The struggle of Houser's legal feud against American lawyer Jack Thompson, over the morality of the Grand Theft Auto video game series. The Gamechangers is not that good of a film or a tv film but also not that good of a documentary plus the whole controversy surrounding 'GTA' was a pretty damn outrageous to say the least. The acting was not that very good except the late Bill Paxton who was great as the righteous lawyer and then Daniel Radcliffe? who was honestly kind of trying way too hard to play this type of role. Disappointing Documentary. (3/10)

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.

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.

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.