User reviews

Computer Chess may have an unconventional and experimental style, but its story is simple. It's very much like a Christopher Guest competition mockumentary setup with a similar satirical sense of humour and fortunately its exposition is welcome and well-handled. Its video and black and white cinematography feels more than a gimmick and places the film convincingly in the 80s. At least it makes better use of it than last year's disappointing No. Although it's intended as a character-based film, peering into the lives of the contestants rather than concerned with the competition itself, it's the area it struggles with most. It's difficult to keep track of characters and many feels like cartoons. But its themes still work. It makes you think about the progression of technology and its integration with society as well as what you should live for. It's more of a directors movie with hints of surrealism and meta scenes where the gimmick breaks the mold which results in making Computer Chess interesting, thoughtful and entertaining film but wildly inconsistent with the places where it doesn't know what it's doing.

7/10

I thought it was real for an embarrassingly long time. Which made it that much greater. If you go watch this with your friends, I recommend you tell them it's a documentary.

The filming, the conversation, the characters are all very life like for that day and age. The realism is also one of its shortfalls, because at times it's a bit boring.

I can sit through the most ponderous Joe Swanberg film, the most ridiculous thing ever directed by the Duplass brothers Jay and Mark, respectively, and can even tolerate monotony bestowed upon a talky independent movie in terms of my affection and devotion to the mumblecore movement in cinema. However, when watching a film by the proclaimed "godfather" of the movement Andrew Bujalski, I find myself in a figurative wrestling match between myself and his films. His films are well shot, wonderfully lit and captured given the minimal budgets, and are believably conducted from an acting standpoint, but when the characters open their mouths, not much interesting comes out and when the plot "gets going," not much noteworthy seems to happen. Arriving at the conclusion of his directorial debut Funny Ha Ha, his follow-up effort Mutual Appreciation, and now, his latest endeavor, Computer Chess (arguably his best reviewed film), I am met with nothing other than emptiness, isolation, and very little to write about.

When I enjoy a film that falls in line with the mumblecore movement, bearing a micro-budget, naturalistic dialog, simple but thoughtful acting, themes classified under the title of social realism, and a basic plot that offers much discussion, I'll talk about it for days and write a long, healthy review of the film. When I don't enjoy a film of the mumblecore movement, I'll struggle for sometimes over an hour trying to summarize why I didn't enjoy it. Films like these rely so heavily on character and realism that not liking the film likely means that you didn't like the characters for some reasons.Your tolerance for simplicity, tone, and character needs to be relatively high or the film is likely to escape you. Computer Chess escaped me early on and neither I nor it every reconnected.

The story concerns a computer chess tournament circa 1980's, when the home-computer/computer revolution was jut gaining momentum. People were in awe at the fact that a person can play a machine in a game like chess and have a chance at losing. The power of a machine shaped like a large box was greatly underestimated and tournaments for computer chess and other basic video games became relatively common. The picture is aesthetically complete, showing the players as probably how they were. Many of them wore button-down shirts, vests over their shirt, pocket-protectors, thick-rimmed glasses, had neatly combed hair and a fine-trimmed mustache, along with the benefits of khaki pants and their brain power.

Long story short, they were geeky, but they also were the reason why computers advanced so much in such a relatively short period of time. One look into the history books - or this film, in particular - and you see their equipment was clunky, slow, and unreliable. If they wanted better materials, they couldn't utilize the internet to their advantage. All they could do was do what they could with what they had, and they became the technical pioneers of a larger-than-life industry that many of us take for granted today.

Writer/director Bujalski does a nice job on the environment and the atmosphere of the picture, making the entire project have the look and possibly the aroma of a 1980's chess tournament. The computer and software equipment they had defines the very principles of primitive technology, and Bujalski shows this by incorporating memorable computer sounds of the time, along with the believable execution of an early computerized chess tournament. The black and white photography the film bears only emphasizes this quality. It also helps a film with weak or uninteresting material to make up for it in the aesthetic department, but unfortunately, Computer Chess can't entirely rebound.

Reviews of Computer Chess have marveled at the existential value of the picture. Most everyone has hailed the set design and the aesthetic work (my sole attraction before and after watching the film). And some claim that there's a great meditative style to the picture that offers a valuable viewing. I was free of almost everything in that vicinity watching the film. Bujalski's commitment to recreating an odd, specific time-frame in history deserves significant recognition, but the story he concocts around alienating characters leaves a lot to be desired. When admiration for the history subsides and fascination with aesthetics simmers, what you have is another film with a tiresome story. Like peeling away at the unique looks of a human being to find we're the same on the inside; that's never any fun.

Starring: Kriss Schludermann, Tom Fletcher, and Wiley Wiggins. Directed by: Andrew Bujalski.

I've never seen a film quite like Computer Chess. As one might expect from director Andrew Bujalski, the spoken dialogue and performances from the actors all feel incredibly real. Actor Myles Paige in particular delivers Mike Papageorge's cocky, self-aggrandizing dialogue with a naturalistic vocal cadence you don't often find in the standard summer fare of film. The cinematography, too, is appropriately raw. Shot on video with a 4:3 aspect ratio, it's hard not to watch a scene and feel like you're looking at someone's home movie. While it will no doubt be jarring for some, I found the aesthetic endearing and immersive, as if I really was in the 80s with the characters.

When not focusing on the computer chess competition, the film pries into the lives of its attendees. Here the characters are the film's primary focus. Even though "Chess" has no proper protagonist, it's hard not getting attached to these people. Peter Bishop, a younger computer programmer, comes the closest we get to a main character, and exhibits a reserved, shy personality that I personality think exists in us all. Bishop finds himself floundering from one uncomfortable situation to the next, unable to express his discomfort or anxieties. Other attendees often wax philosophical about the nature of programming, dropping gems like "Is real artificial intelligence different from artificial real intelligence?"

Interestingly enough, Bujalski has no qualms about belying the real-world aesthetic he's effortlessly created. Throughout the film he peppers in several surreal flourishes. Often times scenes will have jump cuts, audio will go out of sync with the video, the film features an almost out of place color scene, and there's even a trippy dream sequence where the programmers take on the role of chess pieces.

Ultimately, Computer Chess features something for everyone. From likable characters to a refreshing visual style, it's hard not to leave the film feeling wholly satisfied.

This low key mockumentary is so dry in it's humor that it's more likely to produce a nostalgic or rueful smile than a belly laugh. Set at a 1980s man vs. computer chess competition, and shot on what looks like a video camera from the time, it certainly succeeds in capturing a time, place and atmosphere.

On the other hand, some of it starts to get a bit repetitive and meandering. Unlike Christopher Guest's hysterical mockumentaries, this is so close to 'real' for much of it's length that it started to wear down a bit. And then when it switches to a more 'over-the-top' tone, as when one of the young leads is hit on by a pair of middle- aged swingers, it suddenly feels like a scene from another film.

None-the-less, this is an impressive accomplishment, using it's lack of budget as a plus to create the feel of a truly home made documentary of the time. It may not be brilliant, but it's sweet, inventive, and fun, which puts it well ahead of most of what's out there.

Films about sport tend to suffer from the fact that it's extremely difficult to adequately recreate sporting action, as most actors play sports about as well as most sportspeople act. This can't be said about chess, which presents another problem for the filmmaker: Films about chess tend to suffer greatly from the fact that chess dosn't really work as a spectator sport. Whilst field games can be convincingly condensed into action set-pieces, chess games go on for days with little obvious progression or tactics to those not deeply versed in it. The more successful attempts have thus tended to have very little chess in them, focusing instead on the personalities involved (Bobby Fischer Vs. The World) or the sacrifices involved in making it in any sport (Searching For Bobby Fischer). Computer Chess instead chooses to see the humour in it, intentionally coming across as a VHS-era oddity found in a skip in Omaha.

Much like any good chess film, this film isn't really about chess. Instead, it pivots around a very brief and particular moment in the early 1980s when the prospect of a computer beating a grandmaster was cause for alarm rather than a quiz question as a group of computer scientists convene on a nondescript hotel for a computer chess tournament. The modern tech revolution was born in such enthusiasms, not that anyone cared at the time. The main joy of the film comes from how it sidesteps the problems involved in trying to make a compelling film about chess by avoiding chess scenes for the most part. It's more so an off-kilter ensemble comedy about very intelligent people battling with the limitations of state-of-the-art computer technology (a comedic highlight is the programmer whose computer constantly plays to lose in seeming rebellion against its master), their own social skills and a coldly indifferent outside world that won't let them use the hotel's conference room.

The film is shot in grainy black and white so as to look like a cheap documentary from the period, which makes the massive computers and mustaches look a lot more believable. Unfortunately, it's too believable at times, with intentional jump cuts and out-of-sync audio drawing too much attention to the self-consciously "quirky" nature of the film at the expense of cohesion, giving the film an episodic structure. Some of these episodes are brilliant, whereas others are just bemusing. Scenes where characters discuss questions in artificial intelligence and the possibilities of their giant computers are juxtaposed with computer programmers unintentionally participating in self-help seminars and endless shots of cats. Maybe this is intended as some sort of comment on the origins of the internet and what it eventually became. But when watching Computer Chess, these differing elements tend to cross over one another and leave any viewers without a very deadpan sense of humour feeling very lost.

On the whole it's a fascinating take on a moment in time: funny and frequently brilliant but also difficult and obscure. It's worth watching, but will probably be loved by a small core of people, liked by a few more and leave many others cold.

"Computer Chess" is a trip. It's a trip back to the 80s when nerds reigned supreme (if only in their rather limited social circles). More than that, it's a mind trip of dweebish proportions. We'll get to that later. First a few things you should know: The movie is almost entirely in black & white, rather grainy & unappealing video (4:3). This can be somewhat tiring on the eyes, compared to the 1080p digital glory we're accustomed to. But before you pass judgment you should know that the filmmakers purposely used an old Sony AVC-3260 b&w tube camera from the 70s. Director of photography Matthias Grunsky explains:

"These tubes also have a very specific soft character, which would not be easy to recreate in post. The cameras had electronic issues and sometimes would generate electronic noise when touching the camera body or the lens. All these artifacts combined add a transcendental character to the image and help express the sometimes unexplainable things that happen between man and computer in our story."

So right off the bat you can see that the film is artistically motivated. Whether you decide that it has significance, or whether you think it's just an annoying gimmick is up to you.

The second thing you should be ready for is near the end it makes a leap of logic concerning technology, in particular, artificial intelligence. Normally I don't care when science fiction films go off the deep end like that, but this film is closer to historical fiction (and does a great job, except for this one glitch). Overall it presents the rather ho-hum reality of technology in the 80s, and the humor is that 80s technology sucked! That's why it came as a surprise in one scene where suddenly technology surpasses what we could even hope for today. But I admit that plot twist is essential to the story & message. So, my fellow pocket-protected geeks in the audience, try to take it in stride.

The rest of the movie gets nothing but high praise from me. It's surprisingly accurate, and if you haven't guessed, I was an 80s kid who grew up thinking "Pong" and the Radio Shack TRS-80 were the greatest things the human race could ever achieve... so I knew that mentality well. How hilariously ironic it is to watch a movie about a conference of nerds who are lifelong-obsessed with creating a computer chess simulator which, today, wouldn't hold the average gamer's attention span past the welcome screen. But irony is the backbone of this film, and if you enjoy ironic comedies like "Ed Wood" (about the worst director who ever lived), "Best in Show" (about a bunch of freaks competing for whose dog is prettiest) or the unintentionally hilarious documentary "Anvil! The Story of Anvil" (about an 80s metal band called... can you guess?), then I think you'll get a real kick out of "Computer Chess".

An extra little push over the cliff, which some audiences may not like but I found intriguing, is the hyper stylistic approach to cinematography. Although visually bland (black & white video), there are some artistic tricks that the director used. For example, despite the nuts & bolts visual presentation, the director achieved a degree of surrealism by using quirky edits (unexpected, disorienting jump cuts) as well as deliberate audio synch mismatches. This compliments the rather surreal turn of events that occur--things that make you wonder "WTF just happened?" Some scenes seem totally random and disconnected, but memorable nonetheless. And without spoiling anything, I can say that "Computer Chess" has one of the most WTF endings I've ever seen.

Definitely not for audiences wanting to be dazzled by theatrics, visuals and fantastic plots, "Computer Chess" is a very minimalistic yet highly entertaining step back in time, giving us the rare opportunity to appreciate the absurdity of "hi-tech" in hindsight. The whole film happens over the course of 3 days in a roadside motel. But it's still a masterpiece. Sort of like the famous minimalist film "Das Boot" shot entirely in a submarine but full of depth & meaning, this movie shot in 2 or 3 rooms with no props but a bunch of dusty old computers really packs a lot. Maybe an alternate title for this nerdfest could be "DOS BOOT".

Hey, laugh it up. I worked a long time on that stupid pun.

A lot of reviewers seem to be taking this film too seriously. Honestly, relax, it's a good film. It's no blockbuster, there's no special effects (apart from a number of "glitch" type effects adding to the 80s hand-held camera vibe and the general strangeness of the film).

The film is, of course, mainly about the characters. The whole artificial intelligence and computer chess story is an interesting thread throughout the film but it is not the main focus. From the start, most of the characters in the film seem socially awkward, somewhat repressed, insecure and nerdy, often even speaking in a hesitant or awkward way. It's the general quality of this film that I like, not necessarily what happens (though that is interesting too - e.g. the complete contrast between the group of chess geeks at the hotel and a bunch of new-age tantric group therapy individuals).

The film moves along at its own pace, often with odd glitches or slightly cut-up scenes. Every second is enjoyable - the attitude of the characters, the geekiness of a haircut, the strange goings-on. The film is generally quite off-the-wall, with many quite odd or playfully bizarre incidents.

Computer chess is IMPORTANT. And it's IMPORTANT to win. Enjoy.

I don't want to reveal too much here. No spoilers. I did not know anything at all about Computer Chess before I sat down at the local rep house to view it, maybe you shouldn't either. It seemed like it was an old documentary about an early (1979) contest to design a computer program that could beat a human being at chess. I thought, as I was watching it, that eventually the documentary would jump to the present day, and interview the participants in that contest, and provide revelations about the the development of artificial intelligence, and perhaps about the evolution of the participants in that early competition. But, at some point, maybe 10 or 15 minutes into the film, I realized that what I thought the movie was about was not at all what the movie was about. And I thought to myself, Wow! Incredibly the movie manages to merge a story about a bunch of extreme tech nerds with a story about a bizarre cult of seekers of sexual and spiritual awakening. My movie-going companion and I were both entranced all during the film, and couldn't stop talking about it afterwards.

This movie is the real deal: it's what we used to go to the movies for. Complexity, surprise, enthrallment, humor, enigmas, revelations. Ambiguity. Somehow a bunch of people down in Austin, Texas made the perfect movie.

In 1980, a convention in California takes place among computer experts who have each programmed a machine to win at chess. Their machines are set up to compete against each other in a contest.

The film is made in a cheap black-and-white photography that is likely meant to reflect the technology of the time. The film also uses devices to reflect the times such as overhead projectors which went out of style once Powerpoint was king.

The movie is amusing regarding the subtle clashes of personalities. Most amusing is another convention taking place at the same hotel: a New Age marriage encounter group. The accuracy in this group's depiction is funny and scary at the same time.

Overall, the film is mildly amusing and anti-nostalgic at the same time

The look and feel of the movie and of the characters was spot on, certainly, and I felt the cinematography added rather than subtracting from the movie. On the other hand, the amount of time and energy spent on the new-agey people and watching Papageorge chew the scenery left me wondering, "Why did we have to go the Christopher Guest route?" I felt deeply disappointed and bored by the way things played out and found myself saying something along the lines of "There's plenty of material in the early computer chess/computer nerd theme for a light, funny mockumentary without having to go the lowest-common-denominator route of throwing in a bunch of new-agers and off-the-reservation nutbars." The follow-on thought was "Unfortunately, these movie makers didn't feel themselves able to make that movie." I'd guess that indie movie makers generally don't like to have the term "lowest common denominator" applied to their films, but the shoe fits.

This is a masterpiece of simplicity and intelligence. Beautifully shot with a PortaPak camera in early 80's style, or at least it looks like one. Story of passionate people in search for love. Computer Chess! What a wonderful idea to gather a plot. Specially when you have a drop of new age religion involved and strong sexual energy restrained. Sincerely humorous, this film hits the point. Specially in today's technology-obsessed universe. Acting is so convincing and natural that one can easily think of it as a documentary, but its not - its art. Reminds on early Cassavetes. I will definitely wait for Bujalski's next film. Personally, best at Berlinale 2013. Love this film.

I had absolutely no clue what I was letting myself into. Just that a friend of mine was telling me I had to see it. It played at the International Film Festival in Berlin and I can only say my friend was right. If there is just a slight geeky/nerdy side in you, you will like this movie too. The fact, they had me guessing for a second, if that was actually made back when this is supposed to play is just great.

Of course, even if you don't know if this is a real documentary or not (it's not), you will get this very early on. But the jokes are really funny and even when it seems to be dragging a bit, it will pick up speed again and deliver on its funny premise. The acting is great and the film does look as old as it is supposed to look. Jokes work nicely and the overall feeling is just great. Check-mate

As both a chess and AI lover this film was wonderful for me.

However it's surprisingly entertaining and funny for the average viewer too.

The cinema was alive with laughter and enjoyment. Some hilarious awkward tension with an "alternative therapy" group.

In fact quite a few awkward moments overall.

The fake documentary approach is perfectly executed. Amazing style and attention to detail.

It's in black and white and 4x3 aspect ratio. I loved it! Just don't expect a summer blockbuster.