The Gamechangers

Gives both sides of the argument about how the level of influence the games industry has.

I think it is thought provoking but gives both sides of the arguments and presents them in a unique style.

A lot of negative comments on here I think come from people who want to defend the games industry - but this really does give both sides of the argument and I learnt a lot at the same time as finding it entertaining.

They should do another one about COD!

Critics, even Rockstar themselves, have been very negative of the recent release (15th September 2015) of The Gamechangers. It has been slated for being poorly acted or not accurate to the real-life events or even just plain bad; but what these opinionated reviews are missing is the entire pragmatic of the film.

The Gamechangers clearly states, without sounding like one of lawyers in the film, that the scenes shown have been altered for dramatic effect (or words to that effect) thus any point on how realistic the film really was is entirely out of the question, all that matters is that the events happened. Just happened. And what this film really did was present both sides of the argument in, for possibly the first time in the film industry, a balanced manner.

In my personal opinion the film does not romanticise any aspect of the lives of each side of the GTA debate, which can be generalised to the entire argument of violent video games, and even if, as a viewer, the viewer feels they liked or were made to associate more with a certain type of character, or one side of the argument, more then they must ask themselves if a character on the opposing side could not be empathised with by a different type of person. In film, everyone feels a connection with a certain type of character and those characters vary. Some prefer the villain to the hero, the Joker to Batman and so on. Yet as the film finishes, which ever character you empathise with the most you cannot but feel as thought you are stuck in two minds, debating with yourself, about who really is the most respectable, honourable or even moral character in this tale. The plain exclamation that --- remains on death row seems to provide a led weight on the conscious if you associate more with the GTA team or, conversely, the amount of money and respect Rockstar still gain, as is stated, provides a balancer for those who associate with the moral movement against violent video games for developing minds. Either way both sides have characters presented as mad, immoral and ugly whilst also portraying aspects of good, revolution and development.

In essence, this film has provided a non-biased ending, which the viewer can take away not a sense of excitement or pleasure from their film but rather leave in a contemplative and quizzical state. And that is rare for modern film. This picture has, as is the aim of many of the characters, broken down barriers and revolutionised real-life based film. But the question after you have balanced your moral scale and decided on a place to stand is why have films documenting real events not provided as bleak and factual interpretation as this one previously?

Real-life dramas should let us make up our own minds. And I believe this film has taken the first step in letting us do so.

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.

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.