N. N. "Hands of Fate" is quite an endeavour in terms of telling a story that people might not like to listen to, but it is a very good film.I liked "Dorkness Rising" better, pretty much like most people prefer youth to old age. The first two films were only slightly exaggerated reports on role players, this on the other hand is a fantasy, that is a parable that is supposed to make you dream as opposed to grin, about meaning that people build up for themselves, and about letting go of that, when it's all just mere self indulgence, i.e. this is not a film about how ridiculous gamers are, but how sad it feels to let go of this world.Now, in my case, it's some 25 years back that I went through this, so I'm not troubled by this anymore and can look at a rather clever film in an observing way, for there are some good points to behold: 1. That RPG made room for LARP, although the latter is far more restricted.The reason for this is, and it's a bitter one, that humans will work together when you make them accept the rules first, even when the rules are somewhat dumb, but will be unable to come together, when you give them too much freedom choosing the rules themselves.In the film this shows in the contrast between being able to design your own character and play characters written on cards. But it is the latter standardisation, which allows a common universe to grow.This is truly meaningful, one of the most depressing things of human existence, people throw themselves into chains and progress and you as a free person never get involved in anything, at least not how you'd want to.2. The absence of meaning in modern life and the addictiveness of the drug to create your own in your head alone, resp. in the heads of a collective.And this is even more bitter. At least the RPG folks can eventually silently acknowledge the futility of it all. But the LARP guys are in stronger chains and drive themselves into insanity, as the Ninja Dragon episode most overtly shows, but it's also in other things, like when the bleeder gets punched in the nose in a situation that any sane person would understand as asking for a fight.And again, it's quite general. You stand alone, you might resign like Schopenhauer would suggest, you're part of a group, you defend Berlin until the end.3. Selling you your humanity.Giving you a chance to build up meaning for a buck as is the theme of the whole Legacy episode.In real life that would be states, telling their "citizens" their respective narratives. So you can be a good Communist, American or what have you.Well... that's all bittersweet, bitter because of the designs you can't choose, sweet because of the life that you spent in them.To be honest, I can't give these kind of films 10/10, no matter how good. Hitchcock's "Shadow of a Doubt" for instance or Tarkovsky's "Offret" and this film is even better than those.I mean, what would that be? An excellently depressing film? There's a hint of perversion in that notion.

lluewhyn My wife and I were over at a friend's house and found out that he had obtained a copy of this movie and asked if we wanted to watch it. We ended up being tortured for nearly two hours.We all really liked the first Gamers movie. Despite its very cheap budget, it was fairly well done and focused. Although some jokes at random gamer culture were tossed around (such as the one college gamer with a girlfriend who ditches the game to go out on an actual date), the humor was primarily about one thing: how ludicrous the story would actually look based upon the actions, rules and die rolls of the game. Although the gamers were all typically dorks, you could laugh at the portrayal and see the various ways that we all have acted like that in the past. For the most part, a lot of the scenes actually came off as actual videotapes from a game.The second one had a higher production budget but was a lot more scattershot in its targets. Although there was a little bit of odd humor in the way the game would play out based upon player actions, there was also jokes about ineffective character classes, a complete novice somehow combining obscure feats and traits to make an OP character, a male player playing a female character completely wrong, and random gaming references like light-sabers and cards from Munchkin. There were still plenty of jokes that hit the mark, despite them being all over the place.One other noticeable change is that the characters were a lot less sympathetic. The DM was a rail-roader, but an otherwise nice guy, and his new girlfriend was also a positively portrayed dork. However, the three main players consisted of two obnoxious jerks and one guy who was creepy and apparently mentally ill. These were the kind of players that you would quit games if they joined.Which brings us to this third movie.The entire movie focuses on one of the aforementioned jerks attempting to win a Gen Con card game that's like Magic combined with a campaign story. The card game isn't something that we can relate to because it's not similar to anything currently on the market. Therefore, the scenes from what's taking place have no basis of comparison to anything the audience has experienced. They are all awfully rendered with horrendous computer backdrops as opposed to actual scenes on location like the previous movies. There's also an overall narrative about the characters realizing that they're just pawns in a card game (hence the title) that goes basically nowhere.Oh, and did I mention that the reason that the aforementioned jerk is playing a card game at this convention just so he can try to get into a girl's pants? I don't just mean end up dating her, he's literally serious about using this opportunity to try to have sex with her. Plenty of other obnoxious and misogynous comments are dropped all over the place as well, making gamer culture look absolutely repulsive. Although there is definitely sexism in gaming, the behavior of these players (including the protagonist) would likely result in a fight. (My wife said she'd knock the teeth in if other players made the kind of suggestive comments that these were making to her face).Virtually every portrayal of a gamer is negative in some way. They're either abusive, clueless, completely absorbed in their own reality or all of the above. Even Lodge and Joanna having a healthy relationship and mutual love of gaming are picked on for having almost no sex together.Gary, the slightly creepy player from the last movie goes full on creepy and psycho for laughs. There's a subplot about him having a hate-filled anger towards a cartoon character that caused his favorite television show to be cancelled, and taking it out on the actual hired mascot playing that character at the convention. He's shown physically assaulting this poor schmuck numerous times, and at one point kidnaps him and covers him in gasoline as revenge. Yep, we're supposed to be laughing at one of the main characters attempting to burn an innocent man to death because his favorite television show was cancelled.So, in summary, the plot of the story revolves around a despicable character playing a game neither he nor we care about in hopes of having sex with a woman who finds him repulsive. The "money shots" of seeing the game played in real action looks horrendous with poor special effects and drags on with little point. Finally, almost all other portrayals of characters other than the main protagonist are used to negatively portray gamers as anti-social psychos who have too much time and money on their hands.I'll give it two stars because despite all of the dreck there were actually a couple of jokes that were actually funny (the scene where the protagonist is confronted by the Legacy in the hallway was clever), and the movie finally comes to some kind of competently written climax in the final card match. The rest was just unbearable to watch.

siderite From the forty-five minute The Gamers, through the one hour and a half The Gamers: Dorkness Rising, we get the two hour long Hands of Fate. It starts with the same team as in the second film, all happily playing their D&D game, only to be thwarted by cell phone rings "from work". It made me think that it will be a continuation of Dorkness, made in the same vein: the mature gamers who can't really play their game with reality intruding. I was wrong.Soon enough we realize that reality has intruded way too much. They are not able to play the role playing game anymore. They are barely meeting once a year and then they never manage to end the game. Enter Natalie, a CCG player with a real passion for a card game with a storyline and a real nice face. Cass immediately falls for her and proceeds to learn to play the game. The entire movie is then about the fantasy land of the CCG game.I don't want to spoil anything, so I will not reveal anything more about the plot. Enough said that the ending is reminiscent of the first Gamers film and that, even if at first I thought it was going to turn into a sort of weird documentary of what happens at Gen Con and I really really hated the Gary subplot where he is trying to kill the mascot of the show that replaced his childhood favorite, I ended up liking it.I especially appreciated that Cass is as much a noob at card collectible games as I am and has the same disdain towards them as me, but as the movie unfolds, he gets to understand and respect the game, so I get to identify and evolve with the character while I am watching. I loved that.Not that everything is dandy dory: most of the acting is completely over the top and some scenes did make me cringe. However the overall feel of the movie, the fact that most of the geekiness made sense and the subtle humor made me like the experience. A bit too long (just make a Director's cut without Gary's story! :) ), but enjoyable nonetheless. I do miss the free fantasizing of the D&D game, though.

bpierce Those I've spoken to who have watched G:HoF seem divided into two camps. The first camp is disappointed, because the movie isn't what they expected. In fairness, G:HoF is quite a departure from Gamers and Gamers: Dorkness Rising. The humor is more subdued, and the storyline is much more pronounced; the film is primarily character-driven rather than situation-driven.The second camp...and I fall firmly in this camp...are pleased with the movie for precisely those reasons. I honestly think that if they'd tried to do a third movie exactly in the vein of the original, it would have fallen flat. There are only so many joking references to gaming tropes and clichés you can make before the material starts to become stale.Instead, the third movie builds on the characters established in the second, fleshing them out and humanizing them; making them less caricatures and more fully-fleshed characters. Cass takes the role of protagonist, and while he's still the same cocky, hyper-competitive power-gamer, he's given a chance to demonstrate other facets of his personality; there's real character development here, and you find yourself rooting for him as the film progresses. Leo gets a welcome chance to be something other than "the guy who dies a lot"--I personally think that Scott Brown is one of the most talented actors in a talented cast, and it's nice to see him get a chance to show it.The focus is on a collectible card game in this film, but I found that much of the humor is a loving send-up, not just of CCGs or gaming conventions, but of epic fantasies and their tropes, with a good dose of spaghetti Western thrown in. Most of the well-worn and well-loved conventions are here: the rebellious loner who comes to down to find it beset by a tyrannical band of marauders; the call to heroism; his initial resistance ("I'm just passing through") worn down as he comes to care for the community; his arrival at the last minute for the showdown with the villain.One discordant note for me is Gary's subplot. It starts off funny, but quickly goes in a very dark direction that doesn't seem to mesh well with the overall tone of the film...less "Eccentric gamer" and more "Seriously psychologically disturbed gamer." While, yes, there were over-the-top acts of violence in the earlier films, those were generally confined to the characters within the games. Seeing similar behavior from one of the players comes across as less funny and more disturbing.Apart from that, though, the film's a very solid and enjoyable one, and one I plan to both own and watch again.