To say that Video Games: The Movie bites off more than it can chew is an understatement; if it wasn't about to create ten two-hour long parts for a miniseries dealing with the complete history of video games, its mouth was never going to even remotely sustain what was trying to be forced into it. Director Jeremy Snead states that over forty-five hours of footage for the documentary was shot and he plans to put the footage to a sequel documentary or future Television projects because video games are "something that deserves more treatment in film and Television." I couldn't agree more, and Video Games: The Movie is a marginally effective starting point to get someone contemplating and, most importantly, recognizing the foundation in which their favorite games were expanded upon. The downside, however, is that this documentary isn't structurally sound, jumping back and forth from cherrypicking and analyzing the capabilities of a select few consoles before doubling back to try and create some kind of oral history, again, taking from random events.

The film, in the beginning, attempts to assess a select few video game consoles, like the Atari 2600, the Nintendo Entertainment System, the Super Nintendo, and the PlayStation. During this time, we skip over generational conflicts and significant consoles, like the Sega Genesis, the Sega Dreamcast, more inventive and obscure systems like the Neo-Geo, Turbo-Grafx 16, and the Sega Game Gear, and the famed "bit wars." I have little doubt that Snead has footage on hard drives pertaining to these consoles and these features, but the documentary moves in a way that seemingly neglects their very existence. This is one of the many problems with tackling a broad subject in a broad manner.

After we reach the Xbox 360 and the PlayStation 3, only briefly mentioning the revolutionary qualities of the Nintendo Wii, we double all the way back to try and pinpoint who to credit with the foundation of video games. Do we credit Nolan Bushnell, the co-founder of Atari, who provided the first in-home gaming experience in the 1970's? Steve Russell, who created the first interactive computer game on the PDP-I by the name of Space War at MIT in the 1960's? Or do we credit the 1950's invention where light rays and magnifying glasses were used to create an even more primitive version of Pong known as Tennis for Two? Following that debate, we return to the jumbled timeline of events by working our way to the present starting with the video game crash of 1983, where video games were desperately close to becoming a fad. Following the crash, it was said that many people were tired of video games, yet a solid amount of people wanted to continue playing. This would eventually lead to Nintendo and Sega rising from Atari and Intellevision's ashes to bring about an entirely different gaming experience that was never before seen.

The amount of people in Video Games: The Movie is pretty astonishing, as many of them hail from different companies, bear different titles, and have worked on a plethora of different projects. With that, each one offers a unique perspective, or at least one well worth digesting and analyzing. One of the most talkative and fascinating souls in the film is Cliff Bleszinski, known for creating the Gears of War video game series. He talks about the creation of games in a way that breaks down the multitude and complexity of the moving parts that go into creating a game's story, rendering the graphics, writing and composing a score, and so forth, concluding it's like "The Avengers of talent" on display with every new video game and video games being the culmination of art forms like no other piece of art out there. He describes their significance by saying they exist as a "lean forward experience" rather than a "lean back experience" or the same experience you get when watching a film. Like reading a book, if you choose to remain idle in a game, the story doesn't continue. A film keeps on playing until an audience picks up the remote and commands what it wants it to do.

These kind of perspectives and philosophy breaking video games from the often oversimplified confines of ignorant opinions and vast generalizations keep the documentary afloat and moving. The way it humanizes gaming culture shows a true love and appreciation on part of Snead and his giant crew, with John Sharp stating that video games provide people with a safe place to fail and problem solve, two things that are greatly intimidating and a product of our fear in the real world. In addition, another woman states that gamers look to games as a means to fit in and be accepted since they often feel left out in the real world. Unlike in social cliques, social settings, or other environments, in video games, we're always welcome and always fit in.

This hominess provides Video Games: The Movie with a pleasant sense of seriousness, even if the film keeps making the grave mistake of doubling back on its timeline. As mean as this is to say, this was a documentary that simply couldn't be as effective as it needed to be from the start. The area of video games is far, far too broad and complex for one documentary to sustain all, if most, of its core areas of information and fact. The film is amiable enough, sure to provide audiences, including myself, with warm, fuzzy feelings of nostalgia and constant grins provoked by basically watching old memories, emotions, and feelings come to life on the screen, however, far too scattershot to warrant a recommendation. This one gets more like a wink and an the movement of a hand in the "so-so/more or less" manner.

Directed by: Jeremy Snead.

"Video Games: The Movie" aims to educate and entertain audiences about how video games are made, marketed, and consumed by looking back at gaming history and culture through the eyes of game developers, publishers, and consumers.

Immediately there are some concerns: the intro runs a bit too long (but the use of Queen is a good choice). And then we have the necessary interview of Wil Wheaton (who is less annoying than usual here),but also some nice unexpected gems like the creator of "Metal Gear Solid" and the president of Nintendo. And then there is Chris Hardwick, who comes across far more dorky than he does on television.

There are some interesting statistics on ages, genders of those who play and purchase video games. As people generally know, the ages have been increasing and more women are getting into the gaming scene.

The film goes somewhat into history, with Nolan Bushnell of Atari widely thought of as the father of video games. Yes, they tracked down Bushnell for an interview, and he in turn gives the "father" title to MIT scientists. We also get a nice description of pixels and "bits" for those not familiar. The history is, perhaps, too brief, with many systems getting no coverage at all, and much of it in no particular order.

We have the legendary tale of the E.T. game made in five weeks in the fall of 1982, which helped launch the term shovelware, and indirectly killed off the Atari.

If this was re-edited to be more in chronological order, it would be a stronger film, but it is not a bad one.

It needs to be pointed out that the subject matter for this film is way too broad to be crammed into a single movie. It would be like trying to cram WWII into a movie! It's just NOT possible and the only decent way to attempt this is to make a mini-series. So, because the film is only 105 minutes long, MANY important innovations are breezed over or ignored completely. For example, if you'd like a discussion of early home computers and the games you could play on them (such as the Commodore, Tandy or Atarti 400/800),look elsewhere. And, if you want them to connect the dots from one game system to another...again, look elsewhere. Instead this is NOT so much a documentary but some folks reminiscing about some of the highlights--THEIR highlights--not necessarily the real highlights. And, because it's THEIR highlights, they oddly spend more time talking about the SuperNintendo instead of the much more important and groundbreaking NES or never really talk about the Coleco or Intellivision systems. The bottom line is that you might enjoy this film but it's also painful to watch because it misses so much. Worth seeing but don't take it as a historical or systematic film. Heck, it bounces back and forth SO MUCH chronologically that you'd almost think the person behind all this suffers from a bad case of ADD!!