I can't say I felt any problem following it meself. I found the whole thing an absolute blast. And I did put it on expecting it to be absolutely diabolical. I was expecting soulless repetition like watching someone else play a video game. I only watched it because I felt a duty to because as you say, it's a novel approach, and I'm always interested in checking out and encouraging experimental filmmaking.

But despite being the same thing all the way through it was consistently inventive, genuinely funny and a little bit mental. It's not for everyone but it knew it's audience and went all out to please that audience. And when it comes to genre films I find that's generally the way to make the best film you can. It's something other countries do quite often with the likes of Brain Dead (Dead Alive) in New Zealand and John Woo films in Hong Kong, but Hollywood is rarely brave enough to commit money to. So when they do I really appreciate it.

@JustinJackFlash said:

I can't say I felt any problem following it meself. I found the whole thing an absolute blast. And I did put it on expecting it to be absolutely diabolical. I was expecting soulless repetition like watching someone else play a video game. I only watched it because I felt a duty to because as you say, it's a novel approach, and I'm always interested in checking out and encouraging experimental filmmaking.

But despite being the same thing all the way through it was consistently inventive, genuinely funny and a little bit mental. It's not for everyone but it knew it's audience and went all out to please that audience. And when it comes to genre films I find that's generally the way to make the best film you can. It's something other countries do quite often with the likes of Brain Dead (Dead Alive) in New Zealand and John Woo films in Hong Kong, but Hollywood is rarely brave enough to commit money to. So when they do I really appreciate it.

I hear you, mate - it's partly why I started this thread! The reviews are solid, but the box office was bad - its audience enjoyed it, but that audience wasn't wide enough to bring in more dollars.

What this first-person perspective space really needs is video stabilization. Shaky-cam was novel when it was new and different...then it was everywhere and was just annoying, and hard to "see" what the hell was going on. Anyone can strap a GoPro to their helmet and skateboard in traffic. The pros need to flex their resources and skills and give us a first-person jaunt with elegant long views, few cuts, and no shaking.

@DRDMovieMusings said:

@JustinJackFlash said:

I can't say I felt any problem following it meself. I found the whole thing an absolute blast. And I did put it on expecting it to be absolutely diabolical. I was expecting soulless repetition like watching someone else play a video game. I only watched it because I felt a duty to because as you say, it's a novel approach, and I'm always interested in checking out and encouraging experimental filmmaking.

But despite being the same thing all the way through it was consistently inventive, genuinely funny and a little bit mental. It's not for everyone but it knew it's audience and went all out to please that audience. And when it comes to genre films I find that's generally the way to make the best film you can. It's something other countries do quite often with the likes of Brain Dead (Dead Alive) in New Zealand and John Woo films in Hong Kong, but Hollywood is rarely brave enough to commit money to. So when they do I really appreciate it.

I hear you, mate - it's partly why I started this thread! The reviews are solid, but the box office was bad - its audience enjoyed it, but that audience wasn't wide enough to bring in more dollars.

I always thought both reviews and box office were bad. I remember the 2 film magazines I always used to read, Empire and Total Film, gave it 1 out of 5 and 3 out of 5. It was why I almost never watched it. But I checked the box office on IMDB earlier and I don't know if it's a mistake because it seems so hard to believe, but apparently it only cost 2 million to make and made 16 million. If true that's a phenomenal success. But how could you possibly do all that action on a 2 million budget? Why spend 200 million on all these CGI heavy films if you can do things practically for so cheap and turn such a profit?

What this first-person perspective space really needs is video stabilization. Shaky-cam was novel when it was new and different...then it was everywhere and was just annoying, and hard to "see" what the hell was going on. Anyone can strap a GoPro to their helmet and skateboard in traffic. The pros need to flex their resources and skills and give us a first-person jaunt with elegant long views, few cuts, and no shaking.

I can't really remember what the shaky cam was like in this, but yeah not everyone is Paul Greengrass. I like it when it's done well but it can be used too often these days.

@JustinJackFlash said:

@DRDMovieMusings said:

@JustinJackFlash said:

I can't say I felt any problem following it meself. I found the whole thing an absolute blast. And I did put it on expecting it to be absolutely diabolical. I was expecting soulless repetition like watching someone else play a video game. I only watched it because I felt a duty to because as you say, it's a novel approach, and I'm always interested in checking out and encouraging experimental filmmaking.

But despite being the same thing all the way through it was consistently inventive, genuinely funny and a little bit mental. It's not for everyone but it knew it's audience and went all out to please that audience. And when it comes to genre films I find that's generally the way to make the best film you can. It's something other countries do quite often with the likes of Brain Dead (Dead Alive) in New Zealand and John Woo films in Hong Kong, but Hollywood is rarely brave enough to commit money to. So when they do I really appreciate it.

I hear you, mate - it's partly why I started this thread! The reviews are solid, but the box office was bad - its audience enjoyed it, but that audience wasn't wide enough to bring in more dollars.

I always thought both reviews and box office were bad. I remember the 2 film magazines I always used to read, Empire and Total Film, gave it 1 out of 5 and 3 out of 5.

It's not uncommon for a movie to be initially panned by critics, only to gain a cult following and force critics to about-face and wax philosophical to try to rescue their credibility. The Thing is a sterling example. Anyway, Hardcore Henry viewer reviews are currently tracking ~63% on TMDb, which is pretty respectable.

It was why I almost never watched it.

Another reason to dismiss critics, see a movie, form your own opinion, then check out a few critical reviews and see what you agree or disagree with, and can learn. And, I do learn lots from critics and their insights...but I do not take their views wholesale. They are educated in film, all due respect, but they are also human beings with biases, too.

But I checked the box office on IMDB earlier and I don't know if it's a mistake because it seems so hard to believe, but apparently it only cost 2 million to make and made 16 million. If true that's a phenomenal success. But how could you possibly do all that action on a 2 million budget? Why spend 200 million on all these CGI heavy films if you can do things practically for so cheap and turn such a profit?

The numbers I saw are $10M budget pulling in $14M in revenue, which is hardly breaking even. Not good. Typically, box office needs to be 2x budget to be considered profitable. In my movie ROI database (1300 titles from 1926 to present), the average return is $4.11 revenue for each $1 of budget. Some of the greatest movies only managed to scrape ~$3 ROI, so box office isn't the best measure of a movie...but it is the one that producers watch keenly, because, if there's no ROI, there's little incentive. Making movies for art's sake, or to make a statement on some issue, is hard to do too often if there's no money coming in.

@DRDMovieMusings said:

It's not uncommon for a movie to be initially panned by critics, only to gain a cult following and force critics to about-face and wax philosophical to try to rescue their credibility. The Thing is a sterling example. Anyway, Hardcore Henry viewer reviews are currently tracking ~63% on TMDb, which is pretty respectable.

It was why I almost never watched it.

Another reason to dismiss critics, see a movie, form your own opinion, then check out a few critical reviews and see what you agree or disagree with, and can learn. And, I do learn lots from critics and their insights...but I do not take their views wholesale. They are educated in film, all due respect, but they are also human beings with biases, too.

Yeah, I don't take their views as gospel either. But there are so many films and tv shows that come out that I need some kind of filter. And also a lot of the time it pushes me to watch films I would not usually be interested in. But more recently I am dismissing critics and going by my own instinct more, especially as I find critics are getting less reliable and more biased as the years go by.

The numbers I saw are $10M budget pulling in $14M in revenue, which is hardly breaking even. Not good. Typically, box office needs to be 2x budget to be considered profitable. In my movie ROI database (1300 titles from 1926 to present), the average return is $4.11 revenue for each $1 of budget. Some of the greatest movies only managed to scrape ~$3 ROI, so box office isn't the best measure of a movie...but it is the one that producers watch keenly, because, if there's no ROI, there's little incentive. Making movies for art's sake, or to make a statement on some issue, is hard to do too often if there's no money coming in.

Yeah, I noticed it says 10 million on this site so no, it didn't do well. Still making a film like this on 10 mill is very impressive. Especially as the last avengers films cost 356 million.