The Gamechangers (2015)

This movie is the proof that the world is becoming a sick and dumb place

How sad is this?

a film so unique, intoxicating and bizarre that it not only demands another viewing, but is also forgivable as a satirical comedy where the jokes eventually take the back seat.

Blistering performances.

The struggle of Houser's legal feud against American lawyer Jack Thompson, over the morality of the Grand Theft Auto video game series. The Gamechangers is not that good of a film or a tv film but also not that good of a documentary plus the whole controversy surrounding 'GTA' was a pretty damn outrageous to say the least. The acting was not that very good except the late Bill Paxton who was great as the righteous lawyer and then Daniel Radcliffe? who was honestly kind of trying way too hard to play this type of role. Disappointing Documentary. (3/10)

The game changers is not terrible, though it really isn't that good. It starts off awesome, with the release of Vice City, becoming one of the most popular games ever, and the controversy it caused, is very interesting and fun to watch. The movie is a little slow, I'll give you that, but it does capture your attention at some points, (this seems very forced at times - especially the whole 'hot coffee' scenario). There where a lot of references to other Rockstar games, that you will love if you are a fan of their games, but this seems put in, like I said earlier, just to grab your attention away from the boredom. The character development is very good, this is probably the best part of the movie, but this is all shattered in an awful ending, I won't spoil anything too big, but the sort of antagonist, suddenly changes his mind on the game being banned. Overall the game changers isn't a great movie, and deserves maybe a 5/6 out of ten.

When I read what this was all about I wanted to watch it, as it's a question that's been in our family for years, are video games any good for youngsters, if played to excess.I found this to be watchable enough, the acting was particularly good, I just found it boring. There were times when it transformed into melodrama, the court scenes were tedious.I find Jack Thompson's argument about the morality of the video games a little rich, I'd have thought his argument would have been initially about the ease at which you can obtain a firearm stateside. It poses an interesting argument.I found it quite strange that Daniel Radcliffe accepted this part, good though he was it could perhaps have been written for anybody. He's too accomplished an actor for so anonymous a part.

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.