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.

sethmd73 I am one of the 4,311 people who helped make (at the time) The Gamers: Hands of Fate the largest crowdfunded movie via Kickstarter. As a fan and follower of Dead Gentlemen Productions and Zombie Orpheus Entertainment, I knew going in that this was going to be a very different story than its predecessors: The Gamers (2002) and The Gamers: Dorkness Rising (2008). That said, you know I've got both rose colored glasses as a fan, and a critical eye as someone who threw money at this to get it made.There are several stories intertwined here: Cass (Brian Lewis) trying to win a date with Natalie (Trin Miller); Joanna (Carol Roscoe) dealing with an anticipated marriage proposal from Lodge (Nathan Rice); Gary (Christian Doyle) confronting Chibichan, the dreaded destroyer of his favorite T.V. show; and the card game characters Myriad (Samara Lerman) and Dundareel (Jesse Lee Keeter) having to deal with the fate that has been handed to them; just to name a few. The story weaves very well from beat to beat and it is easy to follow the flow.Overall, I was not disappointed with my investment, writer Matt Vancil does a fantastic job setting pieces in motion and the entire ensemble steps up and delivers. Every actor, especially the supporting actors, have some great moments to shine. It is not a cheeky gamer comedy, but an enjoyable drama. I agree with other reviewers that Gary's story starts out funny and the denouement is also good, but gets a bit too dark. Finally, kudos to Steven Wolbrecht who pieced together a very nice score and some memorable songs. I look forward to backing the next one.

texawegian Story: cheesy. Acting: atrocious. Special effects: non-existent. Yet, somehow it drew me in past the first few crucial minutes. I found myself actually enjoying it and caring about some of the characters. And wanting to play the CCG game. Some of the side-stories are a little odd (e.g. Gary) but kinda-sorta worked .. And wanting to go to GenCon ... The depiction of GenCon was particularly funny (although I have never been to one, i would imagine that the stereotypes were portrayed).All-in-all, if you are looking for a bit of brainless entertainment, this is a good choice. Very light and funny at times.

jpace Though initially dismissive of customizable card games and its player base, when the abrasive Cass meets beautiful gamer girl Natalie he enters a tournament for the CCG Romance of the Nine Empires in order to wrangle a date from her. In an alternate reality, the heroic princess Myriad searches for a way to protect the kingdom of Holden from the wars that rage across the world of Countermay. She begins to suspect, however, that her fate is controlled by something altogether outside of her reality. Will Cass get the girl? Will the land of Holden survive the coming war? The fate of the land of Countermay depends on the outcome of Cass's CCG tournament...or is it the other way around?For viewers unfamiliar with the previous movies The Gamers and The Gamers:Dorkness Rising (the original movie was more of stand-alone, extended sketch comedy skit than a full-fledged movie, and featured few of the same characters from its two sequels) , the story should be pretty easy to follow, though a few elements may leave some people scratching their heads, and some of the humor might fall a little flat with those who aren't familiar with the gaming community and its tropes. Also, it should be noted that this is a low budget, Kickstarter-funded production, so the production values might be lower than what most viewers are used to which could be a turn-off.For returning fans, while Dorkness Rising focused on nice guy Lodge and his frustrations with both his dysfunctional role-playing group and a case of writer's block, Hands of Fate shifts its focus to the ultimately good-hearted jerk Cass. There's also a larger focus on the real world plot than there was in the last movie. I think Cass is an entertaining lead protagonist, so these aren't problems so much as things to be aware of.If you're hoping for a continuation of the story-within-a-story that was the focus of Dorkness Rising, you'll be disappointed, as one of the sub-plots of Hands of Fate is the fact that the gaming group can't seem to get together to play. Instead, we get to see into the world of Romance of the Nine Empires, a fictional CCG, and its inhabitants are their own entities rather than the extension of their players in the real world. This is a negative, in my opinion. It's not that the CCG world is any less engaging than the RPG world was, it's just that the fantasy storyline was never the point in the first place--it was the dynamic of seeing the characters switching back and forth between their real and fantasy personas that made the whole thing fun. Unfortunately that's mostly absent here.As far as the acting is concerned, I thought the the main cast was pretty good. Brian Lewis as main character Cass did a great job, and takes a character that was originally designed as kind of an antagonist in Dorkness Rising and turns him into a relatable protagonist. One of my favorite performances is actually Scott C. Brown as Leo--while Leo was new to RPGs, he's actually experienced in CCGs, so his character gets to transform from fumbling newb to wise master, and I thought he was able to pull it off without it seeming like we were looking at a new character with the same face.Some of the less prominent acting can be a little hit or miss around the edges which is to be expected since the cast seems to be fleshed out a bit with amateur actors. What might be a problem to some viewers though is understanding when the acting is bad on purpose, such as when a character in the movie is himself playing a character and is meant to be bad at it. For instance, there's a sequence where a number of people are Live Action Role Playing, a sequence filled with bad deliveries and cheesy speeches--but they're supposed to be that way. I can see how some people might not get it if they're not really understanding what they're looking at.I do have a few nitpicks, mostly it just seems like a little more finesse could have been used. Sometimes Checkov's gun is set on the mantle a little too obviously, or points where I feel an emotional payoff for a storyline seemed a little too calculated. The one major problem I had was with the plot for the Gary character--it starts off amusingly silly but then goes off into a really darkly absurd place that's out of sync with the rest of the movie--while still being treated as just slightly kooky.In all, don't let the low budget or the niche genre nature of the material turn you off to the movie--it's a funny, smart movie about gamers. Sometimes they antagonize each other, sometimes they have different ideas on how things should be played, but at the end of the day they are there because they love gaming.