• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

If you love Video Games you will most likely love Hardcore Henry

Well the plot was kind of dumb like a couple of AAA FPS games, but the overall parallels are appropriate as I was watching the movie last night.

Best thing about this movie though was Sharlto Copley, if you need a reason to see it, go for his performance.
 
Succinct Verbosity said:
Saw the trailer with my girlfriend in the cinema and I felt like this was the worst way to get her into that kind of stuff. Maybe the film is less cringy, but that trailer...
Click to expand...
Having witnessed the film yesterday evening, the actual experience will leave you cringing from beginning to end with the first-person gimmick carrying over the same faults as a majority of absent-minded shooters while operating with an adolescent sense of humor gunning for the male fantasy like a chest-beating brute. It's an unabashed special-effects extravaganza without a doubt, but the absolute absence of character development and the table napkin script falters with contextualizing every proceeding parkour stunt with the next set-piece. Much like how the visual feast of The Order: 1886 would've been better suited as a motion picture or interactive drama, Hardcore Henry would've easily been translated to the gaming realm at the reality of being another forgettable shooter on Activision's resumé.

Honestly, the perspective shtick isn't quite revolutionary when it's a mere off-shoot of found footage hits, like The Blair Witch or Cloverfield for example, where "cameraman" characters conveniently hold the camcorder to their face at all times in hope of capturing pivotal moments at the cost of lacking common sense to put it down when danger arises. Granted Hardcore does advance with the first-person illusion over these predecessors with the GoPro headset, perhaps even the new standard, but it follows in the weather-worn legacy of video games which have riddled the FPS foundation into dilapidated, bullet-hole ruin as an actual mainstream genre. It needs to provide more than an onslaught of Bay-esque explosions if you're going to hinge on a trick to grasp a viewer's attention. How could striving for clever dialogue or charismatic acting (minus Copley) be detrimental obstacles for a film like this? I guess Mad Max: Fury Road and Wolfenstein: The New Order are truly rare breeds on the spectrum. Another critical note, why have a silent protagonist when you ultimately go out of your way to remind the audience that you're not fulfilling the lead role, especially when putting a face to the character near the end of the film? It's a horrendous storytelling device from my perspective. Valve and Nintendo at least supplement good gameplay in contrast to players doing all the leg work with slapping their own personalities behind the avatars of Gordon Freeman and Link respectively. Although I appreciate the spectacle as an obvious labor of love for an expensive SFX stunt reel, the film doesn't aspire beyond the hurdles of contemporary shooters and it doesn't quite bode well for motion pictures when virtual reality increasingly feels more appropriated to a living room with a game controller over an experience best fit for an amusement park.
 
Better spend the time watching The King of Kong.

11111111111111.jpg
 
It was originally a Kickstarter and the director did that awesome FPS music video years ago. Looks good and most of the fights are practical. He wears an insane camera to do the stunts.
 
GodzillaDB said:
Having witnessed the film yesterday evening, the actual experience will leave you cringing from beginning to end with the first-person gimmick carrying over the same faults as a majority of absent-minded shooters while operating with an adolescent sense of humor gunning for the male fantasy like a chest-beating brute. It's an unabashed special-effects extravaganza without a doubt, but the absolute absence of character development and the table napkin script falters with contextualizing every proceeding parkour stunt with the next set-piece. Much like how the visual feast of The Order: 1886 would've been better suited as a motion picture or interactive drama, Hardcore Henry would've easily been translated to the gaming realm at the reality of being another forgettable shooter on Activision's resumé.

Honestly, the perspective shtick isn't quite revolutionary when it's a mere off-shoot of found footage hits, like The Blair Witch or Cloverfield for example, where "cameraman" characters conveniently hold the camcorder to their face at all times in hope of capturing pivotal moments at the cost of lacking common sense to put it down when danger arises. Granted Hardcore does advance with the first-person illusion over these predecessors with the GoPro headset, perhaps even the new standard, but it follows in the weather-worn legacy of video games which have riddled the FPS foundation into dilapidated, bullet-hole ruin as an actual mainstream genre. It needs to provide more than an onslaught of Bay-esque explosions if you're going to hinge on a trick to grasp a viewer's attention. How could striving for clever dialogue or charismatic acting (minus Copley) be detrimental obstacles for a film like this? I guess Mad Max: Fury Road and Wolfenstein: The New Order are truly rare breeds on the spectrum. Another critical note, why have a silent protagonist when you ultimately go out of your way to remind the audience that you're not fulfilling the lead role, especially when putting a face to the character near the end of the film? It's a horrendous storytelling device from my perspective. Valve and Nintendo at least supplement good gameplay in contrast to players doing all the leg work with slapping their own personalities behind the avatars of Gordon Freeman and Link respectively. Although I appreciate the spectacle as an obvious labor of love for an expensive SFX stunt reel, the film doesn't aspire beyond the hurdles of contemporary shooters and it doesn't quite bode well for motion pictures when virtual reality increasingly feels more appropriated to a living room with a game controller over an experience best fit for an amusement park.
Click to expand...

Hardcore Henry as a game is basically SUPERHOT. Which is funny as SUPERHOT was inspired by the music video. SUPERHOT is bloody great (a GOTY even) and has a much more interesting subversive story about player control.

Wolfenstein TNO is indeed rare as a FPS where you actually care about the characters.
 
If you love watching someone else play Video Games then you will most likely love Hardcore Henry

is what you should've wrote
 
It looks really bad. If I wanted an over the top FPS action experience I'm just going to play one, not watch it.

And if I want to watch a movie there are much better choices than Hardcore Henry.
 
kiguel182 said:
It looks really bad. If I wanted an over the top FPS action experience I'm just going to play one, not watch it.

And if I want to watch a movie there are much better choices than Hardcore Henry.
Click to expand...

But are they first person? Balls to the wall action after the first 10 minutes? This movie stands on it's own.
 
I disagree so, so, sooo much with that premise.

I love video games. I hated and was bored to tears at the same time by Harcore Henry. Your love for one thing has nothing to do with how much you'd like the other.

I feel like everyone who doesn't actually play a lot video games would immediatly make the connection, that gaming fans would have to love it - simply because it represents the stereotype of a video game so well. It has little to no plot, no character growth, no real dialogues, no taste - it's just a 13-year-old screaming "YEAH BRO! ACTION! ISN'T THIS AWESOME?! WOMEN IN SKINNY LEATHER SUITS! WHY? THE FUCK DO IT CARE?! HARDCORE!!!" in my ear for 90 minutes, without any finesse, any skill or sense for action.

Listen, I love action movies. The Raid 2 is one of my favorite movies of all time. Because the action scenes are absolutely incredibly choreographed and shot. The action is Hardcore Henry is none of these things. The shootouts are boring. They work exactly like you would First Person Shootouts expect to work. Henry shoots and someone a few meters away from him falls over. There is nothing interesting happen there. It's always the same perspective and thus, every shootout looks and feels the same. It's cool for the first 90 seconds. Then it's not.

The brawls are way, way worse. Because the first person camera makes it actually impossible for you to notice any kind of choreography. It's just people and hands and bodies flailing at the camera while the camera contionously shakes up and down and left and right and never gives you any time to actually process or understand who is where doing what. It's just motion. I heard comparisons to The Raid in a video a few days ago and that actually hurt my soul a little bit, because every little punch is so incredibly well directed and choreographed. None of that is happening in Hardcore Henry - or if it is, you cannot see it.

Worst of all, the movie betrays its premise over and over again. There are SO many cuts in the middle of fights or to end chase scenes. Henry is running away from a police officer, it feels like the chase is still on and then CUT and he is somewhere else and everything's fine. Henry is fighing a bunch of goons, punches one and CUT then is already in the process of punching another one and CUT is getting punched and CUT stands on his feet again. It actively goes against what the movie was trying to achieve with its perspective.

The plot actually made it worse, since the movie spends quite a bit of time on it and it's so incredibly boring. There is nothing there. Absolutely 100% nothing. There is a bad guy with superpowers. He is bad. Kill that guy. But the movie doesn't play with that stupid premise in a fun way, Crank-style, but treats it like any other movie would treat its plot. Like I should actually feel for the characters. And then there are all of these moments where the filmmakers just try sooooo fucking hard to be HARDCORE! "Hey man! What would be Hardcore? Maybe, uh, women with swords in leathersuits? HARDCORE!". So Henry is fighting (in a brothel with tits everyhwere of course because thats HARDCORE!) and out of fucking nowhere those two leather-ninjas walk into frame, say two things and then proceed to do absolutely fucking nothing the rest of the film. I'm not kidding you: Someone sitting in front of me literally had this reaction when those women walked into frame:

GpcXzXE.gif


The movie only ran for 90 minutes but to me it felt like more than 2 hours because it simply repeated itself over and over and over again. The cool scenes you see in the trailer? Those are ALL of the cool scenes. Pretty much EVERYTHING that's not regular punching and shooting is in that one trailer, which I found to look pretty cool. And that's really the impression I came away with: This First-Person-Stuff lends itself pretty well to a 2 minute trailer or even a 5 minute short movie. Turn it into a 90 minute movie however and it turns into an untter borefest. Not a fun, stupid movie. Just a confusing mess.
 
I saw it a few days ago, and just didn't find it enjoyable. The cuts from scene to scene ( or within a scene ) are very jarring, as you kind of expect a continuous flow due to the POV perspective. The fight-scenes are usually difficult to follow due to all the flailing and the camera sweeping left and right with what feels like an unnatural speed.

The only really enjoyable part is Sharlto Copley, and there is one particularly amazing scene involving him. You'll know what scene I mean once you see it.
 
Gamers hate Hardcore Henry. Movie audiences love Hardcore Henry.

Seems to be the general consensus. I mean, I get it. We play a lot of FPS games. Everything this movie does we've seen it copied in numerous other games a thousand times. For others it's become tiresome while for people like me I see this movie using what is essentially a gimmick to achieve something a little new in the medium. I also like when a movie just embraces it's stupid shit. I was able to enjoy it more knowing that the plot is purely throw away. The creators knew what they were making and how far they could take it. It's 90 minutes for a reason.

SilentRob said:
I disagree so, so, sooo much with that premise.

I love video games. I hated and was bored to tears at the same time by Harcore Henry. Your love for one thing has nothing to do with how much you'd like the other.

I feel like everyone who doesn't actually play a lot video games would immediatly make the connection, that gaming fans would have to love it - simply because it represents the stereotype of a video game so well. It has little to no plot, no character growth, no real dialogues, no taste - it's just a 13-year-old screaming "YEAH BRO! ACTION! ISN'T THIS AWESOME?! WOMEN IN SKINNY LEATHER SUITS! WHY? THE FUCK DO IT CARE?! HARDCORE!!!" in my ear for 90 minutes, without any finesse, any skill or sense for action.

Listen, I love action movies. The Raid 2 is one of my favorite movies of all time. Because the action scenes are absolutely incredibly choreographed and shot. The action is Hardcore Henry is none of these things. The shootouts are boring. They work exactly like you would First Person Shootouts expect to work. Henry shoots and someone a few meters away from him falls over. There is nothing interesting happen there. It's always the same perspective and thus, every shootout looks and feels the same. It's cool for the first 90 seconds. Then it's not.

The brawls are way, way worse. Because the first person camera makes it actually impossible for you to notice any kind of choreography. It's just people and hands and bodies flailing at the camera while the camera contionously shakes up and down and left and right and never gives you any time to actually process or understand who is where doing what. It's just motion. I heard comparisons to The Raid in a video a few days ago and that actually hurt my soul a little bit, because every little punch is so incredibly well directed and choreographed. None of that is happening in Hardcore Henry - or if it is, you cannot see it.

Worst of all, the movie betrays its premise over and over again. There are SO many cuts in the middle of fights or to end chase scenes. Henry is running away from a police officer, it feels like the chase is still on and then CUT and he is somewhere else and everything's fine. Henry is fighing a bunch of goons, punches one and CUT then is already in the process of punching another one and CUT is getting punched and CUT stands on his feet again. It actively goes against what the movie was trying to achieve with its perspective.

The plot actually made it worse, since the movie spends quite a bit of time on it and it's so incredibly boring. There is nothing there. Absolutely 100% nothing. There is a bad guy with superpowers. He is bad. Kill that guy. But the movie doesn't play with that stupid premise in a fun way, Crank-style, but treats it like any other movie would treat its plot. Like I should actually feel for the characters. And then there are all of these moments where the filmmakers just try sooooo fucking hard to be HARDCORE! "Hey man! What would be Hardcore? Maybe, uh, women with swords in leathersuits? HARDCORE!". So Henry is fighting (in a brothel with tits everyhwere of course because thats HARDCORE!) and out of fucking nowhere those two leather-ninjas walk into frame, say two things and then proceed to do absolutely fucking nothing the rest of the film. I'm not kidding you: Someone sitting in front of me literally had this reaction when those women walked into frame:

GpcXzXE.gif


The movie only ran for 90 minutes but to me it felt like more than 2 hours because it simply repeated itself over and over and over again. The cool scenes you see in the trailer? Those are ALL of the cool scenes. Pretty much EVERYTHING that's not regular punching and shooting is in that one trailer, which I found to look pretty cool. And that's really the impression I came away with: This First-Person-Stuff lends itself pretty well to a 2 minute trailer or even a 5 minute short movie. Turn it into a 90 minute movie however and it turns into an untter borefest. Not a fun, stupid movie. Just a confusing mess.
Click to expand...
I think you took the plot way too seriously than the filmmakers wanted you to.

Sharlto Copley's character dying and coming back under a different persona should have told you what you were in for.
 
Lé Blade Runner;200763346 said:
I saw it a few days ago, and just didn't find it enjoyable. The cuts from scene to scene ( or within a scene ) are very jarring, as you kind of expect a continuous flow due to the POV perspective. The fight-scenes are usually difficult to follow due to all the flailing and the camera sweeping left and right with what feels like an unnatural speed.

The only really enjoyable part is Sharlto Copley, and there is one particularly amazing scene involving him. You'll know what scene I mean once you see it.
Click to expand...

thats HUGELY disappointing, i was honestly expecting a continuous experience without cuts... i mean if youre going for a first person experience, youd think that was a requirement... was really hoping for a realtime film. ah well.
 
ElBoxyBrown said:
I think you took the plot way too seriously than the filmmakers wanted you to.
Click to expand...

It has a Cinemascore of "B", which is shares with such classics as Catwoman and Elektra. It's by no means a positive score. So I don't know how much merit that "movie audiences love it" narrative really holds.


ElBoxyBrown said:
I think you took the plot way too seriously than the filmmakers wanted you to.

Sharlto Copley's character dying and coming back under a different persona should have told you what you were in for.
Click to expand...

I didn't take anything seriously in this movie, I just sighed really hard whenever the movie wanted me to feel actual emotions for any character at all. Which happened quite a few times.
 
SilentRob said:
It has a Cinemascore of "B", which is shares with such classics as Catwoman and Elektra. It's by no means a positive score. So I don't know how much merit that "movie audiences love it" narrative really holds.




I didn't take anything seriously in this movie, I just sighed really hard whenever the movie wanted me to feel actual emotions for any character at all. Which happened quite a few times.
Click to expand...

The movie only had two tender moments scenes and it involved Sharlto Copley. The rest could be easily laughed off. The movie is what it is. Really divisive.

Also Crank has a C+. That movie is too good for a C+.

Edit: 10 Cloverfield Lane has a B-? Fuck Cinemascore.

chiv said:
thats HUGELY disappointing, i was honestly expecting a continuous experience without cuts... i mean if youre going for a first person experience, youd think that was a requirement... was really hoping for a realtime film. ah well.
Click to expand...

It has quick cuts. Mostly so you don't have to see Henry walk for minutes to his location.
 
Just play Superhot's campaign, far more exciting combat scenarios and more fun to pull off than this. No misogyny either. Props to the stunt actors though.
 
I don't get "balls to the walls" action movies these days.

Back in the day, shitty B movie with Arny was were you get your "action for the action sake" fix by default. These days there are entire youtube channels doing all kinds of balls to the walls action without any pesky context, if that's your thing. Why waste money on an entire movie that is essentially driven but what is best served in shorter more focused segments anyway?
Why not ask for at least some substance?





tl:dr there's plenty of dumb action on youtube for free, dumb action movies with no substance are outdaed as a concept.
 
Messofanego said:
Haha. It's like gamers don't deserve to have standards.

Comparing Hardcore Henry to Raid, Crank, or Shoot Em Up is an insult to those movies.
Click to expand...

Have you actually watched Hardcore Henry though or you just making snap judgements already ?


Hentailover said:
I don't get "balls to the walls" action movies these days.

Back in the day, shitty B movie with Arny was were you get your "action for the action sake" fix by default. These days there are entire youtube channels doing all kinds of balls to the walls action without any pesky context, if that's your thing. Why waste money on an entire movie that is essentially driven but what is best served in shorter more focused segments anyway?
Why not ask for at least some substance?


tl:dr there's plenty of dumb action on youtube for free, dumb action movies with no substance are outdaed as a concept.
Click to expand...

Don't talk a load of shite. You don't speak for everyone.
 
Hentailover said:
I don't get "balls to the walls" action movies these days.

Back in the day, shitty B movie with Arny was were you get your "action for the action sake" fix by default. These days there are entire youtube channels doing all kinds of balls to the walls action without any pesky context, if that's your thing. Why waste money on an entire movie that is essentially driven but what is best served in shorter more focused segments anyway?
Why not ask for at least some substance?





tl:dr there's plenty of dumb action on youtube for free, dumb action movies with no substance are outdaed as a concept.
Click to expand...
At the end of the day we still want some narrative reason in our action movies no matter how dumb it is. Watching a 2 minutes action scene done by a youtuber is fine but it's not fulfilling. Sometimes you want more and/or are just curious what something that was done on youtube look like on the big screen and lasted more than an hour. Sure, it can backfire but for this movie they were able to accomplish the novelty of filming in first person on a much larger scale.
 
Messofanego said:
Movie is out, of course I have. Where's the "snap" judgment? You haven't, though.
Click to expand...

Very true! I apologise as I (mistakenly) thought you hadn't seen it and were just judging it off other peoples opinions, plus that came across more snide than I meant to. I just don't see HH being any worse off than The Raid, Crank or Shoot Em Up in terms of depth. Those films are about as deep as a puddle but I love them all purely due to the action/stunts etc. Now whether or not I can take a 90min film from a first person perspective is another matter.... Hell a lot of friends of mine dislike The Raid 2 as it actually tries to tell a story with characters :P
 
Big_Al said:
Very true! I apologise as I (mistakenly) thought you hadn't seen it and were just judging it off other peoples opinions, plus that came across more snide than I meant to. I just don't see HH being any worse off than The Raid, Crank or Shoot Em Up in terms of depth. Those films are about as deep as a puddle but I love them all purely due to the action/stunts etc. Now whether or not I can take a 90min film from a first person perspective is another matter.... Hell a lot of friends of mine dislike The Raid 2 as it actually tries to tell a story with characters :P
Click to expand...

To be fair to your friends the story was arguably the weakest part of The Raid 2. Especially considering that the first movie had a simple premise that did not slow down the action once it started.
 
So reading all thread, people who havent watch it are already hating the movie, while the majority of people that watched are saying is quite a fun action over the top movie.
Yeah, I thibk im goibg to give the movie a chance.
Iquite liked shootem up so I will probably like this from what Im hearing.

TheSpoiler said:
How much are they paying you, OP?
Click to expand...
Seems the studio is paying all the people that have watch the movie then. What a despicable thing...
 
Isn't this more like a "If you like over the top FPS games you will most likely love Hardcore Henry"?

To me a movie like Scott Pilgrim vs the World seems to have a lot more subtle video game references and love for the medium in general.
 
ElBoxyBrown said:
The movie only had two tender moments scenes and it involved Sharlto Copley. The rest could be easily laughed off. The movie is what it is. Really divisive.

Also Crank has a C+. That movie is too good for a C+.

Edit: 10 Cloverfield Lane has a B-? Fuck Cinemascore.



It has quick cuts. Mostly so you don't have to see Henry walk for minutes to his location.
Click to expand...

It has quick cuts within scenes as well, as a stylistic choice ( I guess ). A bit like lag in FPS games - you look left and suddenly you're a few steps ahead and looking to the right. Those were the worst. Bigger cuts happened during chase-scenes as well, and you'd expect them - at least - to flow continuously. They might not bother everyone, but they certainly bothered me.
 
GodzillaDB said:
Having witnessed the film yesterday evening, the actual experience will leave you cringing from beginning to end with the first-person gimmick carrying over the same faults as a majority of absent-minded shooters while operating with an adolescent sense of humor gunning for the male fantasy like a chest-beating brute. It's an unabashed special-effects extravaganza without a doubt, but the absolute absence of character development and the table napkin script falters with contextualizing every proceeding parkour stunt with the next set-piece. Much like how the visual feast of The Order: 1886 would've been better suited as a motion picture or interactive drama, Hardcore Henry would've easily been translated to the gaming realm at the reality of being another forgettable shooter on Activision's resumé.

Honestly, the perspective shtick isn't quite revolutionary when it's a mere off-shoot of found footage hits, like The Blair Witch or Cloverfield for example, where "cameraman" characters conveniently hold the camcorder to their face at all times in hope of capturing pivotal moments at the cost of lacking common sense to put it down when danger arises. Granted Hardcore does advance with the first-person illusion over these predecessors with the GoPro headset, perhaps even the new standard, but it follows in the weather-worn legacy of video games which have riddled the FPS foundation into dilapidated, bullet-hole ruin as an actual mainstream genre. It needs to provide more than an onslaught of Bay-esque explosions if you're going to hinge on a trick to grasp a viewer's attention. How could striving for clever dialogue or charismatic acting (minus Copley) be detrimental obstacles for a film like this? I guess Mad Max: Fury Road and Wolfenstein: The New Order are truly rare breeds on the spectrum. Another critical note, why have a silent protagonist when you ultimately go out of your way to remind the audience that you're not fulfilling the lead role, especially when putting a face to the character near the end of the film? It's a horrendous storytelling device from my perspective. Valve and Nintendo at least supplement good gameplay in contrast to players doing all the leg work with slapping their own personalities behind the avatars of Gordon Freeman and Link respectively. Although I appreciate the spectacle as an obvious labor of love for an expensive SFX stunt reel, the film doesn't aspire beyond the hurdles of contemporary shooters and it doesn't quite bode well for motion pictures when virtual reality increasingly feels more appropriated to a living room with a game controller over an experience best fit for an amusement park.
Click to expand...

I actually kind of enjoyed the movie and I think this is a super accurate summation. Well put too.
 
It's possible to love computer games without giving a shit about FPS games.

Dragon Puncher said:
Isn't this more like a "If you like over the top FPS games you will most likely love Hardcore Henry"?

To me a movie like Scott Pilgrim vs the World seems to have a lot more subtle video game references and love for the medium in general.
Click to expand...

This. I'm sure there's a healthy chunk of players to whom shooters are the be-all and end-all of gaming though.
 
Armadilo said:
I just finished watching the film and I can't stop smiling. This was like the perfect Video Game film. FPS a genre that I adore and this movie is just brilliant as it felt like a Video Game.

If you have the chance to see it, go and see it!
-----
More_Badass knows how to explain it
Click to expand...

This would sharpen you up and make you ready for a bit of the old ultraviolence.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

I just love video games
Opinion  2
54
639
Sooner replied
Video Game Design Trends that You Love and that You Hate
2
52
895
Susurrus replied
Remakes You Would Love To See?
2
73
838
uncreativename replied
What Do You Love or Hate About Indie Games?"l
Opinion  2
54
700
Guilty_AI replied
I'll bet that Fred Tatasciore voice acted in at least one game that you love
19
272
MagnetoWasRight replied
Top Bottom