Live!

Live! has had a VERY limited release in the UK which is not a judgement of quality but more a financial decision – it didn't do well in other countries so why throw more money after it in cinemas when it will still perform on DVD and ultimately on television. Knowing that being a box-office underperformer didn't mean it was no good I decided to check it out for myself as the concept did appear interesting if not exactly original. There have been other films satirising cruel reality television and some of them have been pretty good so Live! could not just trade on the "good idea". And sadly, nor does it because in practice it is not as smart as it would like to think it is, however neither is it without value. The "good idea" is perhaps too excessive to be able to function within a "real world" setting and as a result the film struggles to really convince that it would happen as easily as it shows it happening. What the process of getting it to happen does allow for is lots of cynicism about the motivations of those involved in making television shows and I never felt any of that was exaggerated despite the subject.

So far so good (but not great) and so the film continues, very much focusing on Katy's drive to make it happen and the cynical methods she uses (which are of course convincingly portrayed as normal within her role). The story gets tense when it comes to the show itself but then sadly gives way to so-so ending that does feel a little too tidy and obvious but still just about works. The problem with the whole film is that, while appearing to be very clever and interesting, the actual point is nothing that hasn't been done many, many years ago when the trend started – in fact even Running Man all those years ago did the same sort of thing (which I assume is the reason for the smart referential casting of Glaser as he directed that film about twenty years ago). So what we are left with is that ratings is God and that the corporate bodies that make television have morals second and shareholders first, that people will watch stuff they have never seen before and that there will always be people willing to do anything for money or fame if they are desperate or attention-seeking enough. OK. So the film has told me something that more than a decade of cruel game-shows, bug-eating and so on had already shown me for real – the only difference being that the death-aspect makes it somehow more impacting, but yet not more intelligent. It is a shame because no matter how well everyone does making it, they are still doing something that is almost past the point of satirising and they struggle to convey why the film has been made now and not 5-10 years ago.

Anyway, one of the bigger motivation factors for me watching was to see Mendes in a lead role. Like many men, I like her because she is sexy in looks and how she carries herself but this is not necessarily the same as being able to act so I have been encouraged to see her doing projects that ask her to do more than giggle and flirt (and indeed the upcoming Bad Lieutenant film is unlikely to be the rom-com that many in her position would choose). In this film she does do a good job and convinces throughout as a sharp TV executive being driven without being desperate but the one problem I had was that she pushed (or was directed to push) too hard on the sex side. Now I know that women in this sort of environment have to be deliberately strong and can use flirting as part of their armoury. However Mendes could have convinced as a strong executive in this way without being so heavily sexualised. I am split on the subject because she has awesome legs (for the first ten minutes they are the dominant thing on screen) and I love seeing her in light and sexy clothing) but it is already part of her performance without her having to force it down the audience's throat. Again, I could watch it muted just for her but having her being so playful in sponsor meetings etc just didn't wash with me and took away from the "professional" part of her character that she also had to play. She is not "bad" in it but I don't think that the film represented a showcase for her as an actor so much as showing that if you are looking for someone effortlessly playful and sexual without being yet another blonde starlet fresh in town then she can do that – but we knew that already. I'll never know of course but it would be interesting to know how she sees her performance.

The rest of the cast are solid enough but are very much behind the Mendes and nobody has much time to work with. Braugher is watchable as always, even with his limited time, while Krumholtz is not that good a character or a performance. The contestants are all convincing when it comes to the crunch and that does mean the end of the film is quite gripping – which is a fair acknowledgment from the film, that people WOULD watch and WOULD find it gripping, which is different from saying it is right to do so. Live! is an interesting film that benefits from a perhaps overly-sexual Mendes but it cannot get over the fact that it is at least five years too late and doesn't bring anything to the table that hasn't been done before

Actually everything you write about this movie is too much... This is a movie you have to know nothing about when you see it. I saw it at the Sneak Preview at my local cinema. I never heard anything about it before I saw it, never saw trailers, posters or whatever.

The movie starts of a bit slow... you will think: 'Is this it?' But really, after a while this movie gets so incredible... Even if it is only in the last half hour of the movie. That is just what you want to see it for. The last half hour.

I have nothing more to say, I do not wish to spoil the movie for you. Just go see it, you won't be disappointed.

As reality television become staple programming, we have contestants playing games around the world, or just doing so on an island. We have those that propel some into instant fame upon winning a singing competition, and audience participation is key if ratings are to rocket through the sky. Live! allows the audience a little of behind the scenes action in a mockumentary that takes a look at how such programmes get conceived with always an eye looking at the ratings, and the other eye looking at potential revenue stream in the form of selling air time to advertisers.

Eva Mendes, who also serves as executive producer, stars as Katy, a network station's programming manager out to look for the next big thing to save their flagging station ratings amongst the CBS and the NBCs. In one brainstorming session, the thought of Russian roulette got bounced around, and given the nature of the game - where one puts a loaded gun to the head and pulls the trigger - it borders on simple human decency, and who would want to allow someone getting killed live on air being put out by their station?

And there's where the mockumentary kicks into full gear for the first hour, where we follow Katy (conveniently she has an indie film crew following her in a bid to make their own documentary) around the office and engage in some heavy politicking and lobbying of her brainchild through departments such as marketing, sales, legal as represented by corporate counsel Don (Andre Braugher) and even to convince the network presidents herself. And it is indeed interesting as you see all the corporate backstabbing, back-biting, and elevator pitches get delivered with conviction to sell something as radical as this, with the stroking of egos constantly being proved to be effective.

We also get to be chummy with the would be contestants, as we dig a little into their backgrounds as diverse as an extreme sports athlete, to a farmer struggling to keep his family afloat, from an actress wannabe, to a gay Latino looking for some self-respect. Naturally you expect some stereotyping here, but one thing common with everyone is, so long as you're holding a loaded gun to your head, all bets are off and only a pull of the trigger, if they survive, will decide if they get to stay alive and walk away with the prize money of US$5 million. Which makes you wonder, would you risk it all to do the same, for the same amount of money?

The last moments of the film provide that debut episode, and truth be told, it is rather interesting to watch, playing to our voyeuristic tendencies which make reality TV so popular these days. It's openly admitting to satisfying our blood lust, with death on screen for the masses, like old styled gladiatorial fights, or public executions where you deliberate attend just to see what you've come to see. Those unfamiliar with how live or game shows are produced, get a look behind the scenes as well in the coordination of technical expertise and manipulation to milk shots of the moment, for the goggle box audience.

While this is fiction through and through, I wouldn't help but shudder if one day we do have such game shows being put live on the air, packaged as entertainment. Written and directed by Bill Guttentag (who brought us the documentary Nanking), this film does seem rather plain sailing, until of course a shocker of a finale which you probably didn't see it coming, re-emphasizing of course, whether TV violence has a negative aspect to daily lives.

This fictional movie titled Live stars a really cute Eva Mendes for writer/director Bill Guttentag. It follows a mockumentary style feauturing Mendes as an ambitious network executive deciding to produce a show where contestants will play Russian roulette LIVE (that's where the title comes from) and for real. She thinks (rightly) it will be the most watched television program ever. The movie is social jab at all those reality programs based upon real life human emotions and drama to win audience figures (X-Factor and Big Brother for instance but in general all the programs that are now too many). Eva Mendes is impressive in her cynical role, but what also impresses is certainly the fact that everyone ends up being even more cynical than her, the network Counsel as well. Don't know whether this kind of show will take place sooner or later, that is mainly the massage of the story, but certainly this flick delivers a strong and effective message/warning for everyone. The movie is also somehow funny (another paradox) when showing audience's and TV staff's feelings immediately turning from desperation to a "the show must go on" mood after the two deaths.

Although I found the message of the movie somewhat cliché (as I'm sure many, including the writer(s), will agree) and I thought I spotted a plot hole here or there, it had a decent script, effective directing and decent acting from the entire cast. That's decent twice, because although I definitely feel that this production deserved the time, money and energy invested, I am more looking forward to seeing the director's future, hopefully more refined work.

However, as someone said in a discussion thread below, the climax really made you feel as if you were transported into the semi-fictional world of the film, despite being aware of what your own reality is like. That's a tough thing to accomplish, and that, combined with several other moments of effective self-reference by the movie, can only cause me to conclude that it's a solid piece of work by all involved, and it shows definite promise of To sum up: overall worth watching at least once.