That radio interview in the beginning is like something you'd hear on the radio in GTA. :v:
[IMG]http://puu.sh/kcWzL/33ee6105db.png[/IMG]
I've watched about forty minutes of this now, it's...embarrassing.
The sequence where Devon Darnell Moore shoots three officers dead and steals a police cruiser is shot from behind, hovering a few feet back and above his shoulders, in a manner that is really contrived and in exceedingly poor taste, likening it to the camera style from Vice City.
it's clear BBC put business people on the writing and production, and not anybody that actually knows about making games. Frodo tells his staff that they need to get the *programmers* down to South Central to get the vibe right and to shoot guns, to know how it feels. Not, y'know, the art team, or the animators, or sound technicians.
Every interaction Jack Bargain-Bin-Jeff-Daniels Thompson has is cringey as hell and his lines are hilariously righteous. Late at night, tense music plays as he stares into the blue light of his laptop, studying a Google image result page of Sam Houser's face, then delivers a laughable [i]"Who are you!?..."[/i]
And it's strange, because it doesn't seem to be satire. Devon's crimes and the aftermath are presented as factually and shamelessly driven by nothing but an addiction to Vice City, yet Jack Thompson's portrayal is so hilarious that you can't believe they mean for you to take the cause seriously.
So far this whole thing comes off like, well, absolute bollocks. I'm not excited about watching the rest tomorrow. GG BBC
its really bad
laughably bad
That was actually pretty okay. Not going to lie, had me pretty engrossed in it. The acting was way off in a lot of it though... Jack's wife, holy shit, such an emotionless husk. And is always well dressed to sit on the couch and watch TV.
Snip
That ending, though.
:v:
It's actually entertaining :v: I mean the documentary part is horrible, but the drama is fun
any mirrors?
the video is down
[QUOTE=DChapsfield;48692664]I've watched about forty minutes of this now, it's...embarrassing.
The sequence where Devon Darnell Moore shoots three officers dead and steals a police cruiser is shot from behind, hovering a few feet back and above his shoulders, in a manner that is really contrived and in exceedingly poor taste, likening it to the camera style from Vice City.
it's clear BBC put business people on the writing and production, and not anybody that actually knows about making games. Frodo tells his staff that they need to get the *programmers* down to South Central to get the vibe right and to shoot guns, to know how it feels. Not, y'know, the art team, or the animators, or sound technicians.
Every interaction Jack Bargain-Bin-Jeff-Daniels Thompson has is cringey as hell and his lines are hilariously righteous. Late at night, tense music plays as he stares into the blue light of his laptop, studying a Google image result page of Sam Houser's face, then delivers a laughable [i]"Who are you!?..."[/i]
And it's strange, because it doesn't seem to be satire. Devon's crimes and the aftermath are presented as factually and shamelessly driven by nothing but an addiction to Vice City, yet Jack Thompson's portrayal is so hilarious that you can't believe they mean for you to take the cause seriously.
So far this whole thing comes off like, well, absolute bollocks. I'm not excited about watching the rest tomorrow. GG BBC[/QUOTE]
It also seemed weird to me that the only person to point out all the reasons GTA-Kid's story is fucked up, and how it had little to do with what game he was playing. I expected the "dont blame the game, blame absent parenting" argument to have been a bigger issue.
found a seriously copyright proof mirror
[video=youtube;gh_IBfgvnt8]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gh_IBfgvnt8[/video]
[sp]VeliSide RX7 from Tokyo Drift picture, in fucking 2003? somewhere in 12:00[/sp]
Okay, I finished it. Yup, absolute bollocks. You don't want to like Sam Houser because he, apparently, is an ass, so you don't really care when they get in trouble over Hot Coffee, and you don't really care when they get out alright. Jaime, the fixer with whom you sympathize, almost quits because of the pressure and lack of recognition, but then goes back after a half-assed talk from Sam, so you still dislike Sam.
Then, Jack Not-Quite-the-Budget-for-an-A-Lister Thompson is just silly, an outrageous ham with lines like, "Patty...you're a real special lady," or "[These companies] make you think violence is cool. But the truth is...(pause)...it's not," or my favorite, this exchange:
Lawyer: "Did you write to the CEO of Take-Two, telling him you're gonna take him for every penny he has?"
Thompson: "Yes I did, and I don't regret it."
L: "Did you say in the press, that Sony dumping GTA on American kids, was effectively Pearl Harbor 2?"
T: [distraught stare]
So, like I said in my first post, I really can't tell which side this 90-minute partial scenery chewing exercise wants us to take. Rockstar isn't a wholesome arbiter of free speech, nor is Thompson a gracious martyr of Christian-American patriotism. They're both represented in a really awkward way. And then, for the ending, they throw you for a loop by bookending with another behind-the-shoulder-camera sequence, where Sam Houser walks outside into a New York City street and steals a car, while the visuals transition into 3D animation, which is very clearly -not- GTA, but is supposed to be, but looks obviously different and thus is not particularly effective nor dramatic. I really don't know why they didn't choose to employ footage of GTA IV, which was set in New York City...
This whole thing is pretty much nonsense. People who don't understand games or making games making a film about game development slash legal drama but never effectively delivering either.
There goes 90 minutes of my time.
Now I understand why fucking Rockstar hated it. This movie is what BUSINESSMEN think how Grand Theft Auto got popular, not the actual reason why, and instead of getting Rockstar to help with it, they made up facts to thing in which they didn't know what was actually going on.
Did Daniel Radcliffe [I]REALLY[/I] need money?
[QUOTE=Zuimzado;48699501]Did Daniel Radcliffe [I]REALLY[/I] need money?[/QUOTE]
I wouldn't be surprised if it was just to try and escape being known as Harry Potter for the rest of his life.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.