Hardcore Henry

[jenkins]

it's clearly influenced by videogmes but that doesn't bother me. i think the other side of the sea has been a bit ahead with the concept of POV cinema. the director here is Russian and named Ilya Naishuller. The Russian release date was 12 February 2015.

the music video that started this career:

link to where i heard about this:
http://www.aintitcool.com/node/73039

[jenkins]

April 8th release date

[polkablues]

I saw that trailer in the theater the other day, and I have to admit this looks fun as hell. I don't know if I'll hate myself for it later, but I'll absolutely go see this.

[Jeremy Blackman]

I'm not really a big action fan, but when something unique like Mad Max or The Raid or this comes along, I need to see it. Hopefully it's not too gross. It looks to be more fun than sadistic, so that's promising.

[jenkins]

this is maybe my current most anticipated movie (i have no idea what's coming out, i'm reading about sxsw now)

[Jeremy Blackman]

This opens tomorrow. It's definitely getting a mixed reception, with 50% positive reviews and an average 4.9 out of 10.

Critics are not satisfied by the story or characters. Maybe this is just a really niche thing, though.

[jenkins]

what does one want or expect when one leaves the theater? shall the issue of this movie's value be fully resolved in one's head now?

what did the audience contribute, what did my mood contribute, and what about this or that?

me, i like to avoid trailers and hearing about movies before i see them in general. this is allows my emotions to provide me my anchoring bias. and every bias comes with the threat of limited perspective, but i like how when i set my own anchoring bias i at least know that perspective was limited to me that day. my thoughts are between me and the movie.

i'm able to do this because people notice other people's blind-spots more than their own.

i don't think i'm engaging information, pro-innovation, recency, salience, overconfidence, or zero-risk bias.

i do think i'm engaging in selective perception.

so that's the most i'll every openly investigate my cognitive biases while reacting to a movie, because this task itself engages in a clustering illusion.

this is the movie:

Nearly entirely shot using GoPro Hero3 Black Edition cameras.

the artistic capabilities of pov have been entered, which has been the destiny of these cameras.

my fondest memory i'll guess to be when the sensation swept me, which was when running through the parking lot. i thought "how can there possibly be time for story now, when i'm running through the parking lot."

at the end of that scene the friend arrives. thank you. this movie isn't very realistic, it doesn't try to be. it's great the friend arrived then, and things always happen with the intention of moving the camera.

right when he opened the door in the airship and there wasn't a wooooshing noise is when i knew they were going to be openly imaginative. and i shoulda known that from the beginning, in retrospect.

between the parking lot and the airship they crash on the street, and i adored the city skyline behind the freeway. Russians arrive in this scene.

spoiler -- then later, the guy operates multiple body forms while sitting in his wheelchair. that. is. okay. that's great, i appreciate touches like that.

summary a person couldn't make this in their back yard. and i think it's cinema, i think it's dynamic on the big screen. i'd put it right below Tangerine and Victoria in terms of current digital artistry.

[Jeremy Blackman]

summary a person couldn't make this in their back yard. and i think it's cinema, i think it's dynamic on the big screen. i'd put it right below Tangerine and Victoria in terms of current digital artistry.

Good to hear.

At the risk of oversimplifying, do you think the trailer accurately sets expectations? Maybe critics aren't seeing the trailer. Maybe this is a movie that really needs your expectations to be in a specific place.

[jenkins]

i'm scanning rotten tomatoes squash quotes, these all equal "i can't hang worth shit"

A great movie fools you into thinking it's really happening. By trying to make us a part of the film itself, Hardcore Henry just keeps reminding us it's not.

I'm sure a lot of people will call Hardcore Henry "innovative" and "groundbreaking." And maybe it is. But it also feels more like a cool gimmick than a movie-and that gimmick gets old pretty fast.

First-person POV quickly gets old as the bodies stack and the story loses steam.

Director Ilya Naishuller has said that he originally thought a 90-minute feature using the same technique was a bad idea, based on little more than a gimmick. It turns out he was right, but that won't matter to certain audiences.

For about 90 seconds, the novel first-person-shooter point of view hits our bodies with an unexpected flood of adrenaline, in a heart-pounding rush. Trouble is, the chemical high doesn't last.

Hardcore Henry never aspires to rise above its one gimmick.

first of all, pov as a gimmick is being used as a critical availability heuristic. these fuckers are getting paid to spot the pov? bring the apocalypse instead, i say. then within critical setup there's the bandwagon. for story, there's a clear conservatism bias. i think the "tone" here is survivorship bias -- in terms of fight or flight, they want to wallop the movie. i clearly have a choice-supportive bas, and insist they're using the pov quality as an availability heuristic.

directly comparing this to a videogame, acting as if this is a videogame, thinking about videogames that much -- can't wait to hear what they say about women and ghostbusters (sarcasm)

You could go see "Hardcore Henry" - or you could gulp down a pint of vodka, load in "Grand Theft Auto," then strap the TV to your face and throw yourself down the stairs.

For the first time ever, a movie has actually done it. "Hardcore Henry" has precisely replicated the experience of watching someone else play a video game.

While its audacity is laudable, the film ultimately has all the thrill of watching someone else play a first-person-shooter video game.

this is somehow a squash, saying the movie has reason and shape

The story exists mainly to provide reason and shape for the frenzy of carnage: constant, numbing, and in the film's view at least, occasionally funny.

the positive quotes are more interesting, i think. is it because i like this movie that this sounds like the better conversation to me? i think: two eyes on the screen, one from the head and one from the heart

If action movies are meant to be stunning, Hardcore Henry can proudly take its place among the giants. Even better, it lets you stand with them.

Hardcore Henry doesn't just get under your skin, it gets behind your eyeballs and uses your head as its own cockpit. For hardcore thrills, Henry is your guy.

The relentless action flick Hardcore Henry is totally nuts and a lot of fun for freaks.

Naishuller's debut feature is a landmark of sorts, and a potent omen in this year of mass-marketed virtual reality.

If one can accept the story's video-game logic and cope with the kinetosis, "Hardcore" is often exhilaratingly extreme.

Only the tiniest, most basic elements of character, backstory and even narrative are offered on the run in a movie whose 95% frantic-action composition has no need or breathing space for more.