Forgot your password?
Don't have an account? Sign up here
Got more questions about news letters?
Already have an account? Log in here
and the Terms and Policies,
and to receive email from Rotten Tomatoes and Fandango.
Please enter your email address and we will email you a new password.
We encourage our community to report abusive content and/ or spam. Our team will review flagged items and determine whether or not they meet our community guidelines.
Please choose best explanation for why you are flagging this review.
Thank you for your submission. This post has been submitted for our review.
Sincerely, The Rotten Tomatoes Team
One for the conspiracy theorists. Standard documentary but the central tenet of the conspiracy is severely light on evidence which holds the documentary back from making any sensational revelations. What we learn is that Kasparov was suspicious that there was an element of human involvement in Deep Blue beating him and that IBM refused hima rematch as their share price had rocketed off the back of the victory. Not sure its worthy of a full on documentary but there were some interesting parts to the film too. The enigmatic nature of chess players in general might be a fine recipe for a future documentary. They are often quite fascinatingly eccentric along with being incredibly intelligent.
It goes with the conspiracy story when there's a more interesting philosophical story waiting to be told.
Great nerd drama for technology enthusiasts or anyone with an interest in the bizarre subculture of grandmaster chess competition. The twelve-tone music score fits nicely alongside the sheer madness of those crazy enough to write a chess engine that could rival the skill of Garry Kasparov.
This film tells a story in an interesting way and sparks the interest of the viewer through implications of larger, global issues.
An interesting look at potentially the most significant match in the machine race, but the big question remains, did IBM externaly force Deep Blue's decision on the pawn
How do you program a computer to play chess intelligently? Why is it so difficult? And what does a computer beating the reigning champion in chess mean for the field of artificial intelligence on the whole? Don't look to this movie for answers to these questions; the director doesn't seem to care. Instead, he devotes this regrettable doc to speculation about IBM engaging in foul play, cheesy padding montages of "The Turk," a chess playing automaton from the 18th century (which they tell you almost nothing about!), and laughably boring scenes of Kasparov recounting where chairs were placed in the rooms where historic chess matches were played. If someone wants to watch a movie about chess and/or computers, I wish the director would treat the audience as though they had some intelligence; instead, this felt like watching an episode of Unsolved Mysteries that was twice as long as it needed to be. Disapointing!
An average documentary and not necessarily neutral in their perspectives. I do wonder why IBM did not grant Kasparov a rematch after 1997. Very bland story and it makes Kasparov look like a bitter and immature person, a sore loser. It also portrays IBM as a villain. Perhaps they were but I would like to see IBM's side of the story on this and not stay silent. Worth seeing if you love chess like I do.
An excellent documentary but evidently a little biased towards Kasparov (some facts, for example, were omitted).
Brilliant. Filled with as much sex (none) and action/suspense (bucket loads) as chess can have.
Man Vs. Machine. The human mind takes on a computer, and fails. As we see, all men succumb to paranoia, stress, confidence and so on. But is everything as it seems? Kasparov certainly presents an interesting case, but given the times, it's only natural we all hate the big company. Sure, it's suspicious that he never got a rematch. That things were kept locked behind closed doors etc. Kasparov clearly has a love for the game, and shows himself to be better than any computer by granting a rematch to his rival from many years before. Unfortunately, the director clearly has a bias and isn't very subtle about it. When the journalist talks about his article, he is shot from a high angle, half-lit and very shadowy. He is the only person shot like this. Making it kind of humorous, but also unfair. It's a great story, and Kasparov has nothing to be ashamed of. After all, he was beaten by just a single game, and the computer took many programmers etc. Certainly sparked my interest in chess.