Live! (2007) User Reviews

Nice idea, flawed movie

[t_terrae · 5/10 · 11 November 2007]

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.

Definitely worth watching; no masterpiece.

[exclamationpoints · 7/10 · 16 October 2007]

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.

Great Storyline, Terrible Camera Work

[claudio_carvalho · 7/10 · 16 May 2014]

The greedy ABN television network executive Katy Coubert (Eva Mendes) is seeking a way to increase the audience of her network. She recalls the arenas, police car chases and several other examples through history to demonstrate that people enjoy watching blood and she has the idea of producing a controversial reality show of Russian Roulette with six contestants and five-million dollars for each winner. Katy has to convince the network Powers That Be that the show will be well successful and will increase the TV ratings while the network lawyer Don (Andre Braugher) convinces the authorities to allow the late night show.

Then she selects the six contestants: the aspirant actress Jewel (Katie Cassidy); the Mexican gay cook Pablo (Jay Hernandez); the aspirant writer Byron (Rob Brown); the performer Abalone (Monet Mazur); the just graduated student and surfer Brad (Eric Lively); and Rick (Jeffrey Dean Morgan). Will the show be well-succeeded?

"Live!" is a drama with a great storyline that shows how far a TV might dare to go to increase the audience that loves to see tragedies and other bloody event. Unfortunately the idea of making of a documentary is unoriginal and serves only to make a cheaper movie, with a terrible camera work. The conclusion is not a surprise for a society that worships weapons. My vote is seven.

Title (Brazil): "Ao Vivo!" ("Live!")

Loved It

[lota-hadley · 5 January 2010]

I thought this was great, but I'm not a fan of reality shows at all. "Live" raised questions I think we need to think about. How far are we willing to go for fame? It raises the questions on fame vs life etc. I loved how it played like any other reality show but showed how sometimes the choices we make in life for attention can be devastating to us and everyone around us. I remember watching "Running Man" a few years back and thinking that the events that entertained the audiences in that film could very well be a reality in a few years. People might be entertained by watching people murder each other for sport. I saw a preview version of "Live" and anxiously awaited it's release. I was so surprised it came and went and I don't remember seeing a single preview trailer. "Live" was a great example to show humanity that reality TV may not be the best form of entertainment. I give it at least 7 stars.

Implausible

[krachtm · 6/10 · 13 August 2012]

If you can suspend your disbelief enough to accept a reality TV show featuring Russian roulette, then you might enjoy this movie. If it bothers you that they're even insinuating that this is possible, then you should probably just skip it.

Unfortunately, there really isn't much more to this movie than the initial concept of an offensive reality TV show. The first half of the movie is downright boring at parts. People argue back and forth about whether the concept is moral or not. Then they argue back and forth about whether it's legal. Then they argue about budget, advertisers, and other crap. Maybe all this setup is necessary, but it's not very interesting. Some of the actors were pretty good, but I found most of the writing, direction, and acting to be of TV quality. In fact, when I was watching this, I assumed it was a made-for-TV movie, and I was somewhat surprised to find out that it wasn't.

Of course, one could look at this as yet another commentary -- satire layered on top of satire -- but I'm simply not interested in analyzing whether poor camera work was some part of an overarching statement on TV, media, and film. The movie was not compelling enough for that.

Deserves a better vote

[jebotecovjece · 7/10 · 26 July 2015]

The story is original and shocking. I don't understand people saying it's implausible, because "there would never be such a show on TV". After years of reality TV, facebook, no privacy, no anonymity and attention seeking people, I think this is exactly what could happen on TV soon. People get bored too fast, you see and read lots of crazy stuff on media nowadays and yes- people love to see other people suffer, get embarrassed and get hurt. We are a mean species of animals and this movie shows exactly that- Schadenfreude and Unfallglotzer (people starring at car crashes). I think this story is telling us something about ourselves. Even tough I would never want to approve such a TV show by watching it, I would probably still watch at least one episode out of curiosity and the pleasure of being shocked by something far away, that doesn't concern my life at all.

Couldn't get past the implausibilities

[JoeB131 · 3/10 · 7 December 2009]

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.

In short, you run the risk of having another version of Al Capone's Vault- Big buildup, no payoff.

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.

How much is your life worth?

[jokexom · 6/10 · 31 August 2012]

This film, a human life is worth five million dollars. Are you willing to risk all for the sake of money for the chance to change your life for the better? Then welcome to the reality show «Live!».

People at all times loved to look at the man's death. Suffice it to recall gladiatorial combat in ancient Rome, or death in the Middle Ages, these events are going to be very big crowds. We can say that it was a favorite sight of the people. Now the truth is will not see, but the main character of the movie Katie Curbet decides to fix it. It launches on TV "mortal" project called "Death in the air." The rules are simple: six participants, one gun, one bullet, one kill, five lucky winners check for five million dollars. Of course with all the parties raid idealists, humanists and others who said the show is completely immoral and trying to get the show's cancellation. However the show is aired and became the most popular in America, collecting untold ratings. Katie Curbet his show proves that people do not change and are still willing to enthusiastically look at how people die. The more that participants voluntarily agree to participate in this show, everyone has their own head on his shoulders and if they are willing to die for the chance to win five million dollars that's their right, and the show's creators to blame for the death of these people are not worth it. I am glad that the participants are chosen sufficiently diverse and charismatic, someone wants to give a boost to the career of the show, someone is doing it for the sake of the family, and someone just went on the show to live happily in what does not refusing.

Acting in this movie is good. Eva Mendes, which played Katie Curbet - creator of the show, many people do not like, except a very mediocre actress, but in my opinion it is good in this movie in particular, unlike many of his other films, it is not a girlfriend of the protagonist, and the central character and copes with his role at 100%. Especially since Eva is a beautiful girl and look at it is always nice. Katie Cassidy and Monitored Mazur also graced this film, and the heroine Monitored Mazur pleasant surprise during the show, becoming perhaps the most striking of his party. I would also like to note, Jeffrey Dean Morgan, his character appeared very emotional, but then for what purpose he went on the show deserves respect, not to worry about such a strong person, I think it is impossible.

Certainly worth noting isolation film, namely the events occurred after the show, it came very suddenly, and raising questions about whether or not this show was worth it.

"Live!" makes one think about many things: about television, about our society, about whether or not to risk his life for the sake of performing. I think that "Live!" a great movie, and unfortunately, one of the most underrated films of recent years.

Worst film I've seen, no doubt.

[Nilas-1 · 1/10 · 21 March 2009]

I really don't understand all these positive user reviews. This movie is the worst movie I've ever seen and I'm not trying to be pessimistic.

Eva Mendez is hot but terrible in this film. But I don't think it is her own fault but the directors. He have somehow managed to make everything look artificial; their acting, the idea, the make-up, everything.

The star I'm giving is only for the idea behind the movie, which was very bad executed.

Don't watch this bullshit, go watch a Fellini, Woody Allen or some David Lynch.

This movie about Reality TV gives reality a bad name...

[northstate-2 · 2/10 · 21 October 2007]

Live! Yes, but not kicking.

True story: Some time ago, a Dutch TV station made an announcement that they were going to air a new reality show. A contest rather. The main participant in this show would be a woman who was dying of something terrible and she would be donating her kidneys to one lucky person with progressive kidney failure. For real.

The country and the international media were all over this story like flies on a turd, saying it was appalling, immoral, what-is-this-world-coming-to, and the like. In a way, I had to agree.

As the months passed, the tension built up to a degree that the government was mostly occupied by the issue of whether they should let this show go ahead or not, instead of running the country.

The show did air and right up to the last moment they were pushing ahead. And up to the last moment the country was up in arms, the Prime Minister making speeches, every newspaper writing about it, everyone in the country holding their breaths. And the network pushed on. Towards a new frontier in television. And they definitely succeeded in doing just that. They pushed the envelope.

The show aired and we all watched a terminally ill woman selecting the right candidate to receive her kidneys so he or she would live, whilst she would die shortly after.

And then, in the last moments of the show it was revealed that it was a partial hoax. The woman was not ill, but all the candidates were. There was no kidney auction. The whole show, that, with the publicity and the commercials and all the discussions, built up for months to a fantastic climax, was a publicity stunt to focus attention on the problem of major shortages in organ donors. The man who founded this particular network himself died of kidney disease.

Now THIS is television. Leaving everybody far behind in amazement.

Don't give me a poorly acted, poorly directed flick about some woman trying to get a Russian Roulette show on American TV.

As if.

*Spoiler* As if I'm going to believe they would get this through the FCC. As if I'm going to believe this would get through the US Supreme Court on the basis of free expression. As if I'm gonna believe the ridiculous ending where this woman pulled it off and has conscience issues because some guy shot himself on air.

It's all been done before. Watch Running Man with Arnold instead. At least it had a semi good ending.

*Spoiler* This is an appallingly bad piece of film, together with a ridiculous ending. So she gets shot in the end, is that supposed to make us movie going public feel better after we leave the theater because there was some kind of justice? Don't take my word for it, but I would say this: leave this one alone and watch a test pattern instead, you'll get more quality.

Starts of slow but has a great finish!

[gamecubicle · 8/10 · 17 October 2007]

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.

Not Good

[jimenezinwyoming · 1/10 · 29 August 2012]

I did not register with IMDb before this movie. I have used the site many of times to find out information about movies, similar movies, actors, and other movies actors I like may have been in. I have always used this website as instant gratification. Then I watched the movie LIVE. As always I give the movie a chance, and like some movies my wife wonders off if it does not peak her interest. Fair enough. I am a trooper decided to continue watching the movie with bad actors up until the climax. WOW, NOT GOOD. In fact after the first 3 contestants went, without the gun being re spun I knew it really bad directing. If only they re spun the gun it would have kept my interest. The odds of a gun not firing after one spin adds up, after 2 the odds increase, after 3 I was done. But with bad acting, bad directing, and not seeing the end I HAD to write this review. Now that I can write reviews I may write more if the movie I see is THIS bad or really good.

Out of date before it was even green-lit but is still interesting and Mendes is good (but too sexual for her own good)

[bob the moo · 11 September 2008]

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

One bullet is only childsplay

[tormentorclone-1 · 5/10 · 11 March 2009]

I watched this movie but it was below my expectations, maybe if it would be directed by John Carpenter, but it wasn't.

It's portrayed in our actual kind of society but we're still not at that level of cynicism and the even the level of cynicism itself was not enough, with that attempt of a redeeming ending...

And if you think about it, a show like that would be just boring, there is no action, there is nothing. I liked a lot some good novels from Sthepen King like "The running man" and "The long walk", same kind of stuff, but much more interesting.

... And since De Niro loaded it with three bullets, the rest is only childsplay...

Where do we go from here?

[tracy_flick · 5/10 · 6 March 2009]

If you have ever read Stephen King's The Running Man or viewed the Arnold Schwarznegger flick of the same title, it will surprise you little to note the rise and rise of reality-based television hugging prime time slots on the biggest of networks. Most of them are chalk and cheese, and that is what the heroine of this would-be satire understands. She deduces correctly that doom fatigue is a natural cancer in the life of such television unless they continue to expand and evolve. This is the brassy Katy (Eva Mendes) as she works, consistently, in her role as head of programming for the American Broadcast Network, and at the start of "Live!" we are beyond any reasonable doubt that Katy's new reality show of games will be a groundbreaking piece of history, easily sitting alongside the invention of the Apple computer or the Apollo mission to the moon. Nobody has ever tuned into a television show anticipating a suicidal act, because no company would ever greenlight such a venture. Until now that is, and, say what you will about it only being a movie, but it is where we are headed given that television is losing the battle against the internet.

Everyone knows how no television studio would ever greenlight a programme involving six ordinary persons playing Russian Roulette live on air, with the revolver spinning its silver bullet into the pack of fake ones. Each contestant is chosen at random to point the gun at their head and press the trigger. If they survive, they receive a cheque on the spot, making them multi-millionaires. One will be unlucky, however, and his family will have their gasping breath punctured by the sight of their loved one hitting the floor dead on arrival. The Federal Communications Commission should tell Katy where to stick this creative pitch. An executive, internally of the American Broadcast Network, informs her that the idea turns him on, but once she leaves the room, he is quick to let others know she is shooting herself in the foot. We know this, thankfully, since the camera was left in the office.

Read the full review at my personal website: http://www.sightforallseasons.co.nr/

No, no, no, no and NO

[btzarevski · 1/10 · 8 June 2010]

The movie is about a TV network executive trying to produce a reality show in which contestants play Russian Roulette.

OK fine, the idea behind the reality show is terrifyingly intriguing and all that and it makes you think...but what utter garbage! Firstly, a show like this will NEVER go on air! You would never get a network, approval, courts would stop you and you would never get the willing contestants...let alone 5 glamorous celebrities to throw their lives away for $5 million dollars they probably already have! Secondly, not only was this movie a bad idea but it was badly carried out. For instance, when a guy eventually does get shot, there is 30 seconds of silence and tears...before raucous applause erupts and cheering! for what?!? Yes, let's ignore the dead man and start cheering the other idiots. Then to top this garbage off, Eva Mendes develops a conscience because what? Did she not see this coming? Did the fact the gun went off come as a shock to her? Yeah right.

And if that's not enough, the show goes on to become a massive hit...Bull****! Even if by some miracle a show like this airs, there is no way in hell it would air for a second time let alone for years later. In a nutshell, Live! is based on an intriguing idea to ponder at home but does not warrant a movie due to it's high degree of implausibility. Give it a miss; you'll only get irritated. As others have suggested, Running Man (although equally unlikely to occur in real life) is a better option as it is simply better carried out and the implausibility is partly hidden by the action and 'rooting for the good guy' effect.

A Nutshell Review: Live!

[DICK STEEL · 8/10 · 13 July 2008]

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.

Great start, but gets progressively worse

[Bob M-3 · 1/10 · 9 February 2009]

I heard about this film and knew it wasn't real good. But I started watching the film (on my film-channel)and was interested. This could be a really great, darkly black satire on todays morals in media. The small featurettes on every contestent were good. It build up to something I wouldn't wanna miss. But when the so called show starts everything becomes implausible, cheap and rather silly. Here's where the writer should have added something that would make people think. But instead it's wrapped up and assuming people are this dumb.

The ending is so bad I give it a 1. Even if the film starts of promising.

mockumentary shocking and funny at the same time

[antoniotierno · 10 March 2009]

This fictional movie titled Live stars a really cute Eva Mendes for writer/director Bill Guttentag. It follows a mockumentary style feauturing Mendes as an ambitious network executive deciding to produce a show where contestants will play Russian roulette LIVE (that's where the title comes from) and for real. She thinks (rightly) it will be the most watched television program ever. The movie is social jab at all those reality programs based upon real life human emotions and drama to win audience figures (X-Factor and Big Brother for instance but in general all the programs that are now too many). Eva Mendes is impressive in her cynical role, but what also impresses is certainly the fact that everyone ends up being even more cynical than her, the network Counsel as well. Don't know whether this kind of show will take place sooner or later, that is mainly the massage of the story, but certainly this flick delivers a strong and effective message/warning for everyone. The movie is also somehow funny (another paradox) when showing audience's and TV staff's feelings immediately turning from desperation to a "the show must go on" mood after the two deaths.

Boring

[olcayozfirat · 5/10 · 27 February 2022]

It is a light thriller film produced in 2007 and its Turkish name is Russian roulette. Eva mendes is a channel manager. Channel ratings are creeping up. While trying to find a creative program, when one of the ineffective staff says Russian roulette, they immediately mix up the legislation and prepare a 6-player format where one person will die and the remaining ones will receive a 5 million dollar reward. Eva mendes keeps showing legs to persuade the channel owners and the judges. Finally, the broadcast of the program is approved.

Until the last 15 minutes of the movie, the struggle of this format to pass the legislation is boring. So the whole thing happens in the last 15 minutes. Mediocre movie. There is nothing wrong with watching it with family.

Awesome and under-rated

[escapex_kaunas · 8/10 · 19 February 2008]

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...

Good solid interesting film, why such a low rating?

[pik923 · 9/10 · 12 August 2012]

I was surprised that this film was so good! Not just the script that kept me enthralled until the very end, not just the acting - kudos to Eva Mendes, she was outstanding, not just the editing that kept the film flowing perfectly, not just the direction, keeping it consistent, interesting and moving always in that suspense, but also because it has that same flavor, ambiance and sarcastic comedy/drama edge as NETWORK - the film takes the world of television to a level that one could say is almost prophetic.

I was amazed at how the acting of all the characters was great! The art direction, production design, all giving it that flavor of what television producing and production is all about. And the flow of it from the point of view of a documentary film maker was quite ingenious.

This film is fortunately on cable, so at least you have the chance to see it - and I HIGHLY RECOMMEND this film!

Good solid EVERYTHING....

Just finished watching.......man..oh..man

[don_robeo · 9/10 · 26 April 2008]

This movie probably would only get a 7 or 8 from me to tell the truth if I had seen trailers or had any kind of knowledge of what the film is all about. Since it was virtually all a surprise it was almost a perfect piece of edgy entertainment that gets a strong 9 from me.

I read through some of the comments briefly and saw that someone else had almost the same experience as me and he advised to just watch it. It was good advice. Read the rest at your own risk of spoiling.

Eva Mendez plays a head-strong, success-starved network TV programmer that took a joke made by a co-worker while brain-storming TV program ideas about Russian Roulette seriously. The story follows her in a documentary style on her pursuit to make this happen.

It is better than the rating of 5.8 would suggest.

[Jumbajookiba · 8/10 · 5 May 2010]

First of all the type of show that is featured in this movie would have never made it to TV in reality, there would have been too many pressure groups lobbying against it. However, this is a movie and it did raise some very good points with regard to the way reality shows dominate viewing schedules and the way they are 'tweaked' and manipulated turning it almost into car crash TV to try and increase the number of viewers, the simple format of 'Big Brother' for example, has devolved so much since the original format of ordinary folk going in and being voted out, it is now filled with the most freakish members of society the production company could find, even 'Nasty Nick' from series one would be considered normal and boring in the, thankfully, last series to be made.

Anyway, I digress. I watched this movie with little expectation and was pleasantly surprised. It was flawed, the format of the actual show wouldn't have worked, on the message boards there are many posts that agree with this point, particularly if it had got down to the final two contestants, if I had been the producer of the show I would have had 5 contestants and six bullets, so the last person left standing wouldn't know if they would die or not which would have added to the tension of the show, knowing someone was going to die with that shot would have deflated the tension (am I really writing this? I'm someone who would have not watched the show in reality) and I would have shown all the bios and introduced them before they had to play Russian Roulette, this would have brought more empathy from the audience and been even more shocking, especially Rick's story, which didn't work for me as he was willing leave his wife a widow and raising a son alone and in debt, would he really have taken that chance? If the family would have received the money despite being the one to lose that would have made his decision more understandable. But, this is a movie and the format of the show did work better for the movie format.

This was actually an excellent film, it moved along nicely and kept me interested, then when it came to the final half hour it really got gripping and had some excellent turn of events. It was well acted by all, none of the characters came across as particularly clichéd (although Rick's came very, very close, Jeffrey Dean Morgan gave it just enough heart to make it believable) and is definitely much better than the 5.8 rating. I gave it an 8 out of 10 and would recommend it.

I WAITED and WAITED and was NOT disappointed!

[itily2 · 10/10 · 26 February 2008]

This is a film that was very well done. I had heard mixed reviews while it was in production and have been waiting for its release! Cheers to the director and all the actors. The supporting cast gave Eva Mendez what she needed to take this to the top. As everyone else here states, the latter portion of the film is riveting. Katie Cassidy did an amazing job with her character, being she had not done a lot of work when this film was made. She has quite the career ahead of her. I was amazed at her performance. I completely enjoyed the film, questioned my values in life and priorities, and am a better person for it! A great message lies within the film. Release it so all can enjoy!