[Film] Hardcore Henry


I always wondered when the Hollywood influence on gaming would go the other way too resulting in gamified action movies. Now it happens and it might actually be a fun ride.
A movie that is completely first person makes me actually want to see it in 3D since it finally makes sense.
 
Probably going to be very tiring to one´s eyes. Too much camera shaking.
While the trailer is cool, I´m not sure the experience will be the same, I think not.
 
Whoa... me like!
Nice to see that he has become "mute", so that solves the fact the FPS does not speak.
The action is over-the-top so that removes the serious/gore element.
I cringed at the rotating foot. And liked going-through-the-van.

I actually watched "The Last of Us" and "Beyond Two Souls" on youtube. Found them quite entertaining as movies.

@erico: The amount of moving has gone up in media. I had to adjust to the new videoclip music... they really change shots so fast... remember when video clips were one/two cameras only (one for the full scenario, the other for face closeups. On Top of the pops, for example). And they barely moved around. Nowadays... 2-3 seconds max per shot.
 
Last edited:
I have been seeing ads for this for a while. Initially I thought it was a cool idea, then I realized that it would be really boring and irritating for me. I am not really into action movies, and being stuck in first person is ok for short periods, but a whole film? I will skip it for now.
 
I find strange all this complaints about first person view, especially from people that probably have played FPS before... from like the 2003 in all those games started to appear a lot of shaking, but I found it cool... with previous games it was like playing with an unmovable tank instead of a person.

Also I like to see other people playing, so I just see this movie like a play session, but with a director behind...
 
Ist this now a Movie..or Game...a Dream...
...or...or...
.. Reality?

Joke byside..
..Its funny to see such a Movie. :D
 
I find strange all this complaints about first person view, especially from people that probably have played FPS before... from like the 2003 in all those games started to appear a lot of shaking, but I found it cool... with previous games it was like playing with an unmovable tank instead of a person.

Also I like to see other people playing, so I just see this movie like a play session, but with a director behind...
I love FPSs, although I stick to mostly early ones. Eventually there were too many things being done differently, and the games started to get boring. There are still some more recent first person perspective games I try to play through, and with those it is mainly for the story.

It isn't the shaking or movement to the cameras that bothers me (I like this when it is used effectively in many films). For me, action movies are not very entertaining. This is not the case with games. In fact, the FPSs I like are usually sorta light on story, and is "get in there and destroy everything that moves". That is what I find enjoyable about them, and that doesn't translate well to create the same experience for me when it comes to film. I have no control over what is happening so it is boring. There is no planning and staying alert, and trying to react last second as I watch something coming at me that will kill me because I foolishly wanted to get more ammo or a power up of some sort, and know that my flailing won't matter since it will take my character too long to move, but I try anyway. All that I enjoy about a FPS is taken away when it is turned into a movie, and what is left is the stuff I don't really care about.

Sometimes I watch others play, and almost always this is so I can study their technique and see how they handle situations, to see if those things might work better for me. I can't do that for very long before I am extremely bored and I ask to play, wander off, or try to mess with them.

I hope it is a good movie and is very enjoyable. I will watch it when I don't have to pay extra to see it, since I don't think I will like it much, just like sitting and watching someone else play a game for extended periods. I hope it doesn't become a genre that gets worse and worse with very few new ideas and many examples featuring no creativity, while the style of film becomes a crutch (as the found footage films have done, with only a few examples standing out as actually good...and the Blair Witch Project was not one of them (I stilll don't think I have seen the whole thing)).

I hope I am wrong, and when I see it I absolutely love it. I have no problem with having FPS as both one of my favorite game and movie genres. :)
 
...
@erico: The amount of moving has gone up in media. I had to adjust to the new videoclip music... they really change shots so fast... remember when video clips were one/two cameras only (one for the full scenario, the other for face closeups. On Top of the pops, for example). And they barely moved around. Nowadays... 2-3 seconds max per shot.

I´m aware, but cutting is not the issue, I´m a fan of 80-90 china action movies so I´m used to such way before it got into the western media.
My problem is camera shaking, like subjective pov or camera on hand.
That is something you have to carefully use. 3min. of that gets tired really fast and may work ok on a video clip.
2h of that is killer, so I´m sure they will dose it on this movie otherwise it will be a horrible to experience...and they can check that on storyreel or test premiere.

They will probably concentrate on the action and the romance.
Movies have a 3rd person for a very good reason. We will see how this comes out.

I have noticed some people don´t bother the shaking, but many do. In my case it may be because I´m a movie maker myself and have a very tech look into it.
No humans enjoy watching movies by my side. :( If you want to enjoy consuming something (even a cultural product like an entertainment movie) best not study it too much. :p
 
No humans enjoy watching movies by my side
Right, right! So you appreciate the angles, the 'waiting for x hours until the street is clear to take the shot', the 'now comes a panning shot, and the speed is just right', the 'music changed, so something is going to happen'. My ex was good at that. She knew after the first few minutes what was going to happen (holliwood movies are very boring in that sense, they have a simple formula). Then spend the time analyzing clues (same music they used for the killer as when presenting XXX, so they are related, or text and visuals) to stay ahead of the story. Me, I looked more at the technical side. The rendering, the time it takes to do the grimage. But taking a step of less abstraction into the movie to enjoy it. There is a problem when you know the actors too much from other movies, that you do not see the new character but just the actor, acting "the same" (bad actor), or different (and then either convincing or unconvincing, and then it ruins the movie). But I rather not know there are 3 acts, or hunt for inconsistencies, and just enjoy the movie. (although I do look up facts, like the surprise face the bad guy makes in Die Hard 1 is real because he was released just one second earlier, so his instinct thought something was wrong, and that produced that face. Or NOT telling actors what is going to happen, to get "effects".

As I said, knowing sometimes makes for better appreciation. Like in those survival thingies, where the camera man must wear that harnas with stabilizing arms and run behind the "survivor-man", who doesnt have all those kilos of extra weight (now-a-days we have compact camera's). Or the convention interview with Silent Bob, where he tells the tale how he was hired to do a commercial...
Or that cabaretier (varieté stand-* comedian?) that can stand 5 minutes (300 seconds), doing NOTHING, without ANY props, stuttering a few words, and STILL get the crowd engaged and laughing.
 
I was just thinking that I miss the days when a hollywood blockbuster meant plenty of use of steadicam harnesses. Since Blair Witch and possibly earlier, the tendency has been for shaky handheld shots (and these days it's mostly CGI framed shots).

Regrading predicting the twist/ending, I'd challenge anyone to predict the ending to Kubrick's The Shining (the photograph) on their first watch. There are hints throughout the film, but it took me three for four watches to identify most of them.
 
Yep, some 80-early 90s movies maybe harder to ´guess´, just like the thing for example.
I usually look into the story/charachter construction first, some movies don´t even bother that anymore.
I´m one who greatly disliked the new madmax and I find the newer starwars complete rubbish, almost as bad as the 3 before. The later has absolutely nothing into it. It is almost as a descriptive documentary movie, everyone describes everything before it happens, it has no surprise. IMHO, fictional movies have to have a ´surprise´ of some sort. The Shining is an excellent example.

But then again, movies are like music, very subjective. It is inevitable that knowing how to do it and having done some, you are going to heavily criticize it, the good and the bad.
 
I'm not convinced any film of that type can be better than Kung Fury, so I'd tend to prefer if they left the series alone tbh.

Still, I might have said the same thing if I'd seen just the trailer first, assuming they couldn't carry if for a full 30 minutes or so. But they certainly did.
 
I'm not convinced any film of that type can be better than Kung Fury, so I'd tend to prefer if they left the series alone tbh.

Still, I might have said the same thing if I'd seen just the trailer first, assuming they couldn't carry if for a full 30 minutes or so. But they certainly did.

And it was too fracking short!
Thor was epic and on a whole different level than the waxed youth from Marvel/Disney...
 
Back
Top