ccthemovieman-1 Being someone who has enjoyed figuring out crossword puzzles here and there over the last 20 years, I was enthused about watching this documentary and wondered if it would renew the passion I used to have for doing these puzzles. Yes, it did, so kudos to the documentary to make it interesting enough.Is it enough to hold the interest of a non-crossword player? I doubt it. If the puzzles aren't fun to you, I doubt this movie would be entertaining, either.The film is in two parts: a look at "celebrities" who play, and some of their comments and to the man who puts together the daily New York Times puzzle. The second part - the largest segment - is devoted to USA Crossword Championships held in each in Stamford, Conn. We see the top players profiled and then are witness to the 200- tournament with it's dramatic 3-person playoff finals.The first part is simply an unabashed Liberal love-fest with big plugs for the Times and NPR, and the celebs are all big Liberals, from Bill Clinton to Jon Stewart to Ken Burns, the Indigo Girls, etc. If one can ignore the obvious political bias, it's still interesting. Then, we get profiles of the top players, from the young prodigy who first entered the tournament at 16 and is one of the favorites to win at 20; the veteran who always is in the finals but never can do better than third; to the gay guy who is seen at home playing pinball with his roommate. They kiss each other on the lips. What was the purpose of inserting that in the movie? What did that have to do with the story? Nothing, obviously, and it wasn't necessary but when have Liberal filmmakers ever exercised good judgment? Also profiled is an interesting woman who won this tournament once but hasn't been close since. Then, we have others such as a guy who plays a guitar and sings and another who is extremely introverted, on and on. Many of them fun to watch. Many of them are amazing crossword talents who can zip off thee answers to a fairly tough one in just a few minutes.Although not hard to predict given their "past performances," the finale was still dramatic and interesting to watch.Overall: puzzle devotees - highly recommended; non-players: not recommended.

wrlang Wordplay is a geeky docudrama about the wonderful world of crossword puzzles and the people who can't live without them. I personally love word games because of my dyslexia and play scrabble when I get the chance. Crosswords are fun, but not as much as other word games. The film was very well made and gave a superficial glimpse at the crossword world. No action, some humor, and lots of interesting facts about the New York Times crossword, the epitome of crosses. I liked the idea of getting into the lives of the top players to a small degree to find out what type of people they are. I was amazed that they had their own tournament that had been going on so long. Not a lot of action, just a homey film that leaves a good feeling.

kevbo1 To me, a successful documentary teaches me about someone or something I didn't know. I am not a crossword enthusiast, but I thought I knew about crossword puzzles. It turns out there is a lot I didn't know, and what I learned in "Wordplay" was conveyed in an entertaining manner.The film is rated PG, and the only mildly "offensive" language occurs when one of the puzzle constructors lists several clinical terms that he is not allowed to use in the puzzles. It's nothing you wouldn't hear at your annual physical.Wordplay is one documentary with three interwoven parts. The first part introduces us to New York Times crossword puzzle editor Will Shortz and a number of puzzle constructors, primarily Merl Reagle. It shows how crossword puzzles are created and edited. It explains the "rules" of puzzle-making, how the degree of a puzzle's difficulty is changed by altering the clues, and how creators use themes throughout the puzzle. It also shows how there are often puzzles within the puzzle.The second part is a series of interviews with six or seven celebrity crossword enthusiasts, and with a number of competitors in the annual tournament. One of the most interesting parts of the film is watching each of the celebrities work on the same puzzle at the same time. The filmmakers use split screens and animation to show the answers being filled in.The third part (and the bulk of the film) covers the 28th American Crossword Puzzle Tournament held in March, 2005 in Stamford, CT. It features more cool puzzle-filling animation, and it includes a blunder of Bill Buckneresque proportions. The tournament is a nerd-fest of the highest order (not that there's anything wrong with that). It's a combination competition, convention, and family reunion. The participants seem like nice people who genuinely enjoy each others' company. There is one scene with an element of sportsmanship that is rarely displayed in competition on any level.You MUST watch ALL of the bonus scenes on the DVD. OK, you can skip the music video, but watch the rest of them. In their entirety they are about as long as the movie itself (94 minutes). They include deleted scenes, extended cuts from the celebrity interviews, additional insight into the puzzle creation process, and more clips from the tournament.There is also a short film about a group of people in a small Wisconsin town who read The New York Times every Sunday. This segment is a little out-of-place if not off-putting. It is not about the puzzle at all, it's just about people who read The Times. I found these people to be elitist and condescending -- not at all what I expected from a rural town in Wisconsin. One of them even admits to "playing at" being a farmer while not at his "home" in Chicago. The point of the film seemed to be that erudite urbanites love spending time in the country as long as they can get a decent cup of coffee and the Sunday New York Times. If I lived in that town I would buy up all of the papers every Sunday so these people would go back from whence they came.

TheGOLDENWALRUS I'm shaking my head right now as I notice the high rating for this documentary. I like crossword puzzles maybe like once a year but was very amazed by those who love it. I mean love it. Slamming their headphones when they find out they screwed up only made me laugh. It was interesting to see Mike Mussina talk about his experience with crossword puzzles. And perhaps it was interesting to know that some people can do them in under two minutes but what else can you cram in 80 minutes. It seemed like they just talked about the same old stuff for 60 minutes than they had the competition for 20 minutes.I guess you can say that I don't get it but others will. A decent documentary and you will learn useless things but for entertainment, it was way below average in my eyes.