Own the rights?
20 out of 25 people found the following review useful: Interesting film, 2 November 2007 Author: Nina from Netherlands
I am stunned by the low rating this movie received so far. Maybe it is due to the lack of explosions and naked women. True, it wasn't the best movie this year and the first hour was a bit slow, but this film raises some interesting questions. How far can we go to entertain ourselves? Of course this movie is an exaggeration of the real future of television (at least, let's hope..) but it made me think about the dilemma on whether we should abide by common ethical rules to control TV shows, or what the people want to see and who voluntarily sign themselves up for reality TV. In my opinion the idea behind the film deserves a 10. Live! is set up as a documentary, which lends itself perfectly for the story. The problem with this however, is that it needs a certain type of 'realistic' acting which is hard to achieve, and most of the actors looked like they were trying too hard. The first hour was a bit boring, but after the show was allowed to air, it became very interesting. The end kept me on the edge of my seat. If you like a movie with a message which opens the mind up for an interesting debate, go see it. If you liked 'Harold and Kumar go to Whitecastle', don't.
16 out of 19 people found the following review useful: Definitely worth watching; no masterpiece., 16 October 2007 Author: exclamationpoints from Netherlands
Although I found the message of the movie somewhat cliché (as I'm sure many, including the writer(s), will agree) and I thought I spotted a plot hole here or there, it had a decent script, effective directing and decent acting from the entire cast. That's decent twice, because although I definitely feel that this production deserved the time, money and energy invested, I am more looking forward to seeing the director's future, hopefully more refined work.However, as someone said in a discussion thread below, the climax really made you feel as if you were transported into the semi-fictional world of the film, despite being aware of what your own reality is like. That's a tough thing to accomplish, and that, combined with several other moments of effective self-reference by the movie, can only cause me to conclude that it's a solid piece of work by all involved, and it shows definite promise of To sum up: overall worth watching at least once.
25 out of 40 people found the following review useful: Starts of slow but has a great finish!, 17 October 2007 Author: gamecubicle from Netherlands
Actually everything you write about this movie is too much... This is a movie you have to know nothing about when you see it. I saw it at the Sneak Preview at my local cinema. I never heard anything about it before I saw it, never saw trailers, posters or whatever.The movie starts of a bit slow... you will think: 'Is this it?' But really, after a while this movie gets so incredible... Even if it is only in the last half hour of the movie. That is just what you want to see it for. The last half hour.I have nothing more to say, I do not wish to spoil the movie for you. Just go see it, you won't be disappointed.
5 out of 5 people found the following review useful: A Nutshell Review: Live!, 13 July 2008 Author: DICK STEEL from Singapore
As reality television become staple programming, we have contestants playing games around the world, or just doing so on an island. We have those that propel some into instant fame upon winning a singing competition, and audience participation is key if ratings are to rocket through the sky. Live! allows the audience a little of behind the scenes action in a mockumentary that takes a look at how such programmes get conceived with always an eye looking at the ratings, and the other eye looking at potential revenue stream in the form of selling air time to advertisers.Eva Mendes, who also serves as executive producer, stars as Katy, a network station's programming manager out to look for the next big thing to save their flagging station ratings amongst the CBS and the NBCs. In one brainstorming session, the thought of Russian roulette got bounced around, and given the nature of the game - where one puts a loaded gun to the head and pulls the trigger - it borders on simple human decency, and who would want to allow someone getting killed live on air being put out by their station?And there's where the mockumentary kicks into full gear for the first hour, where we follow Katy (conveniently she has an indie film crew following her in a bid to make their own documentary) around the office and engage in some heavy politicking and lobbying of her brainchild through departments such as marketing, sales, legal as represented by corporate counsel Don (Andre Braugher) and even to convince the network presidents herself. And it is indeed interesting as you see all the corporate backstabbing, back-biting, and elevator pitches get delivered with conviction to sell something as radical as this, with the stroking of egos constantly being proved to be effective.We also get to be chummy with the would be contestants, as we dig a little into their backgrounds as diverse as an extreme sports athlete, to a farmer struggling to keep his family afloat, from an actress wannabe, to a gay Latino looking for some self-respect. Naturally you expect some stereotyping here, but one thing common with everyone is, so long as you're holding a loaded gun to your head, all bets are off and only a pull of the trigger, if they survive, will decide if they get to stay alive and walk away with the prize money of US$5 million. Which makes you wonder, would you risk it all to do the same, for the same amount of money?The last moments of the film provide that debut episode, and truth be told, it is rather interesting to watch, playing to our voyeuristic tendencies which make reality TV so popular these days. It's openly admitting to satisfying our blood lust, with death on screen for the masses, like old styled gladiatorial fights, or public executions where you deliberate attend just to see what you've come to see. Those unfamiliar with how live or game shows are produced, get a look behind the scenes as well in the coordination of technical expertise and manipulation to milk shots of the moment, for the goggle box audience.While this is fiction through and through, I wouldn't help but shudder if one day we do have such game shows being put live on the air, packaged as entertainment. Written and directed by Bill Guttentag (who brought us the documentary Nanking), this film does seem rather plain sailing, until of course a shocker of a finale which you probably didn't see it coming, re-emphasizing of course, whether TV violence has a negative aspect to daily lives.
5 out of 6 people found the following review useful: Out of date before it was even green-lit but is still interesting and Mendes is good (but too sexual for her own good), 11 September 2008 Author: bob the moo from Birmingham, UK
Live! has had a VERY limited release in the UK which is not a judgement of quality but more a financial decision – it didn't do well in other countries so why throw more money after it in cinemas when it will still perform on DVD and ultimately on television. Knowing that being a box-office underperformer didn't mean it was no good I decided to check it out for myself as the concept did appear interesting if not exactly original. There have been other films satirising cruel reality television and some of them have been pretty good so Live! could not just trade on the "good idea". And sadly, nor does it because in practice it is not as smart as it would like to think it is, however neither is it without value. The "good idea" is perhaps too excessive to be able to function within a "real world" setting and as a result the film struggles to really convince that it would happen as easily as it shows it happening. What the process of getting it to happen does allow for is lots of cynicism about the motivations of those involved in making television shows and I never felt any of that was exaggerated despite the subject.So far so good (but not great) and so the film continues, very much focusing on Katy's drive to make it happen and the cynical methods she uses (which are of course convincingly portrayed as normal within her role). The story gets tense when it comes to the show itself but then sadly gives way to so-so ending that does feel a little too tidy and obvious but still just about works. The problem with the whole film is that, while appearing to be very clever and interesting, the actual point is nothing that hasn't been done many, many years ago when the trend started – in fact even Running Man all those years ago did the same sort of thing (which I assume is the reason for the smart referential casting of Glaser as he directed that film about twenty years ago). So what we are left with is that ratings is God and that the corporate bodies that make television have morals second and shareholders first, that people will watch stuff they have never seen before and that there will always be people willing to do anything for money or fame if they are desperate or attention-seeking enough. OK. So the film has told me something that more than a decade of cruel game-shows, bug-eating and so on had already shown me for real – the only difference being that the death-aspect makes it somehow more impacting, but yet not more intelligent. It is a shame because no matter how well everyone does making it, they are still doing something that is almost past the point of satirising and they struggle to convey why the film has been made now and not 5-10 years ago.Anyway, one of the bigger motivation factors for me watching was to see Mendes in a lead role. Like many men, I like her because she is sexy in looks and how she carries herself but this is not necessarily the same as being able to act so I have been encouraged to see her doing projects that ask her to do more than giggle and flirt (and indeed the upcoming Bad Lieutenant film is unlikely to be the rom-com that many in her position would choose). In this film she does do a good job and convinces throughout as a sharp TV executive being driven without being desperate but the one problem I had was that she pushed (or was directed to push) too hard on the sex side. Now I know that women in this sort of environment have to be deliberately strong and can use flirting as part of their armoury. However Mendes could have convinced as a strong executive in this way without being so heavily sexualised. I am split on the subject because she has awesome legs (for the first ten minutes they are the dominant thing on screen) and I love seeing her in light and sexy clothing) but it is already part of her performance without her having to force it down the audience's throat. Again, I could watch it muted just for her but having her being so playful in sponsor meetings etc just didn't wash with me and took away from the "professional" part of her character that she also had to play. She is not "bad" in it but I don't think that the film represented a showcase for her as an actor so much as showing that if you are looking for someone effortlessly playful and sexual without being yet another blonde starlet fresh in town then she can do that – but we knew that already. I'll never know of course but it would be interesting to know how she sees her performance.The rest of the cast are solid enough but are very much behind the Mendes and nobody has much time to work with. Braugher is watchable as always, even with his limited time, while Krumholtz is not that good a character or a performance. The contestants are all convincing when it comes to the crunch and that does mean the end of the film is quite gripping – which is a fair acknowledgment from the film, that people WOULD watch and WOULD find it gripping, which is different from saying it is right to do so. Live! is an interesting film that benefits from a perhaps overly-sexual Mendes but it cannot get over the fact that it is at least five years too late and doesn't bring anything to the table that hasn't been done before
7 out of 11 people found the following review useful: Awesome and under-rated, 19 February 2008 Author: Arnold from Lithuania
Well... I am a fan of really serious movies. This one had me jumping starting 01:30:44. Although, I wouldn't advise the future viewers to skip to that part. In that case - you will not understand the plot of the movie. Everything else - the way the movie was shot, the dialog and etc - are pretty good. Although the director of the movie has debuted (as much as I know - he used to be a documentary director) very well. This movie really make you think. Makes you think about your decisions in life, about the life itself and it's value... Makes you think about the things people do and the reasons behind their actions. I would recommend this movie to everyone that is old (and smart) enough to understand it.P.S. "Live!" is well under-rated...
2 out of 2 people found the following review useful: An excellent and underrated film, 1 September 2009 Author: collipal-1 from Argentina
Although I admit having seen a few episodes from the first season of The Real World on MTV back on early 90's, I quickly lost interest on the "reality television", and I hate the actual state from that TV genre, because it shows artificial and forced drama in order to entertain the viewer.I am not saying that is precisely bad...I understand its attractive, but I simply do not share it.Maybe because of that, I have found almost all the movies which use the subject of "reality show" to be mediocre.However,I think it is interesting to speculate about the extremes the popular entertainment which is driven by the TV channels' ambition will reach.The excellent (and very underrated) movie Live! examines precisely that, at the same time it offers a lot of positive elements.Because of its poster and synopsis,I expected Live! to be a dark and sordid thriller at the style of FearDotCom or My Little Eye,but the movie really impressed me because of its sober tone and intelligent screenplay.Everything this movie depicts feels very realistic, at the same time it brings very interesting messages about "reality TV".The only fail I found on the screenplay were a few elements which did not feel too natural.However,Live! deserves a very enthusiastic recommendation thanks to its good manufacture,brilliant screenplay and the excellent performances from Eva Mendes, Monet Mazur and Rob Brown.This is one of those movies which endorse entertainment with reflection, and it deserves admiration because of that.
2 out of 2 people found the following review useful: A great film, but some minor issues, 26 June 2009 Author: Chazo from United Kingdom
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
This film, in one word, is brilliant. The two reasons I have only given it 8 out of 10 is because for some people, it starts off too fast. Within 10 minutes the plot is already sorted out and for the next 30-45 minutes, there is just a load of chit-chat about something we all know is going to happen! Otherwise, the only complaint I could make is the realism, not a great film for sceptical people! But apart from those minor complaints, it is definitely a film worth watching, it is a very interesting plot with a great ending which really grips the viewer.If your into a good mix of genres, this is a good film for you, it mixes action, drama, and almost horror in a great way. Ignore the genre stated above as comedy, as this is most certainly NOT meant to be a comedy, it is far from it!So in conclusion, it is worth watching this film, but be prepared for some minor let downs...
3 out of 4 people found the following review useful: Nice idea, flawed movie, 11 November 2007 Author: Thijs from Netherlands
WARNING: SPOILERS BELOW!!I've seen this movie yesterday in a cinema near me.The story is about a game show featuring Russian Roulette, called 'Live'. The idea is that five of the six candidates walk away with a considerable prize (5 million). The spectator sees how this idea is thought up and sees the whole media circus prior to the airing of the game show.For me, this was when the movie (finally) got interesting: would they actually go ahead with Live? Who would live and who would die? I will not reveal the end; I will give my criticism instead.The idea is interesting: How far will (/do) these television (game) shows go? However, the problems with a Russian Roulette television show are obvious: - a contestant can chicken out at the last moment, the more so when more contestants before him/her fire a blank (the odds increase against the contestant); - if the first five persons fire a blank, the sixth bullet will be the real bullet and the last contestant will also be aware of this. I doubt that a contestant would be inclined to play under those circumstances; i.e. with a view to certain death and no prize.This could be remedied by spinning the chamber after each shot. However, there's another problem that is a bit harder to solve: - a contestant can use the gun to shoot someone else than themselves;So, in my opinion, the idea was nice but could have been more elaborated.
Couldn't get past the implausibilities, 7 December 2009 Author: JoeB131 from United States
I give this film it's props that it is very well made and reasonably well acted. BUt I couldn't get past the implausibility of the whole thing.First and foremost, a game built around the notion of "Russian Roulette" that has to fill on hour. the big problem is that if you are doing a "live" show, you run the possibility that your first contestant will be the one unlucky enough to draw the "real" bullet. Then what do you do? You have 50 minutes of show to fill and nothing to show. The corollary is that Okay, you get to the end and the first five contestants survive, which means number six has the bullet and can't possibly get the payout. He isn't going to shoot himself at that point, so it's kind of anti-climatic. second problem, almost as big. Human nature. People are going to flinch, panic, soil their underwear and do things that would otherwise not make very good television. Too much randomness. That's why "real" Reality television is actually tightly scripted and even more tightly edited.(The only random thing is the "performance artist's" rant about female sacrifices, which were actually rare historically. Even that was predictable, since she went through with shooting herself to no effect.) We are led to believe the shows ratings would increase while it was going on at 1 AM in the morning (unlikely) with the token Asian girl announcing each boost in ratings.A point on race and sex. Big surprise the movies two minority (one gay) and two female contestants are the ones who survive. So we are left with the two white males, and of course, the slightly less likable of them is the one who buys it. The purpose of such a show would be it's randomness, but the guy you like the least is the guy who dies.the Climax is that after spending two hours fighting for televised suicide, the Eva Mendes character (Mendes produced and starred in this thing, so she has no one to blame but herself) actually grows a conscience when someone dies. What did she THINK was going to happen? She is promptly shot by a bystander angry about the whole thing (motives never explained) and the show went on to be a big hit. Really? the problem with media satire is that it has to either have some grounding in reality or it has to be so over the top to be ludicrous (like Network). This is neither.
Add another review
