Matcollis This Movie Can Only Be Described With One Word.

Spoonatects Am i the only one who thinks........Average?

Kirandeep Yoder The joyful confection is coated in a sparkly gloss, bright enough to gleam from the darkest, most cynical corners.

Phillipa Strong acting helps the film overcome an uncertain premise and create characters that hold our attention absolutely.

l_rawjalaurence 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.

Paul Evans 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

zif ofoz Poor Daniel Radliffe, the weight of this entire movie is being carried by him and him alone.1. He is the only actor that brings life and character to his role. 2. Next is the staff at the company, Rockstar, they are just passable in their roles. 3. Bill Paxton and Fiona Ramsay as Jack & Patricia Thompson is perfectly awful, really almost laughably awful like comic book characters. 4. And all I could think about was what a goofy parallel this story is to The Social Network. Not an exact parallel but the set up in Gamechangers is just too similar.The director Owen Harris and writer James Wood should have taken a hint from the very topic of this story - namely Computer Graphics! An entire cast could have been designed, added voice overs, and the movie would have been the same. Uninspired, with witless dialog, and just plain slow. Even some of the photography is silly - like the scene where Radcliffe is in deep though at his desk and on the desk is an 8 Ball toy!! (get it?) And then at the end his shadow is stretched out over the staircase as he walks out into the street, really?! (like a 40's film noir) And then the Thompson character always whacking golf balls and the neighbors houses are just a few feet away. No wonder his front window was smashed in, I'm sure he broke plenty of neighbors windows whacking those golf balls! And in every Thompson house interior scene the 'cross' on the wall is in practically every camera shot.Honestly, I truly believe Radcliffe must have been offered a sweetheart deal to appear in this kitty cat scratch box of a movie. And I bet every wacky fundamentalist Christian church will be showing this trash in their classrooms as proof positive that Christians are persecuted in this country. And nobody will ever notice that this is a crappy production.

joedouglashodgson 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.