Baseshment I like movies that are aware of what they are selling... without [any] greater aspirations than to make people laugh and that's it.

Doomtomylo a film so unique, intoxicating and bizarre that it not only demands another viewing, but is also forgivable as a satirical comedy where the jokes eventually take the back seat.

Erica Derrick By the time the dramatic fireworks start popping off, each one feels earned.

Isbel A terrific literary drama and character piece that shows how the process of creating art can be seen differently by those doing it and those looking at it from the outside.

disdressed12 i was disappointed in this documentary.i thought it would be about the second chess match between Grandmaster Garry Kasporov and Deep Blue the supercomputer designed by IBM computer experts to beat any human chess player.Kasparov was and still is,considered the greatest chess player ever.the movie takes us back to 1997 where Kasporov had agreed to have a rematch with "deep Blue" after defeating it 1 year earlier.but instead of focusing on the game,it focuses more on what happens before and after.there are snippets of the game,but not very many.much of the film centers around Kasporov's paranoid obsession that the match was rigged as part of some conspiracy theory and that he lost the match unfairly.the movie also includes interviews with people who are not interesting in any way.they even chat with the manager of the building where the match took place.who cares?i also found it very dry and slow.ultimately this movie was unsatisfying.this is just my opinion,of course.if you like conspiracy theories,this movie might interest you.for people not into chess or conspiracy theories,this movie would probably have no value.i am a chess fan,and i only stuck it out because of that.i give"Game Over:Kasparov and the Machine" 4/10

Galina In the May 1997, Gary Kasparov, the reigning Chess World Champion and by the opinion of many, the greatest chess player ever played Deep Blue, an IMB Supercomputer. At its best scenes, the film is an entertaining look at the never ending competition of human intellect against artificial. The greatest player on Earth does not like and does not know how to lose, and his account of the match and its result is quite bitter. He can't believe that the computer program, the combination of 0s and 1s may appear to think like a human. It was sad and nostalgic for me to see Gary like that. I remember him back in 1985, 22 years old World Champion after his victorious match with Anatoly Karpov. In his (and former mine) country millions of people that knew nothing or next to nothing about ancient game of chess (All I know that the first move e2 – e4 will not bring me any problems, at least for a little while) passionately wished him to win. Gary was not just a brilliant chess genius, a wonder-boy – he was also a symbol of hope, of changes not only in the chess politics but in the life of the whole country that was ready for changes.

Sulaco72 Kasparov vs. Deep Blue is no doubt a fascinating story, but I don't think you'd know it by watching this movie. I think it focuses too much on the conspiracy theory that IBM cheated...and what does this theory hinge upon? The idea that at one point the computer made a move that "looked human". I am not a chess grandmaster or a computer scientist. And while I don't doubt that the move looked human, to me it doesn't seem beyond the realm of possibility that the most powerful chess-playing computer ever created could make a surprising move...or that such a machine could beat even a genius like Kasparov. The movie gets way too much mileage out of this theory, and not enough out of the personalities of the people involved...that could have made it a much more interesting story. The direction also relies way too much on the conceits of a pointlessly whispered narration, and the imagery of an 18th century chess-playing machine that looks like one of those animatronic gypsy fortunetellers you see at the carnival. Also the story was slowed down by many empty shots of Kasparov revisiting "the scene of the crime". I don't doubt that Kasparov and the chess community found IBM's behavior vexing, but I don't think it's any different than you would find from any other big corporation. At the end of the movie, you are left with the feeling that Kasparov is a huge crybaby and the Deep Blue programmers are either victims or cheats. I think if the filmmaker wanted the viewer to believe the conspiracy theory (which he almost certainly did), he should have presented a lot more evidence. In fact, more evidence would have been a good idea in the first place. The whole thing left me with a sour taste in my mouth.

paul2001sw-1 When Garry Kasparov, the world chess champion, lost to a computer in 1997 it certainly seemed as if a landmark in artificial intelligence had been passed. But Kasparov did not lose gracefully, and while I am tempted to doubt his suspicions that IBM (who made the machine) actually cheated (surely they had too much to lose if found out), it certainly appears their team relied on that oldest of chess tactics, the mind game, to discomfit their opponent. The story is so innately fascinating that 'Game Over' is almost inevitably an interesting documentary; and the film-makers have also secured access to all the most important participants, Karsparov himself included. But the film is slightly spoilt by endless arty shots that distract from the story, and slightly pointless reconstructions (e.g. Kasparov revisiting the bland skyscraper where the match was fought). With a lesser subject, one might have grown tired of such banal trickery. But the magnetic appeal of the tale cannot be smothered; and, as IBM refused a rematch, some in the chess community still denies their ultimate victory. But, as a friend of mine puts it, chess has essentially been "solved". Time to turn to the even more complex oriental game of Go, perhaps, which for the moment computers still can't play.