The Gamechangers

Stories about ideas are fun. Watching the evolution of an idea to success and the aftermath captures something exciting about being human and having the power to create and act. I think of Cobb in Inception, saying "what's the most resilient parasite? An idea". And of course, one of the best movies about ideas is David Fincher's The Social Network.

Unfortunately, the writer here is no Aaron Sorkin. The central conflict of the story is Houser vs Thompson in a debate that's not particularly explored in any meaningful way, nor concluded with any sense of satisfaction. It all just feels slight and phony, like it was made for 13 year olds.

Radcliffe looks like a college kid on work experience, and strangely looks better suited to Chris Morris's Four Lions than a game development studio. He just never seems to have the depth or confidence to really sell a character. The Rockstar staff don't talk like people who have grown and worked together, knowing each other implicitly - instead they stick to turgid dialogue word for word because the director obviously didn't give any room for the characters to breathe or flesh out.

Worst of all is how much it tries to emulate The Social Network. Shots of people tapping away on keyboards are given an electronic score that desperately wants to channel Trent Reznor's excellent score for TSN. The attempts to create an exciting atmosphere fall flat on their face though, because the script just isn't that interesting.

Its probably the best they could do with a small TV budget and a nervous, possibly inexperienced crew, but it would have benefited from finding its own voice rather than copying better films and trying to be better than it really is.

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

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.

The debate about the effects of violent video-games on people had existed long before GTA (when Mortal Kombat was released it was the first time I personally heard about it) but, with GTA something changed that made the debate much more heated and aggressive. Conservatives all over the world were open arms about how these evil games were turning the children into potential killing machines. Jack Thompson although not the only one, was the more well known among these people.

The movie starts one day after the release of Vice City and spans across all the creative process and release of San Andreas. Within set time frames two plot lines are follow, the legal battle between Thompson and Rockstar, and the development of San Andreas. These plot lines flow nicely and never feel too slow-paced.

I was surprised at how balanced the film was, it does not takes any sides and does not portray Thompson as just an asshole, it shows a man who believes he is doing the right thing (whether or not is truly the right thing is for us to decide) And although this story does have objectively a winner at the end, the effort of presenting the event fairly and not in a one sided manner is something to applaud for.

Daniel Radcliffe is good as Houser. I cannot say it is a remarkable performance. The same goes for Paxton's character although he projects a lot more energy into the role but, that has to do more with the way the character is written than anything else the supporting cast does the job but, there is no one particularly memorable.

The influence of The Social Network in this movie cannot be denied and its one of the reason some people have criticized this film strongly, stating that is just a carbon copy of it is not. The influences are present in the tone of the movie but, saying it is a carbon copy of David Fincher's film is more than a stretch.

All things considered, The Gamechangers is an entertaining TV movie about a controversial subject which remains still. I doubt it will be a classic by any means but, it does the job of telling the story in a fun an effective manner.

The basic plot of THE GAMECHANGERS is straightforward, as crusading Florida lawyer Jack Thompson (Bill Paxton) takes on the video-game producers, notably Rockstar and its CEO Sam Houser (Daniel Radcliffe), in the belief that video-games have a destructive effect on child psychology. The inspiration for the case comes from the killing of three police officers in Alabama by teenager video-game player Devin Moore (Thabo Rametsi).

Owen Harris's production is built round a series of oppositions. Thompson believes that video-games are destructive; Houser advocates free choice. Rockstar's lawyers believe that Houser is exploiting the case for his own ends, and mount a series of counter- accusations. There is a nationalistic subtext running throughout the film contrasting the more liberal Brits (led by Houser) with the more overtly moral Americans, whose censorship laws are apparently far more stringent than those practiced within the United Kingdom. On the other hand Thompson resent Houser and his fellow-Brits for making money out of the American market with little concern for family values.

As the drama unfolds, however, we discover that its focus centers more and more on the consequences of extremism. Houser is so obsessed with novelty, with producing the ultimate video game, that he resists any possible criticism from his fellow-workers. Likewise Thompson's obsession with indicting Rockstar, in the belief that God is on his side (the side of 'right' in his view) that he does not realize the destructive effect his actions have on himself and his family. Although loyally supported by his wife (Fiona Ramsay), he might have been better advised to pause and consider the plight of son Johnny (Garion Dowds). Director Harris stresses the links between the two protagonists through repeated shots showing their faces in close-up superimposed on video-game action.

Much of the action takes place in darkness, or semi-darkness illuminated by computer screens. We are in a nether-world, one in which light seldom enters. Houser talks a lot about the "adaptability" of his new video-game; in truth both he and Thompson are profoundly un-adaptable insofar as they cannot see any other alternative to life than the contrasting causes they espouse. At one point Thompson asks the question "Who are you?" in close-up; we might interpret that statement as a metaphor for the entire film in which human beings are deprived of their identities.

In the end Harris refuses to take sides; on the contrary, he shows how both protagonists are ultimately destroyed. They might have enjoyed "success" in terms of achieving their various ambitions, but at what cost? Perhaps the only way out would have been to follow the example of Houser's colleague Jamie (Joe Dempsie) and leave the whole affair behind. Yet this is something that the obsessive protagonists cannot do.