Not Russian Roulette (Roblox)

Surprisingly, Roblox allows a lot of violence in games. There is a cut-off obviously, but for a platform that was initially geared toward children, they’ve always allowed it. Back before I started playing, I always thought it went against Roblox’s TOS. However, the official rules merely state only “realistic depictions of extreme gore” are forbidden from the platform. 

But how much is too much? And what is considered “realistic”? Finding the line between “excessive” and “acceptable” is something that developers have long sought the answers to. Just go to their developer forums, and you’ll find loads of game creators asking how much gore is allowed in their game. The answers are always vague, because Roblox is a lot like the MPAA: There are no set limits. It’s a collection of arbitrary rules and values that can change from one day - or one developer - to the next.

I don't know about realistic, but the gore is extreme.

But there is one category that the company has a clear, no tolerance policy for: Suicide and self harm. The seriousness of this was proven when the popular game “Breaking Point” was temporarily taken down for featuring a game mode based on “Russian roulette”. A game that features several other game modes where the entire point is to kill everyone else in your server. And that was nominated for a Bloxy award a few years back.

That hasn’t stopped developers from trying to slip it between the cracks. A game simply titled “Russian Roulette” made rounds a couple of years ago before getting banned. Yet copies of it continue to pop up, even to this day. This is no doubt the result of open game code, allowing anyone to replicate the game, with little effort. If nothing else, it proves the primitive nature of Roblox’s moderation. Shouldn’t a game directly titled after bannable content immediately flag the system? 

The game itself is simple: Everyone in the server (a max of 8 people) sit around a table. The surrounding room is appropriately grungy and monochrome. One-by-one players are handed a revolver containing a single bullet. When it’s their turn, players can either opt to spin the barrel, or fire the gun straight away. If their lucky, the gun doesn’t go off. If they’re not, they die instantly.

What might make this even more disturbing than “Breaking Point” is the level of gore involved. It might be the most violent game on the platform. Every time the gun goes off, the unfortunate victim’s head explodes, causing a five-second cascade of blood to fountain from the wound. Chunks of what remain land everywhere, often ending up on the table for the remaining contestants to see. The bodies eventually disappear, but the blood stays on the ground, a sobering reminder of the fate that will befall every contestant but one.

The silly upgrades seem out of place.

To call it “disturbing” feels too light; it borders on psychological torture. When players exit the game during their turn, the in-game caption reads “[players name] couldn’t handle the stress.” And “stressful” is a perfect handle to describe it. Even though the game uses players’ avatars - which are often ridiculous and silly - it doesn’t make the events any less jarring. Even knowing the stakes are confined to a video game won’t prevent you from sweating every time it’s your turn. It won’t prevent you from releasing a breath of air every time your character survives, or tensing up when the gun goes off, revealing your bloody fate.

This is one of those games that clearly shouldn’t exist on a platform that is geared toward children, and where the maximum rating is “13+”. It’s the type of game Roblox should ban. But it also speaks to the amateurish grade of their moderation that games like it keep popping up. How are they not immediately detected? 

And yet, part of me admires it. It’s dark. It’s disturbing. It’s intense. In terms of emotional connection, it’s everything a horror game should be. It hits notes that not even the most unexpected jumpscares can replicate. If you’re not at least partially affected by it, you should see a psychiatrist immediately. 

The main thing holding it back is the near-complete lack of interactivity. Unlike “Breaking Point”, there are no other game modes. There is no skill involved. Game play simply consists of selecting “Fire” or “Spin and Fire” when it’s the player’s turn, and nothing else. I don’t know if I could call such a disturbing game “boring”, but it doesn’t encourage long-term play.

Then again, in this case, it’s probably a good thing.

RATING: 5.5/10

The Test (Roblox)

Let’s just keep going down the Roblox rabbithole of unsettling games, shall we? This time we’re going to be covering “The Test”, which essentially works as a combination between “Russian Roulette” and “Breaking Point”. 

You and up to three other servermates are seated at a table in a drab cell. A sawn-off shotgun sits in the middle. Gameplay consists of answering one of two number-related questions, or performing a cognitive task. The first player to get it right is handed the shotgun, and decides who to off. The next round follows the same formula until one person is left standing.

There are two types of number questions: Addition, and “guess a number”. The latter is pretty straightforward and probably needs no explanation. The only change is that you have to wait 2 seconds between guesses; the first person to get the number right, “wins”. For the former, a number is shown atop the screen, with five empty spaces below it. The players must fill up the empty spaces with numbers 1-10, until they add up to the number displayed at the top. You don’t have to fill up all the spaces, though, like I initially thought. So, for example, if the number is 7, you can put “7” in one space, leave the rest blank, and the answer will be considered correct.

The other task consists of dragging a red square across a thin board, until it lines up with a blue square. The catch is, every time you hit the sides of the board, you must start over from the beginning. This leads to a frantic race to the end, with no way of knowing the progress of your enemies.

The “life-or-death” stakes definitely add some intensity to the questions. While they’re simple by design, there’s the whole psychological aspect of knowing a slow answer will result in potential death. Or, when the round dwindles down to you and one other person, a certain fate. It might amount to empty stakes in a video game, but “The Test” does a good job of putting the player inside their character. Earning the gun gives you a sense of power and superiority, while facing the barrel of a gun knowing your fate is the stuff of psychological horror.

Matches can be more exciting depending on the server you’re in. Most “winners” will ask trivia questions via chat as a way to narrow down who their victim should be. Answer it wrong, or too slowly, and you might be the next to go. Others just point and shoot with no explanation or motive. The former is more “fun”, while the latter is more jarring.

The violence is grotesque in its realism, as far as Roblox games go. There isn’t a whole lot of blood, but that’s actually one of its more unnerving aspects. Due to the close proximity of the players, as well as the force from the gun, shot players are frequently launched out of their seats, slumping on the ground in impossibly-contorted heaps. Blood splatters against the chair or wall, rather than spraying all over like in other games on the platform. That helps to give it a more “authentic” feel than the cartoonish geysers that spray all over in other games.

But there are a few issues that truly hinder the game’s overall effectiveness.

The main disadvantage is that there’s very little in the way of replayability. “Breaking Point” gets it right by offering up a variety of different game modes to help keep things interesting. “The Test” is far more graphic, but very one-dimensional: Outside of its basic premise - which wears off rather quickly - the game quickly loses some of its appeal. For starters, the gun is always loaded and always goes off. It would be vastly more terrifying if the gun would occasionally jam, or if some of the chambers were empty. Imagine pointing the gun at someone, only to be met with the hollow sound of the hammer hitting an empty chamber. That surviving member would know your intention was to kill them, and be all the more motivated to return the favor in the next round.

The limited player count is also a point of contention. There are a max of four players per “game”. With one person guaranteed to die in each round, the games typically don’t last longer than two minutes. This is in stark contrast to “Russian Roulette”, which features up to eight players in each round. Those matches can go on for several minutes. While it sometimes feels drawn out - mainly when you’re waiting to rejoin the next “match” - every trip around the table creates a sense of mounting dread. In "The Test", there's no such lingering effect; the game is over before the psychological aspect has a chance to take hold.

And lastly, there’s very little variation in the questions. The solutions to the answers vary slightly, but the tasks themselves are the same ones I mentioned above, every single time. This gives clear advantages to players who have been playing for a long time, and can also alienate players who aren’t good at math. Meanwhile, the "cognitive" task seems to be rather impossible for mobile players: Far too often, I've been the first to complete it, despite having to restart multiple times. 

It might work a little better with friends, but even then I think it would lose its luster rather quickly. If you’re looking for a short game that offers a quick jolt to the system, “The Test” delivers. But if you’re looking for something that’s going to keep you busy for a few days, it simply isn’t worth your time.

RATING: 4/10

TRAILER

It's fan made, but gets the point across pretty well.

Cupid for Christmas (2021)

Director: Blayne Weaver
Writer(s): Patricia Harrington
Starring: Melanie Stone, Ryan Carnes, Natasha Behnam and Richard Kind

Every holiday season, amongst the sea of mindless, soul-crushing drivel, there is a movie that stands head and shoulders amongst its peers. A movie that somehow actually manages to create a sense of wonder about the holidays. This year, it’s Cupid for Christmas. (Okay, so technically it was made last year; I meant in terms of our holiday viewing seasons.)

Even the plot is a little weird: Ruby (real name: Cherub Valentine) is Cupid’s apprentice. The problem is, she’s pretty terrible at her job, as evidenced by the opening scene: In an attempt to make two people fall in love, she inadvertently hits the wrong person with her arrow, leading to a barroom brawl.

Cupid, played by the affable Richard Kind, is understandably appalled. He wants to retire, and sees Ruby as his replacement, but fears she’s too kindhearted for the role. So he gives her one final chance: If she can make “unmatchable” college professor Charlie fall in love by Christmas Eve, she gets the job. If not, chances are that job goes to Philomena, a much more adept assistant who wants the position just as much as her colleague.

Cupid for Christmas is full of refreshing revelations. Chief among them? Ruby never hides her powers, or ulterior motives. This is something that hinders not just Christmas movies, but movies across multiple genres. How annoying is it when characters keep their magic a secret, even from the people closest to them? Ruby is upfront with Charlie from the beginning, even going so far as to reveal the lingering promotion that’s the sole reason for her interest. Hell, she even disappears in front of bewildered strangers.

But that’s not all: She enlists the help of the students in one of Charlie’s classes to help her find a match for the lovably awkward professor. They are mocking, but well-intentioned: They know there’s potential hidden somewhere underneath the awkward and clumsy. It’s just a matter of bringing it out, something no one has been able to do. Once again, she’s up front about her intentions, and doesn’t even hide her magical abilities from them.

The strength (or weakness, as the case may be) of this type of movie is in the characters, but that’s only one area where Cupid for Christmas shines. The two leads are attractive and have some believable chemistry together, which plays a big role. But they’re also surrounded by characters who are more fleshed-out than the average holiday rom-com supporting cast. Take, for example, Ruby’s relationship with Philomena. While it could have become a heated competition given their want to replace Cupid, it never becomes mean-spirited or even competitive. Sure, Philomena attempts to sabotage Ruby’s efforts once or twice, but it’s lighthearted, playful, and clearly played for laughs, with no trace of malice.

The students are also given their own unique personalities. They’re pretty much all the standard stereotypes - the stoner, the crazy girl, the gay guy, etc. - . On more than one occasion, the interplay between Ruby and the students reminded of “A.P. Bio”, the underrated sitcom starring Glenn Howerton (of “It’s Always Sunny in Philadelphia” fame). They’re real, to the point, and give off the same silly vibe. But at the end of the day, all they want is to see their professor happy.

Obviously, it is a Christmas movie at heart: It still has its fair share of predictable scenes. But I have to confess it kept me guessing on more than a couple occasions; I wasn’t even entirely sure how the ending would play out, until the final ten or so minutes. Others - like my wife, who didn’t buy my myriad theories on possible “shock” endings - might not have such a hard time. But the way the movie consistently shuns familiar tropes had me opening my mind to dozens of out-of-the-box possibilities.

It might not explore any of them, but that doesn’t change the fact that Cupid for Christmas is an unexpected delight. It’s a unique (well, as “unique” as these formulaic affairs can be) holiday rom-com that derives glee from stomping on many of the expected tropes of the genre. And, in doing so, avoids many of the pratfalls of its peers. Yet it’s also intelligent enough to know when to stick to the formula, delivering an ending that will appeal to holiday purists.

It might not remind you how special the holidays are, but it will remind you that there are decent holiday movies out there, after all.

ENTERTAINMENT RATING: 9/10

TRAILER

Merry Kiss Cam (2022)

Director: Lisa France
Writer(s): Maya Boudreau and Evan D. Watkins
Starring: Jesse Bradford, Katie Lowes, Nathaniel Fuller, and Benny Elledge

I don’t think it takes a rocket scientist to notice these sappy chronicles follow a rather distinct formula: Two people meet; usually hate each other in the beginning; are forced to spend time together; fight over something that displays a clear lack of communication; then discover they are actually meant to be together. There are slight variations, of course, but virtually every one of them contain at least four of the five elements listed above.

Finding ways to subvert the genre’s expectations while adhering to the above “checklist” can be a daunting task. But there are ways that it can be tinkered with so that it feels different. Those are the ones we generally hold in high regard. And Merry Kiss Cam comes awfully close to reaching the lofty heights of very few hol-coms before it.

To be clear, the base idea is even stupider than most: Bartender Danny and widowed artist Jess go on a first date to a college hockey game. Danny is a huge fan of the Minnesota-Duluth Bulldogs; unfortunately, they’re in the midst of a huge losing streak that’s threatening to put them out of playoff contention. The duo are mortified when they end up on the “kiss cam”, a live segment on sports arena Jumbotrons everywhere that urge the pictured duo to kiss. After some urging from fellow fans, they lock lips…and then a miraculous thing happens. The Bulldogs score immediately thereafter, securing a much-needed victory!

Due to the close proximity between said smooch and the game-winning goal, the fans believe they are the team’s good luck charm. This superstition seems to carry some weight after they continue to kiss during every game…and the team continues to win.

But as we all know things can’t just go that smoothly. Behind the scenes, there’s a lot of extra baggage between them. Well, mainly because of Jess, who refuses to tell Danny about her dead ex-husband, something Danny somehow finds out on his own. Figuring she isn’t ready to talk about it, he politely keeps this information secret, which is clearly the right thing to do in this situation. Or so one would think. Her career as an artist is also beginning to take off, adding to her stress - and obstacles that threaten her relationship with Danny - as she tries to meet important deadlines.

I don’t want to spoil too much, but the obligatory “fight” is frustrating; it’s about the only thing that bogs an otherwise wonderful movie down. I have mentioned this many times before, but why do these features always feel the need to drive a (temporary) chasm between the two protagonists, anyway? I know, I know, it’s part of the “hol-com checklist”, but it’s an aspect that feels outdated. I guess maybe it’s to show that their relationships can withstand the challenges of daily life, but in many movies, they just feel forced. That’s the situation here, where a small misunderstanding is blown way out of proportion.

One unfortunate aspect of critiquing holiday romantic comedies - hell, rom-coms in general - is that, in order to do a thorough job, one must be shallow. I mean, isn’t it a huge selling point that the two leads are attractive? I’ve said this before, but the perfect casting features young-ish characters - generally in their late twenties or early thirties - who are cute, but not overly hot. It’s not just me, though: Clearly casting departments put this criteria over everything else. Disagree with me? Then why are there so many holiday movies without an ounce of chemistry between the two main characters? You know, the ones that we’re supposed to be cheering on to find true love?

Refreshingly, Merry Kiss Cam bucks that trend, proving just how shallow we all are in the process. Katie Lowes, who you might know from her stint on the TV show “Scandal”, doesn’t have the typical looks of a romantic lead. That’s not to say she’s ugly, she just has a different look about her that’s well outside the norm. She has robust features that are atypical of the “young and skinny” requirements of most hol-coms. Again, that’s not to say she’s fat; anyone above a size 2 seems to be considered “too big” for most of these roles. (I feel like there’s no way to explain this without drawing the ire of fans, or being considered “sexist”, but let’s be real here: it’s a thing.)

Even Jesse Bradford, who you might recall as Kirsten Dunst’s younger brother in the cheerleading comedy Bring It On, has a look that I believe will have to grow on most viewers. He is given a slouchy, uncaring look that is “perfect” for the stereotypical bar owner, which movies typically seem to consider a “slum” job for slackers and ne’er-do-wells. This is a far cry from the clean-shaven good guy who tends to dominate these types of roles. Hell, it’s even more “extreme” than the typical “rugged outdoorsman” who are predominantly featured in the movies that feature country boys as the lead. It’s something that might take some getting used to for Christmas romance traditionalists.

And yet the movie manages to work, thanks in large part to their dynamic chemistry. No, I wouldn’t go so far as to say there’s a lot of sexual tension between them, but these types of movies don’t need that. The two leads genuinely give off the aura of a couple falling in innocent, PG-rated love. There feels like there’s a pull between them; like they’re fated to be together. The two actors seem very comfortable in each others’ presence, and their relationship flows naturally. That might sound like something that should be a given, but there are more than a fair share of rom-coms that make it hard to cheer for the two protagonists to find their “happily ever after” thanks to wooden acting or non-existent appeal.

But, just like the Bulldogs at the center of the movie, chances are you won’t find it hard to cheer for these two fated lovers to take their romance beyond the confines of a public video screen, and into the real world that exists outside of it.

STRAY OBSERVATIONS

• As a hockey fan - and former beer league goaltender - I must say a majority of the hockey scenes are rather below average. Why can’t movies that feature sports also focus on getting the “action” sequences right? The goalies move way too slow to “sell” most of the goals. That might sound nitpicky, but there’s enough hockey footage to be a strong supporting part of the story.
• Benny Elledge is perfect as Bulldogs’ super-fan Derrick Dubonnet, who sits behind Jess and Danny at the games. He’s great at being somewhat obnoxious (again, in a PG-rated way), yet likable at the same time.
• Another refreshing change of pace: They don’t wait until the end of the movie to kiss. Sure, it might not be romantic seeing them do it on a big screen surrounded by thousands of fans, but I like how they get it “out of the way” early. This allows the focus to be on their relationship, rather than their first kiss.

RATING: 6.5/10

TRAILER