The Gamers: Hands of Fate

"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.

I loved Gamers 1 & 2 and was really curious how they would keep the story fresh. I loved all their D&D jokes on the last two but wasn't sure what they would do to keep the momentum going; the answer was to change and take a risk.

That can often be a tricky thing to do in a trilogy, but they pulled it off. At heart, this is actually a sports movie, just the game is a card game rather than a physical game. This, combined with a much higher budget, allowed them to do all sorts of fun bits that they couldn't have done if they just would have stayed with the same tried and true formula.

I'm glad they mixed things up while still keeping it a very entertaining ride. Can't wait to listen to the commentary tracks to see how they did so much with so little.

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.

Of course I had to sit down and watch the 2013 movie "The Gamers: Hands of Fate", after having just watched the 2002 movie "The Gamers" and the 2008 "The Gamers: Dorkness Rising". And I must admit that I actually harbored some expectations to this 2013 movie as the 2008 movie was glorious fun.

The storyline in "The Gamers: Hands of Fate", as written by Nathan Rice and Matt Vancil, focuses on gamers in the collectible card game universe, which I am not a part of and never seen the appeal in, so this 2013 movie was a swing and a miss in terms of entertaining me, especially since both the previous two movies dealt with roleplayers and not card players.

There were some returning actors and actresses from the previous two movies, which was nice, as it installed a sense of familiarity and continuity in the movie. And it should be noted that the acting performances were good.

The effects in "The Gamers: Hands of Fate" were fair.

However, "The Gamers: Hands of Fate" fell short of fully entertaining me, as I have little or no interest in the collectible card games and the card tournaments that they are used in.

My rating of directors Ben Dobyns and Matt Vancil's 2013 movie "The Gamers: Hands of Fate" lands on a four out of ten stars. It was, to me, the least entertaining and appealing of the movies in the series thus far. Of course I had to sit down and watch the 2013 movie "The Gamers: Hands of Fate", after having just watched the 2002 movie "The Gamers" and the 2008 "The Gamers: Dorkness Rising". And I must admit that I actually harbored some expectations to this 2013 movie as the 2008 movie was glorious fun.

The storyline in "The Gamers: Hands of Fate", as written by Nathan Rice and Matt Vancil, focuses on gamers in the collectible card game universe, which I am not a part of and never seen the appeal in, so this 2013 movie was a swing and a miss in terms of entertaining me, especially since both the previous two movies dealt with roleplayers and not card players.

There were some returning actors and actresses from the previous two movies, which was nice, as it installed a sense of familiarity and continuity in the movie. And it should be noted that the acting performances were good.

The effects in "The Gamers: Hands of Fate" were fair.

However, "The Gamers: Hands of Fate" fell short of fully entertaining me, as I have little or no interest in the collectible card games and the card tournaments that they are used in.

My rating of directors Ben Dobyns and Matt Vancil's 2013 movie "The Gamers: Hands of Fate" lands on a four out of ten stars. It was, to me, the least entertaining and appealing of the movies in the series thus far.

I try to write reviews that focus on what others don't say. This movie is bad. The other 2 Gamer movies are treasured gems. The problem with this movie can be summed up rather briefly. It's source material is obviously MTG and as nearly the entire scene is vile, so is the movie. Where the other Gamer movies are funny this one falls utterly flat. The reason is simple, most MTG zealots refuse to make fun of themselves or the game. The film can't let itself be funny for the same reason you can't draw a cartoon caricature of Muhammad. Sad.