I recently watched Game Over: Kasparov and the Machine. It is a documentary, produced in 2003, about a chess match between Garry Kasparov, a world chess champion, and Deep Blue, a computer created by IBM that could play chess.

The main focus of the film is that of a match between the two in 1997. Much of the film is Kasparov, Deep Blue's programmers and other people involved in the match, talking about the event and the part they played in it. There is a lot of exposition which puts the film an observational mode.

The film uses Archive Footage in many scenes. It's used to show Kasparov in the past to showcase his history as a Chessmaster. Interviews are used as the film's main tool of furthering the plot. Most of the interview subjects are filmed in much the same way. In medium-shots to show part of their location before going into close-ups to show a bit more emotion.

Kasparov's interviews a filmed using a number of techniques. When Garry showcases the room in which IBM defeated him, it is done using a handheld camera and sometimes moves erratically in a way that can replicate his own feelings towards the game. At the film's beginning, the plot focus on Kasparov's origins and how he was before the match with Deep Blue. During these parts, he is shot from a low angle, making him seem more powerful. This goes well with his stories of being the world's best chess player. When the narrative comes to the part where Kasparov has been defeated by a machine, this is replaced with high angle shots. It's as if the audience looks down on him literally and figuratively. 

Shots of Deep Blue, the computer that defeated Kasparov, is also shot in an interesting fashion. It's introduced with a long panning shot. The film then uses low angle shots, similar to how Garry was shot early in the film, to give the impression that the viewer is looking up at the machine. This gives the audience the impression that the IBM computer is menacing and something to be feared.

I feel like that's where the film's main strengths lay. The story of the film is definitely interesting but not immediately captivating. The plot is elevated by strong camerawork and cinematography.