Mmm ... Bigfoot ...

That said, she’s certainly not opposed to making mainstream films; she’s reprising the role made famous by Tippi Hedren in the upcoming remake of The Birds (which I will see — yes, just for her. Damn her powers!), and of course there’s King Kong (2005), a film that filled me with an odd desire to become a giant ape. I can’t imagine why.

It’s obvious that Watts is never going to stop appearing in edgy films. Several actress (most notably Jennifer Connelly) passed on the role of Rachel in The Ring. Naomi added her acting chops and the film became, in my opinion, one of the best remakes of an Asian horror film to appear on the market.

And then, of course, there’s Mulholland Dr. Watts turned in one of the best performances of the decade as both Betty and Diane in David Lynch’s mind-bending lesbian-flavored tour de force.

It’s my good fortune that she does make such interesting choices as an actress — I’ve been, at the least, intrigued by most everything she’s done. And I know that even if she made the blandest, most inane rom-com ever to be belched out by the most hackneyed fat-cat Hollywood producer, I’d be plopped in a theater seat opening weekend. It’s good to be aware of one’s own weaknesses, don’t you think?