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

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.

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.