The Gamechangers

I've had fun and love the Grand Theft Auto series, so I'm excited to see how the game has evolved. The only question that remains is what all was real and what wasn't. I enjoyed it that way, but who knows what is real and what is not. If you don't mind some false information, probably a cool movie, but if you want reality, I'd probably rather avoid it. The thing is, it's mentioned at the beginning of the movie that some scenes were edited to make it more interesting, but the question is which ones. I don't know. How true this film is in the final act I don't know. Either way, I had fun. I did. So the biggest hitch is that it probably wasn't quite like that, but it's good that it's mentioned at the beginning and I enjoyed the finale and had a good time.

Poor Daniel Radliffe, the weight of this entire movie is being carried by him and him alone.

1. He is the only actor that brings life and character to his role. 2. Next is the staff at the company, Rockstar, they are just passable in their roles. 3. Bill Paxton and Fiona Ramsay as Jack & Patricia Thompson is perfectly awful, really almost laughably awful like comic book characters. 4. And all I could think about was what a goofy parallel this story is to The Social Network. Not an exact parallel but the set up in Gamechangers is just too similar.

The director Owen Harris and writer James Wood should have taken a hint from the very topic of this story - namely Computer Graphics! An entire cast could have been designed, added voice overs, and the movie would have been the same. Uninspired, with witless dialog, and just plain slow. Even some of the photography is silly - like the scene where Radcliffe is in deep though at his desk and on the desk is an 8 Ball toy!! (get it?) And then at the end his shadow is stretched out over the staircase as he walks out into the street, really?! (like a 40's film noir) And then the Thompson character always whacking golf balls and the neighbors houses are just a few feet away. No wonder his front window was smashed in, I'm sure he broke plenty of neighbors windows whacking those golf balls! And in every Thompson house interior scene the 'cross' on the wall is in practically every camera shot.

Honestly, I truly believe Radcliffe must have been offered a sweetheart deal to appear in this kitty cat scratch box of a movie. And I bet every wacky fundamentalist Christian church will be showing this trash in their classrooms as proof positive that Christians are persecuted in this country. And nobody will ever notice that this is a crappy production.

I liked that the movie did not go too hard one way or the other. It is obviously biased towards the game company, but not too much. Bill Paxton makes a great righteous lawyer trying to impose his own moral values on the world and Daniel Radcliffe plays well a Steve Jobish kind of company CEO that drives everyone insane, but also toward doing good work. However, the lack of support from the real protagonists and the desire to make the story more dramatic than it actually was hurt the film.

I was always outraged by the hypocrisy that surrounded GTA. The film is trying to put the violence and the sex in the game in the same boat, but it actually wasn't like that at all. Nobody said anything about the violence in the game (or the fact that, for example, you can fly a plane into a building), but there was huge outrage about the Hot Coffee mod who enabled previously disabled sex scenes. Hillary jumped immediately on the righteous wagon because of the sex. No wonder Bill left her.

I think that the biggest problem of the film was that it didn't know what it was. For a drama it was a bit lackluster and under budget, considering the many stories surrounding the GTA franchise in general. Also, I have worked for people like Radcliffe's character, people that can hug you one day and fire you another, based only on their personal mood. It's not cool. The developers themselves and their side of the story are completely missing from the film.

For a documentary it was inaccurate, changing event order and amassing many of them in an unrealistic time interval. Even my wife, who is unaware of the reality of the game, noticed that some things seemed to happen in weeks and other in years, yet somehow at the same time.

Bottom line: I liked watching it and I suppose I would have not wanted to miss it, but I can't recommend it for anything else other than good acting.

I have been playing arcade games since the late 1970s. Computer games since the Home Computer revolution of the early 1980s and I bought a copy of GTA III for the Playstation 2. Despite this I do not consider myself as a gamer. However I am known to show my skills off to my kids every now and then to let them know that their old dad has a trick or two up his sleeve when it comes to Mortal Kombat or Virtua Fighter.

What struck me about GTA III was the expansive almost free flowing game-play. You had missions to complete but you could just wander off and do something else. For the first time I felt video-games had made that leap forward more than the hype from console manufacturers going on about Emotion chips.

People might be surprised to discover that GTA is actually British created by two brothers, Sam and Dan Houser who in this BBC film are based in New York. Daniel Radcliffe plays Sam Houser, the Don Simpson obsessed visionary who wants to take gaming to the next level. He also comes across as brattish rather than a maverick.

After a shooting incident the game's developer Rockstar lock horns with Jack Thompson (Bill Paxton) a God fearing conservative lawyer on a moral crusade against rap and video-games and its insidious effects on kids.

Thompson struggles at court and is at risk of being disbarred but Rockstar rather ineptly or deliberately left hidden coding in one of their later version of GTA which brought them further trouble in the US courts.

The problem with the film was it was too slight. The BBC received no cooperation from Rockstar who also enforced their trademark to not to allow them use the game footage. I think this was unwise of them.

The film is based on true events but some scenes have been changed for dramatic effect. In short padded out to create tension where probably none existed.

Like a lot of recent BBC one off films its noticeable that the 5 years licence fee is having an effect. Part of it just looked a little too cheap and low budget even though there was New York location shooting and it had a style of filming in parts to give it an immersive computer game setting.

The makers hoped to create a buzz like the film The Social Network but here the battle about a moral crusader who uses grandstanding to destroy Rockstar felt overlong even at 90 minutes. Paxton also reminded me too much of the righteous character he played in his directorial debut, Frailty.

Not being a gamer I'll be honest and say I'm not exactly fully aware of how huge some games are, but even I knew the stories of GTA and Sam Housers goings on. I had no idea he was a Brit. I'm sure lots of it was dramatised, it was a fairly interesting concept for a TV movie, but did it deliver?

The story focuses on the moral story of GTA. Houser wants to push the boundaries of gaming, make them more graphic, bigger and more realistic. The moral argument is brought by Attorney Jack Thompson, a god fearing man that believes the game is responsible for the plight of America's youth, and the cause of a teenager's killing of two cops.

I like Daniel Radcliffe, I feel he had a tough time of it, as he was the only real interest throughout, I found some of the other performances a little flat and unforgettable.

Put it this way I won't be buying the DVD, it passed the time whilst I assembled a bench, not particularly engrossing or exciting, quite dull on the whole. 4/10