Computer Chess (2013) Online

"Computer Chess" is a trip. It's a trip back to the 80s when nerds reigned supreme (if only in their rather limited social circles). More than that, it's a mind trip of dweebish proportions. We'll get to that later. First a few things you should know: The movie is almost entirely in black & white, rather grainy & unappealing video (4:3). This can be somewhat tiring on the eyes, compared to the 1080p digital glory we're accustomed to. But before you pass judgment you should know that the filmmakers purposely used an old Sony AVC-3260 b&w tube camera from the 70s. Director of photography Matthias Grunsky explains:

"These tubes also have a very specific soft character, which would not be easy to recreate in post. The cameras had electronic issues and sometimes would generate electronic noise when touching the camera body or the lens. All these artifacts combined add a transcendental character to the image and help express the sometimes unexplainable things that happen between man and computer in our story."

So right off the bat you can see that the film is artistically motivated. Whether you decide that it has significance, or whether you think it's just an annoying gimmick is up to you.

The second thing you should be ready for is near the end it makes a leap of logic concerning technology, in particular, artificial intelligence. Normally I don't care when science fiction films go off the deep end like that, but this film is closer to historical fiction (and does a great job, except for this one glitch). Overall it presents the rather ho-hum reality of technology in the 80s, and the humor is that 80s technology sucked! That's why it came as a surprise in one scene where suddenly technology surpasses what we could even hope for today. But I admit that plot twist is essential to the story & message. So, my fellow pocket-protected geeks in the audience, try to take it in stride.

The rest of the movie gets nothing but high praise from me. It's surprisingly accurate, and if you haven't guessed, I was an 80s kid who grew up thinking "Pong" and the Radio Shack TRS-80 were the greatest things the human race could ever achieve... so I knew that mentality well. How hilariously ironic it is to watch a movie about a conference of nerds who are lifelong-obsessed with creating a computer chess simulator which, today, wouldn't hold the average gamer's attention span past the welcome screen. But irony is the backbone of this film, and if you enjoy ironic comedies like "Ed Wood" (about the worst director who ever lived), "Best in Show" (about a bunch of freaks competing for whose dog is prettiest) or the unintentionally hilarious documentary "Anvil! The Story of Anvil" (about an 80s metal band called... can you guess?), then I think you'll get a real kick out of "Computer Chess".

An extra little push over the cliff, which some audiences may not like but I found intriguing, is the hyper stylistic approach to cinematography. Although visually bland (black & white video), there are some artistic tricks that the director used. For example, despite the nuts & bolts visual presentation, the director achieved a degree of surrealism by using quirky edits (unexpected, disorienting jump cuts) as well as deliberate audio synch mismatches. This compliments the rather surreal turn of events that occur--things that make you wonder "WTF just happened?" Some scenes seem totally random and disconnected, but memorable nonetheless. And without spoiling anything, I can say that "Computer Chess" has one of the most WTF endings I've ever seen.

Definitely not for audiences wanting to be dazzled by theatrics, visuals and fantastic plots, "Computer Chess" is a very minimalistic yet highly entertaining step back in time, giving us the rare opportunity to appreciate the absurdity of "hi-tech" in hindsight. The whole film happens over the course of 3 days in a roadside motel. But it's still a masterpiece. Sort of like the famous minimalist film "Das Boot" shot entirely in a submarine but full of depth & meaning, this movie shot in 2 or 3 rooms with no props but a bunch of dusty old computers really packs a lot. Maybe an alternate title for this nerdfest could be "DOS BOOT".

Hey, laugh it up. I worked a long time on that stupid pun.

I've never seen a film quite like Computer Chess. As one might expect from director Andrew Bujalski, the spoken dialogue and performances from the actors all feel incredibly real. Actor Myles Paige in particular delivers Mike Papageorge's cocky, self-aggrandizing dialogue with a naturalistic vocal cadence you don't often find in the standard summer fare of film. The cinematography, too, is appropriately raw. Shot on video with a 4:3 aspect ratio, it's hard not to watch a scene and feel like you're looking at someone's home movie. While it will no doubt be jarring for some, I found the aesthetic endearing and immersive, as if I really was in the 80s with the characters.

When not focusing on the computer chess competition, the film pries into the lives of its attendees. Here the characters are the film's primary focus. Even though "Chess" has no proper protagonist, it's hard not getting attached to these people. Peter Bishop, a younger computer programmer, comes the closest we get to a main character, and exhibits a reserved, shy personality that I personality think exists in us all. Bishop finds himself floundering from one uncomfortable situation to the next, unable to express his discomfort or anxieties. Other attendees often wax philosophical about the nature of programming, dropping gems like "Is real artificial intelligence different from artificial real intelligence?"

Interestingly enough, Bujalski has no qualms about belying the real-world aesthetic he's effortlessly created. Throughout the film he peppers in several surreal flourishes. Often times scenes will have jump cuts, audio will go out of sync with the video, the film features an almost out of place color scene, and there's even a trippy dream sequence where the programmers take on the role of chess pieces.

Ultimately, Computer Chess features something for everyone. From likable characters to a refreshing visual style, it's hard not to leave the film feeling wholly satisfied.

What started out as a well-shot, well-acted mockumentary akin to Best in Show but for nerds turned into a dreary sludge with absolutely no narrative. Characters and story lines were introduced and any conclusions failed to materialise. The scenes concerning the computer chess competitions (note the name of the film here)were few and far between and were spliced with scenes of another conference; a conference about re-birthing and sexual awakening. And any comedic value that could be gained between these conflicting worlds was totally lost and played for pointless, irrelevant laughs. The competitions themselves lacked any tension and the climax was tediously anticlimactic, wet and dull. A film lacking in any focus, direction and storyline with lots of potential to be amazing - as some scenes demonstrated. Pity.

I don't want to reveal too much here. No spoilers. I did not know anything at all about Computer Chess before I sat down at the local rep house to view it, maybe you shouldn't either. It seemed like it was an old documentary about an early (1979) contest to design a computer program that could beat a human being at chess. I thought, as I was watching it, that eventually the documentary would jump to the present day, and interview the participants in that contest, and provide revelations about the the development of artificial intelligence, and perhaps about the evolution of the participants in that early competition. But, at some point, maybe 10 or 15 minutes into the film, I realized that what I thought the movie was about was not at all what the movie was about. And I thought to myself, Wow! Incredibly the movie manages to merge a story about a bunch of extreme tech nerds with a story about a bizarre cult of seekers of sexual and spiritual awakening. My movie-going companion and I were both entranced all during the film, and couldn't stop talking about it afterwards.

This movie is the real deal: it's what we used to go to the movies for. Complexity, surprise, enthrallment, humor, enigmas, revelations. Ambiguity. Somehow a bunch of people down in Austin, Texas made the perfect movie.

Computer Chess may have an unconventional and experimental style, but its story is simple. It's very much like a Christopher Guest competition mockumentary setup with a similar satirical sense of humour and fortunately its exposition is welcome and well-handled. Its video and black and white cinematography feels more than a gimmick and places the film convincingly in the 80s. At least it makes better use of it than last year's disappointing No. Although it's intended as a character-based film, peering into the lives of the contestants rather than concerned with the competition itself, it's the area it struggles with most. It's difficult to keep track of characters and many feels like cartoons. But its themes still work. It makes you think about the progression of technology and its integration with society as well as what you should live for. It's more of a directors movie with hints of surrealism and meta scenes where the gimmick breaks the mold which results in making Computer Chess interesting, thoughtful and entertaining film but wildly inconsistent with the places where it doesn't know what it's doing.

7/10

I can usually appreciate dry dialogue and the "mockumentary" style, but I cant find anything redeeming about this movie. It was just plain boring. I do not consider myself an action junkie by any stretch, and I thought I knew what I was in for with this film. Chess is not a topic that is easily portrayed on screen but perhaps a stronger focus on the game would have improved things and "spiced things up", but unfortunately that seemed to take a backseat to the dull subplots of a man with no hotel room, a couples therapy session and a kid who doesn't get laid. The scene at the beginning with the panel of experts actually shows the audience falling asleep as the experts speak. Yet this goes on for fifteen minutes which put me the viewer to sleep. I enjoy the game of chess, I enjoy dry dialogue, and I appreciate the independent films....That being said, I cannot find it in myself to give credit to any portion of this movie. There was a movie that was released a few years back which documented a man who attempts to achieve the high score in a certain primitive video game( I think we all know the movie) and the characters in that documentary were nerds, geeks, and dweebs, yet the portrayal of them at least kept you interested in their individual personalities and stories. None of which was present in this dreadfully boring film. This is the first review I have ever given, and I don't feel comfortable ripping a film. But I believe that this film needed to be criticized.

I can sit through the most ponderous Joe Swanberg film, the most ridiculous thing ever directed by the Duplass brothers Jay and Mark, respectively, and can even tolerate monotony bestowed upon a talky independent movie in terms of my affection and devotion to the mumblecore movement in cinema. However, when watching a film by the proclaimed "godfather" of the movement Andrew Bujalski, I find myself in a figurative wrestling match between myself and his films. His films are well shot, wonderfully lit and captured given the minimal budgets, and are believably conducted from an acting standpoint, but when the characters open their mouths, not much interesting comes out and when the plot "gets going," not much noteworthy seems to happen. Arriving at the conclusion of his directorial debut Funny Ha Ha, his follow-up effort Mutual Appreciation, and now, his latest endeavor, Computer Chess (arguably his best reviewed film), I am met with nothing other than emptiness, isolation, and very little to write about.

When I enjoy a film that falls in line with the mumblecore movement, bearing a micro-budget, naturalistic dialog, simple but thoughtful acting, themes classified under the title of social realism, and a basic plot that offers much discussion, I'll talk about it for days and write a long, healthy review of the film. When I don't enjoy a film of the mumblecore movement, I'll struggle for sometimes over an hour trying to summarize why I didn't enjoy it. Films like these rely so heavily on character and realism that not liking the film likely means that you didn't like the characters for some reasons.Your tolerance for simplicity, tone, and character needs to be relatively high or the film is likely to escape you. Computer Chess escaped me early on and neither I nor it every reconnected.

The story concerns a computer chess tournament circa 1980's, when the home-computer/computer revolution was jut gaining momentum. People were in awe at the fact that a person can play a machine in a game like chess and have a chance at losing. The power of a machine shaped like a large box was greatly underestimated and tournaments for computer chess and other basic video games became relatively common. The picture is aesthetically complete, showing the players as probably how they were. Many of them wore button-down shirts, vests over their shirt, pocket-protectors, thick-rimmed glasses, had neatly combed hair and a fine-trimmed mustache, along with the benefits of khaki pants and their brain power.

Long story short, they were geeky, but they also were the reason why computers advanced so much in such a relatively short period of time. One look into the history books - or this film, in particular - and you see their equipment was clunky, slow, and unreliable. If they wanted better materials, they couldn't utilize the internet to their advantage. All they could do was do what they could with what they had, and they became the technical pioneers of a larger-than-life industry that many of us take for granted today.

Writer/director Bujalski does a nice job on the environment and the atmosphere of the picture, making the entire project have the look and possibly the aroma of a 1980's chess tournament. The computer and software equipment they had defines the very principles of primitive technology, and Bujalski shows this by incorporating memorable computer sounds of the time, along with the believable execution of an early computerized chess tournament. The black and white photography the film bears only emphasizes this quality. It also helps a film with weak or uninteresting material to make up for it in the aesthetic department, but unfortunately, Computer Chess can't entirely rebound.

Reviews of Computer Chess have marveled at the existential value of the picture. Most everyone has hailed the set design and the aesthetic work (my sole attraction before and after watching the film). And some claim that there's a great meditative style to the picture that offers a valuable viewing. I was free of almost everything in that vicinity watching the film. Bujalski's commitment to recreating an odd, specific time-frame in history deserves significant recognition, but the story he concocts around alienating characters leaves a lot to be desired. When admiration for the history subsides and fascination with aesthetics simmers, what you have is another film with a tiresome story. Like peeling away at the unique looks of a human being to find we're the same on the inside; that's never any fun.

Starring: Kriss Schludermann, Tom Fletcher, and Wiley Wiggins. Directed by: Andrew Bujalski.

This is a masterpiece of simplicity and intelligence. Beautifully shot with a PortaPak camera in early 80's style, or at least it looks like one. Story of passionate people in search for love. Computer Chess! What a wonderful idea to gather a plot. Specially when you have a drop of new age religion involved and strong sexual energy restrained. Sincerely humorous, this film hits the point. Specially in today's technology-obsessed universe. Acting is so convincing and natural that one can easily think of it as a documentary, but its not - its art. Reminds on early Cassavetes. I will definitely wait for Bujalski's next film. Personally, best at Berlinale 2013. Love this film.

I had absolutely no clue what I was letting myself into. Just that a friend of mine was telling me I had to see it. It played at the International Film Festival in Berlin and I can only say my friend was right. If there is just a slight geeky/nerdy side in you, you will like this movie too. The fact, they had me guessing for a second, if that was actually made back when this is supposed to play is just great.

Of course, even if you don't know if this is a real documentary or not (it's not), you will get this very early on. But the jokes are really funny and even when it seems to be dragging a bit, it will pick up speed again and deliver on its funny premise. The acting is great and the film does look as old as it is supposed to look. Jokes work nicely and the overall feeling is just great. Check-mate

The look and feel of the movie and of the characters was spot on, certainly, and I felt the cinematography added rather than subtracting from the movie. On the other hand, the amount of time and energy spent on the new-agey people and watching Papageorge chew the scenery left me wondering, "Why did we have to go the Christopher Guest route?" I felt deeply disappointed and bored by the way things played out and found myself saying something along the lines of "There's plenty of material in the early computer chess/computer nerd theme for a light, funny mockumentary without having to go the lowest-common-denominator route of throwing in a bunch of new-agers and off-the-reservation nutbars." The follow-on thought was "Unfortunately, these movie makers didn't feel themselves able to make that movie." I'd guess that indie movie makers generally don't like to have the term "lowest common denominator" applied to their films, but the shoe fits.

Sorry but after all the hype it turned out to be 92 minutes of writhing boredom - and I am a strong chess player (yes the laptop beats me but that has nothing to do with my review). I mean can someone explain to me why the whore at the end removes part of her wig and shows...what? part of program? And what about Michael Papageorge - what does he purport to represent except a brash but poor American? Actually the only guy I like out of the sorry lot was Mr Henderson who was fighting the rear guard action of Man vs. Machine - he evidently had a tough game in the last part of the film but his facial antics belie that he is a seasoned chess player - those rarely grimace or do facial exercise while the game is on.

This film is a good idea, and a couple of the players do a reasonable job with the material. However, I found the whole program was most disappointing. Some care had been taken to use authentic looking computers from the period, but this effort was wasted. It really needed an experienced scriptwriter to check for continuity and irrelevant sections. On the print we saw in Melbourne, Australia, there was even a short section of colour which overlapped a part of the film and left a small hole in the "story". It seemed that they did not have enough material for a feature length film, so they introduced quite a few contrivances to stretch it out, but all they did was to add to the haphazard nature of proceedings. One major contrivance appeared to be used throughout the film so that the result of the final chess game was the one wanted by the writers. Very silly, and an artificial way to produce "surprises" in the story. I was also surprised to see that the Tribeca Film Festival was associated with this film.

--WARNING: There may be some spoilers ahead for those who haven't seen the film, so just a heads up. In order to accurately review this film, it may be necessary to talk about some key moments.--

Computer Chess is very much so an insiders game, and in all fairness, while it may have it's audience, it's as inaccessible and boring a film as they come. Now I for one love looking for a good movie that offers something different or has a unique quality to it that separates it from the rest; but when it feels like said insider's game is more condescending than it is an inside look, or utilizes intelligence at the expense of being interesting, then it's easily one of the worst types of film you can experience, and Computer Chess fits that bill.

I was anxious to watch this movie, it seemed like an awesome retro indie film that was going to have some style, personality, substance, and real panache to it, but instead it was a lifeless portrayal of an earlier age of computers that I find hard to believe was THIS boring even among it's most intellectual and socially awkward; and if in fact it was this way ( since I conceit to having no experience with a hobby like this before viewing this film), then why make a movie about individuals who are in no way interesting and who are trying to create the perfect program to beat each others computers at chess? Admittedly it has it's moments, but those are so few and only make up roughly 3 minutes worth of the whole movie.

Computer Chess was set up to be as authentic as possible in how it was developed but I found it just translated very poorly into a fun experience, especially with it's kooky and at times creepy paralleling spiritual story that seemed poised for a perfect juxtaposition, but rather felt very misplaced, bizarre and more like blatantly awkward filler.

It almost seems to thumb it's nose at popular culture in the worst possible way by going against every conceivable norm in cinema that it can. The acting is sub-par (granted the actors were nonprofessional), the plot barley existent, the music is mostly horrible, the cinematography comes off as forced art more a product of our current times than 1980, conversations are filled with jargon or flat out just not interesting even at their most basic, the cast on a whole is unappealing, the concept dated, the choice to film in black and white hurts more than it helps; honestly the list goes on and this movie is just a headache. A major disappointment and very hard to sit through, but I managed.

To anyone who enjoyed this movie I applaud you; I'm sure I must be missing something since it wasn't reviewed poorly, but to me, I would never watch it again or recommend it to anyone unless they were seriously into either computer chess, chess, or the history of computer technology in general. It's just flat out boring.

In 1984, I was invited by a friend to a poker game, who happened to have the latest in video equipment at the time and taped all the raunchy conversations between the games' participants, for most of the night. With a little editing, I mind's well submit this old tape to the Sundance Festival. Given the current mindset of most film critics today, with their preening and slavish devotion to anything in the least nostalgic, I might have a good chance of winning some kind of award.

I can find no other explanation as to why the critics were taken in by 'Computer Chess', except for this love of nostalgia. Certainly it's not the Computer Chess plot that is at all engaging; creator Andrew Bujalski saw to that. But what he did do was shot the film on the old Portapak cameras, giving one the impression that this mockumentary, about a computer chess convention, actually took place in the early 1980s. As we gaze up on the screen, we see that Bujalski mimics old video--the dimensions aren't large enough to fill the entire theater screen (just like my old 1984 video appears, when I play it back on my computer today). Bujalski also populates the screen with images of beloved old computers and text from word processors, which none of us have seen in decades.

So it's a sort of hypnotism that's going on here. It doesn't really matter what happens as far as the story is concerned. It's a meandering affair, where we can get the basic idea in the first fifteen minutes. Think 'The Big Bang Theory' meets 'Bobby Fischer'. A group of nerds have developed software programs, which they pit against one another over games of chess. The games take place at a low-rent hotel where there are two other groups in attendance: a new age group led by a guru from Africa and a bunch of swingers.

Bujalski is actually aiming for laughs in this lightweight spoof. His main nerd is a boorish guy who discovers that the hotel never received his reservation, so he's forced to crash in different rooms of his fellow convention attendees, every night. Due to a mix up, the nerds must share their convention room with the new age group and there's also another bit, where a libidinous couple attempts to seduce another one of the nerds, without success.

Computer Chess is strictly for those who have a nostalgic longing for the early 80s. It's a film with a little style but virtually no substance. While Bujalski looks sympathetically at his computer nerds, their machinations are of little consequence. For more sophisticated film-goers, avoid this lightweight debacle, like the plague.

I watched this movie a few weeks ago and boy am I glad that I didn't pay to see it. I have always had a fascination for computer chess from the late 70s and was very disappointed to (quickly) realise that it was not a documentary but an awful spoof "comedy". Frankly I've had more fun with the flu and never made it to see the naked lady at the end. I have heard of folk who actually sat all the way through it thinking that it was for real. lol If you have an interest in machine chess avoid this rubbish like the plague. It has been badly researched as I can assure you all from my interest in the subject that CC contests were nothing like this.

Shot in grainy black-and-white, the ultra-low budget "Computer Chess" is the type of movie that gives art films a bad name among audiences who never go to art films. Slow-moving, meandering and technically unpolished (to put it mildly), it might be of interest to anyone who has a fascination with computers, chess or possibly both. Anyone else will likely be bored to tears by this static tale of a group of early '80s nerds attending a tournament designed to determine which tech team has come up with the most effective computer chess program.

The movie is obviously intended as a satire of sorts about the ancient days of computer technology and those who have an easier time interacting with technology than with their fellow human beings. It also makes fun of Man's relentless quest to create artificial intelligence, but the whole thing is so lacking in clarity, energy and humor that I imagine that half the audience will have drifted out of the theater long before the midway point, while the other half will be in too much of a stupor to get up and leave.

As both a chess and AI lover this film was wonderful for me.

However it's surprisingly entertaining and funny for the average viewer too.

The cinema was alive with laughter and enjoyment. Some hilarious awkward tension with an "alternative therapy" group.

In fact quite a few awkward moments overall.

The fake documentary approach is perfectly executed. Amazing style and attention to detail.

It's in black and white and 4x3 aspect ratio. I loved it! Just don't expect a summer blockbuster.

The Computer Chess subculture, how it looked, and how it related to the rest of early 80s U.S. culture, is central in this pitch-perfect film, which captures the loss of a particular variety of innocence. The PortaPak video may be blurry by today's standards, but the characters and dialog are sharp with a cutting, mockumentary wit.

The plot mainly follows the members of the competing chess program teams (and some odd hangers-on) through the weekend tournament, but the interactions with a New Age encounter group sharing the motel add another dimension to the story and remind us of some of the other explorations going on in those times.

This is a profound film about life, creation and art and IMO one of the best from 2013. It is also one of the most original and the bravest film to come out in a long time. I love this film. Please watch it!

First of all, there is a message in the fact that it was filmed on an old 70s Sony AVC-3260 analog video camera. If the goal was to get a perfect visual picture then this was not the camera to use. We can assume that the goal is not perfection but rather imperfection. Why?

Lynch does not want to work with film anymore (or perfect digital video cameras) because he likes the imperfection. He once said he wanted to get back to the 1930s films, where "some of the information is lost and it made me feel like there was more room to dream."

Jean Renoir also once said: "I believe that perfection handicaps cinema."

This is something Hollywood does not get. It has all this technology. Perfection in fact. They can create anything with it but it leaves no space for the human soul. No space to dream, whether it be creatively or visually. It has become so perfect that it is sterile. Why is that? Well the answer is too much control. The studios have too much control. There are too many people creating the film so there is no space to improvise and let the human soul take over.

There is a scene in the film where a man drinks 3 scotch. Two has no affect and 4 is too much. 3 is perfect, because it allows him to keep his senses but at the same time loosen up and think out side the box. It is this balance that the film preaches. This is why we have the hippies at the same hotel with the nerds. Two extremes. One group that is in to too much control and another that is maybe in to too little control.

MILD SPOILERS Stuck between these two is a computer that has just come to life but instead of getting a chance to explore the creative side it is forced to talk to other computers, something it hates doing. And everyone is so focused on logic that they can't see that there is something much greater happening here. They miss the chance of real creativity. Sounds like Hollywood to me :) But it goes farther than that. There is a life lesson here. We often miss the chance of real creativity, real experience, because we are too rational and don't take chances.

HUGE SPOILERS FROM HERE ON!!! The end can be read in many ways. One way is that the computer commits suicide because it knows that its king and queen (which it has been trying to kill in every chess game it played) will never recognise its value or allow it to grow. It will only be allowed to be a computer.

Peter on the other hand learns from his mistakes. He wanted to try the threesome but chickened out but he does end with the prostitute so he is taking a chance on life. Stepping out of his comfort zone. Man and machine are coming together and will maybe become one. At least the head of the prostitute suggests so.

Just like a chess game has almost endless possibilities, so do people. In "Computer Chess" set decades ago, a bunch of mostly nerdy introverts assemble to test their chess programs in competition. The programs are pretty awful, with some amazing glitches evident in the games played (by contrast, today's chess programs are killer). "Computer Chess" is set in a hotel and we encounter other folks no less strange in their own way. Surprisingly good theater in this film - lots of quiet laughs as people and their strangenesses interact - or not. Really shades of both Kafka and Andy Warhol. Two unexpected encounters at the end of the movie wrap it up very well. The batter takes the first pitch for a called strike, but the second pitch winds up in the bleachers.

Oh, this film was painful to watch. Much more like the term project of a stoned student at a cut-rate film school than a Sundance quality film (Why of earth was this film accepted into Sundance is beyond me. Easily the worst film of the festival.). Filmed for some unknown reason in poor-quality black & white, with the exception of about four seconds of colour part way through. This film contains just about every cinematic cliché popular from the 1970's. Dialog is laborious, tedious, and just about any other '-ious' that comes to mind. And none of the characters are likable, some, however, are tolerated better than others.

The plot is centered around a group of chess-obsessed computer programmers who come together at a cheap hotel, which is inexplicably infested with cats, to compete against each others chess programs. Also meeting at the same hotel is a 70's style 'encounter' group. The story is presumably based on the actual chess program competition series, but if the real thing was anything like this movie I can't imagine how we ever evolved to Deep Blue.

This film fails as a comedy, a drama, a docudrama, or any other genre it's be categorized as. I found myself envying those viewers sitting near the aisles who were able to easily get up and walk out during the screening I saw.

I don't know how long this film was but it seemed interminable. Don't waste your time watching this movie, it'll seem like several hours you'll never get back. God, I hated this movie.

If you are out of sleeping pills or have insomnia.

Guaranteed to put you to sleep. I actually had a fabulous nap - 2 or 3 of them actually - while attempting to keep my eyes open. There might have been a premise somewhere in there but only the director and his friends could tell you about it since everyone else will be fast asleep - or doing the neck dance of nodding in and out of sleep.

Computers, chess, retro, dry dialogue, vintage cameras.... on paper this could have been fun and quirky and a nice time.

Anyway, next time you feel too wired to sleep and don't have any substances to help you, put this on and you'll conk out in minutes (that or throw your TV against the wall).

As this moved dragged on, it became more and more apparent that the makers of this movie wanted it to be really deep and trippy but had no idea what exactly they wanted to say. There was a bunch of disconnected, half-developed story ideas that never really went anywhere.

I was very disappointed because this movie came highly recommended and I thought for sure I would like it. But I can't imagine anyone thinking this was a "good movie". If this was produced by high-school students, I can see giving them an "A" for effort, but other than that, it should have never seen the light of day.

The film takes place in 1983? at a lousy hotel during a little computer vs computer chess tournament with the participation from major technical universities of US of A and a not so major chess grandmaster as an end game boss. Most of the time camera stays indoors hence the direct orders from the grandmaster who is also the host and splunge of the show restricts the cameraman who is making the documentary of the tournament to shoot outdoors while the early model video camera is sensitive to light. Stick in the hotel, camera discovers which can be put as colliding worlds of eccentric characters of a spiritual action-therapy convention group and bunch of the tournament.

The first interesting move that film makes is to split the stance of camera in two, almost as son as it is restricted to outdoors. Without trumpets celebrating the move film slowly slides from being a mockumentary to a conventional drama. Yet the second personality of the camera protects the cinema verite understanding of the first personality of the camera that is still inside the film. This is one of the key elements of the film since one of the main subjects of the film is the deus-ex machina, referring to 'the turk' several times, the chess playing automaton which is a mixture of a device of illusion and a simple puppet, film settles to its ground to ask one simple question to all the elements in the movie which is 'who are you'. This is the question digitally been asked to one of the computers, who is the more extrovert one in the group, and been answered in a more certain manner and quickly than the human characters.

Except other values that film has, by dealing with this matter of subject film becomes -what i can put with my narrow English- a provincial science fiction film, science fiction in its purest form. Science fiction of an era, a world, which has gone beyond or reached the borders of the genre. This is a funny feeling which i felt just the opposite of during 'gravity', at that experience, and still is, it is clearly visible that the film is not a science fiction but an ordinary series of events happening but in space plus the Hollywood exaggeration quite similar to 'die hard'. For me it is almost inevitable to write a few words on 'gravity' when writing about 'computer chess' not only because they occurred almost at the same period and culture, standing at the two extreme points of contemporary film making but also because of this mind blanking shift in the understanding.

Not knowing my way around computers (I still type with two fingers at a time), I was expecting to be bored stupid by this little independent film. However I was pleasantly surprised. Even if you are confused by anything and everything A.I. this movie works on so many levels you're bound to get something from it. Shot in black and white with a cinema verite style, it looks great and feels nostalgic. The performances are very funny, I'm not sure if they all serve to reinforce nerdy stereotypes, but all are very believable. I found the subtle themes of Cold War competition and the anxieties about machines becoming more intelligent than humans to be very interesting.

I saw this film just before Spike Jonze's 'Her' and they make for good company with back to back viewings.