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.

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.

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.

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.