The Gamechangers (2015 TV Movie) User Reviews (16)

Do video games make people violent?

[colinevans-20130 · 5/10 · 4 October 2015]

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.

Taut Drama That Reveals the Destructive Consequences of Fanaticism

[l_rawjalaurence · 7/10 · 30 September 2015]

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.

Trying to document the debate about game violence

[siderite · 6/10 · 16 December 2015]

I liked that the movie did not go too hard one way or the other. It is obviously biased towards the game company, but not too much. Bill Paxton makes a great righteous lawyer trying to impose his own moral values on the world and Daniel Radcliffe plays well a Steve Jobish kind of company CEO that drives everyone insane, but also toward doing good work. However, the lack of support from the real protagonists and the desire to make the story more dramatic than it actually was hurt the film.

I was always outraged by the hypocrisy that surrounded GTA. The film is trying to put the violence and the sex in the game in the same boat, but it actually wasn't like that at all. Nobody said anything about the violence in the game (or the fact that, for example, you can fly a plane into a building), but there was huge outrage about the Hot Coffee mod who enabled previously disabled sex scenes. Hillary jumped immediately on the righteous wagon because of the sex. No wonder Bill left her.

I think that the biggest problem of the film was that it didn't know what it was. For a drama it was a bit lackluster and under budget, considering the many stories surrounding the GTA franchise in general. Also, I have worked for people like Radcliffe's character, people that can hug you one day and fire you another, based only on their personal mood. It's not cool. The developers themselves and their side of the story are completely missing from the film.

For a documentary it was inaccurate, changing event order and amassing many of them in an unrealistic time interval. Even my wife, who is unaware of the reality of the game, noticed that some things seemed to happen in weeks and other in years, yet somehow at the same time.

Bottom line: I liked watching it and I suppose I would have not wanted to miss it, but I can't recommend it for anything else other than good acting.

A good film, just probably not quite based on reality

[Polotovar · 7/10 · 7 April 2024]

I've had fun and love the Grand Theft Auto series, so I'm excited to see how the game has evolved. The only question that remains is what all was real and what wasn't. I enjoyed it that way, but who knows what is real and what is not. If you don't mind some false information, probably a cool movie, but if you want reality, I'd probably rather avoid it. The thing is, it's mentioned at the beginning of the movie that some scenes were edited to make it more interesting, but the question is which ones. I don't know. How true this film is in the final act I don't know. Either way, I had fun. I did. So the biggest hitch is that it probably wasn't quite like that, but it's good that it's mentioned at the beginning and I enjoyed the finale and had a good time.

The GTA Chinatown wars of movies.

[ewansuttie · 6/10 · 17 May 2016]

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.

No... Just... No.

[pixlbandits · 2/10 · 30 September 2015]

After a day of hard graft in the Pixel Bandits office, we sat down and had a dinner that couldn't be beat. After putting baby bandit to bed we saw Gamechangers, the BBC Documentary about the creation of Grand Theft Auto and thought it would be worth a watch. Our night went downhill from there. Today's soundtrack on the left is from the Fifth installment of the super franchise.

Now it wasn't a "bad program" from the outset. It has a decent cast, including screen bigwig Bill Paxton and Daniel Radcliffe who has certainly come a long way from the shoddy child acting when he starred as "The Little Wizard Who Could", but from the outset something was jarring at me... Following a portrayal of Rockstar after the release of Vice City and working through the construction of San Andreas the program starts heavy and hard with Rockstar celebrating a staggering amount of profit on Vice City and quickly into a depiction of Devin Moore and his brutal murder of three police officers

Which leads us to the first point, that this "Docu-Drama" is, from the outset, less genuine than a cardboard Buster sword. Fiction quickly overtook fact in a poor and unsuccessful scramble for entertainment value. Seemingly within a few weeks Vice City is released, Moore is arrested, killing three officers and former attorney Jack Thompson steps in as the gallant hero on a crusade to stop parents from buying 18 rated games for their underage children stop people making violent games.

In reality, Moore was arrested June 7 2003, around 8 months after the release of Vice City, and it wouldn't actually be until 2005 that Jack "Righteous Thunder" Thompson came anywhere near this case. Again, in the BBC adaptation of the truth you're led to believe that Jack Thompson has never been on a computer in his life, and yet the reason that he didn't jump straight to Moore's defense may well have been because in 2003 he was trying the same kind of thing with GTA 3 and a lad of 16 called Dustin Lynch, who murdered his friend in Ohio.

The big things in the program are right, Devin Moore did kill three people, Hot Coffee was a (really rather naff) sex scene left on the disc but unreachable by normal players, however it is interspersed with misinformation and falsehoods which really brought down what could otherwise have been a factual look at the link between gaming and violent behavior, but that still would have made me angry. why?

Because the media keep asking that big question. Do Violent video games make you violent. The very fact that this argument is still raging after 23 years, since the release of the first Mortal Kombat, perpetuates the myth. If there is no link, why are we still asking the question, the fact that headlines and click-bait ask this question regularly will lead anybody who doesn't look behind them to the conclusion that they must do, otherwise, what's the big hooha?

A psychological study recently revealed that playing violent video games can be a "risk-factor" to exhibiting increased aggression, however not only did they also point out that there was no evidence that this influence was enough to lead to criminal acts and, let's be honest here, the same desensitizing and copy cat behavior can be taken from anything from books, to film, to television, so why the focus on gaming?

To quote the Independent online newsblog, "The findings have prompted a call for more parental control over violent scenes in video games from the American Psychological Association (APA)." which again is absolutely absurd. The thing about these violent games is that, make no mistake, there is a brutal amount of gore and bodily destruction. In GTA you can pay for intercourse with a prostitute and then beat her until she dies and you get your money back. Do I want my eleven year old to play that, of course not. Do I want stricter parental controls on the game, also a no... because

Video games, much like film, have something in the way of control already. It's taken out of the parents hands. The video gaming development community themselves work with various boards in order to ensure that children do not have the opportunity to perform any of these acts or even witness any of this violent content... and you've probably seen it a few times a day. Each and every one of the games listed in court cases and studies is an age 18 restricted game in the UK. This means that it is illegal for children to buy it, much like alcohol, tobacco, or firearms.

So, who is to blame here. Who is the one to point the finger at when children are exposed to levels of violence that (most of us agree) they shouldn't be seeing. Do we curse out the developers, who spend time developing an adult content game? Do we take to court the classification board who rate the game for sale (by law) to only adults? Do we ransack the offices of the retail stores who 99 times out of a hundred refuse to sell these items to children due to the massive fines and jail time they could serve for doing so? Or should we blame the parents, who buy age restricted games for their children because they are not legally allowed to buy it for themselves?

A unique style of mocumentary

[peggi2 · 9/10 · 23 April 2019]

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!

An interesting idea that's sadly a little dull.

[Sleepin_Dragon · 4/10 · 23 September 2015]

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

The Gamechangers: What it really was

[joedouglashodgson · 10/10 · 17 September 2015]

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.

Liberty City

[Prismark10 · 5/10 · 16 September 2015]

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.

A church movie

[cekadah · 2/10 · 20 September 2015]

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.

An entertaining take on one of the biggest controvercies regarding video-games

[Deadiron29 · 8/10 · 18 September 2015]

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.

misinformative misrepresentative conservative dull

[kailomonkey · 1/10 · 30 September 2015]

This film is overtly right-wing and portrays Jack Thomson as a crusader for good despite him in reality being disbarred for many good reasons. He is a person who lied and used people to further his reputation and career which ultimately collapsed on him, but the film shows him as the saint he tried claiming to be. I am clearly not of this view, so this film might perhaps appeal to those on the conservative side.

However, I would expect most viewers to be those with an interest in GTA and Rockstar Games, to whom only dissatisfaction is bound. The script has Dan constantly coming up with ideas for the next game which nods to GTA San Andreas but in the most pointless way. Him and his team are portrayed as reckless perverts but maybe this all plays into how Rockstar like being portrayed, as the social deviant, which they do on purpose to help market Grand Theft Auto games. This isn't explored in this film however, which just shines light on the BBC's ignorance.

It should also be noted that at the start of the film we are told straight off that the order of events has been changed. That's because Jack Thomson wasn't disbarred until way after these events and it certainly wasn't down to Rockstar Games, it was down to an entire expanse of his career being based on manipulating felons into blaming games for their crimes and bullying games companies and others with unfounded legal threats.

So to conclude, this film was frustrating for its misrepresentation of its characters, dull in its delivery of a game being developed and misinformative with the historical facts making it overall unproductive to watch.

A disappointing, exposition heavy mess that tries to fit far too much into 90 minutes.

[andrews-20757 · 1/10 · 17 September 2015]

I'm usually a big fan of most of the BBC's output but I find it impossible to understand why when one side in the drama wanted nothing to do with it that they decided to proceed anyway and they did so with none of the explanation or background that would've humanised the staff of Rockstar Games.

To deem the drama factual is laughable, almost every person depicted was a characterisation in one way or another (sharp-suited, curt lawyers / scruffy game developer / insomniac gamer)… In fact so little character development occurs I don't even think it's correct to classify it as a drama.

I think the biggest failure was the disconnect between the over- clarifying language used throughout and the areas where the message was lost because of a lack of consistency with that format… Namely that at no point was it spelled out that the game was not being sold to children but being purchased by adults. They were happy to allow the opposition to repeatedly (to the point of nausea) claim that the game was corrupting their children but never in their otherwise blanket exposition state that the game wasn't aimed at or allowed to be legally sold to children.

There were things it did well such as stating that no firm links exist between violence in media and reality and depicting the difficulties faced by the opposition lawyer who brought the case and his family however these failed to make up for what was otherwise a rushed overview that failed to provide sufficient justification about Rockstar Games' motives or goals. How did they expect they could create a meaningful drama by trying to glean information from court documents and articles rather than speaking to actual people? I suspect the irony of the BBC failing to understand how a "factual" drama about a video game world without the input of any "real" individuals is lost on them.

Poor script & acting lets down a potentially interesting story

[rabbitmoon · 3/10 · 17 September 2015]

Stories about ideas are fun. Watching the evolution of an idea to success and the aftermath captures something exciting about being human and having the power to create and act. I think of Cobb in Inception, saying "what's the most resilient parasite? An idea". And of course, one of the best movies about ideas is David Fincher's The Social Network.

Unfortunately, the writer here is no Aaron Sorkin. The central conflict of the story is Houser vs Thompson in a debate that's not particularly explored in any meaningful way, nor concluded with any sense of satisfaction. It all just feels slight and phony, like it was made for 13 year olds.

Radcliffe looks like a college kid on work experience, and strangely looks better suited to Chris Morris's Four Lions than a game development studio. He just never seems to have the depth or confidence to really sell a character. The Rockstar staff don't talk like people who have grown and worked together, knowing each other implicitly - instead they stick to turgid dialogue word for word because the director obviously didn't give any room for the characters to breathe or flesh out.

Worst of all is how much it tries to emulate The Social Network. Shots of people tapping away on keyboards are given an electronic score that desperately wants to channel Trent Reznor's excellent score for TSN. The attempts to create an exciting atmosphere fall flat on their face though, because the script just isn't that interesting.

Its probably the best they could do with a small TV budget and a nervous, possibly inexperienced crew, but it would have benefited from finding its own voice rather than copying better films and trying to be better than it really is.

You forget a thousand things every day. Make sure this movie's one of them.

[robmonroe-79219 · 3/10 · 16 November 2022]

If anyone understood what the title of the review meant, then congrats.

I'll get right down to the meat here. I grew up with GTA. In fact, I was only seven when I first played San Andreas. I finished GTA 4, its DLCs and 5. So you can see I'm a GTA freak. So when I heard Daniel Radcliffe was in a movie about the making of GTA 3 (gotta admit, didn't like that game that much), I was effing hooked. Until I wasn't.

Allow me to elaborate. This movie's inaccurate in so many places. Sam Houser might have been the producer of modern GTA, but the mastermind was always his brother Dan, and he's not in the film. Many of the stuff is made up and that justifies why the film came out on TV, not in theaters. I agree with Rockstar Games' claims about this movie and I think it was only fair they tried to diss BBC about it. Did the writer really think GTA is made in America? Then what is Rockstar North?

3 stars go to Danny Radcliffe. He'll always be my Harry no matter what movie he's in.