geoced

I'm not gonna lie, when I saw the trailer for Hardcore Henry, I was enthusiastic ! As far as I know, this is the first time a full length feature film was entirely shot from a POV standpoint. I remember Doom's first person shooter scene made quite an impact back in 2005. In fact it's the only reason to remember that otherwise average movie ! Shooting that sequence was quite a challenge and it only lasted a few minutes ! Ten years later, the web is inundated with POV footage shot with GoPro cameras. The technology and quality have evolved to the point that a project like Hardcore Henry has become both conceivable and affordable ! But just because you can do it doesn't mean you should do it ! While it's admirable to try and bring something new to the action genre, the risk with POV cameras is to induce nausea for some of its viewers. A few scenes are usually okay, but a feature-length 90-minute movie ? On top of that, I was also worried that the first-person action sequences would be the movie's only redeeming quality, meaning that the plot would be almost non-existent and the movie would look like a video game.

So to summarize, Hardcore Henry had the potential to either become a ground-breaking film that sets a new bar for great action sequences (kind of like Crank and Cloverfield had a baby !), or be a terrible stomach-churning video game B-movie, as if Uwe Boll directed The Bourne Supremacy!

Unfortunately, the latter is closer to the truth. While I admit that I didn't feel sick at the end of the movie (which is an achievement in itself!), Hardcore Henry definitively suffers from its ridiculous story and dialogs, over-the-top action and cardboard cutout characters who seem to come straight from an 80's video game. All in all, it felt like I was watching a 90-minute cutscene, which is why I think this film will only appeal to hardcore FPS gamers who just want to see a transposition of their favorite game on the big screen. 5 out of 10.

I'm not a big fan of boxing/fighting movies as they tend to always have the same key plot points : an underdog fighter with personal/family issues must find a trainer, preferably one with unorthodox methods, in order to compete against the top contestant. He usually wins at the end of an exhausting fight, and in the process, makes peace with his past and proves that believing in yourself accomplishes miracles. We've seen it dozens of times, from the originals that started it all : Rocky and Raging Bull, to Million Dollar Baby, Cinderella Man and the more recent Southpaw and Creed. And yet, judging by the box office results and the number of Oscar nominations, it seems we and the industry can't get enough of it!

What makes a great fighting movie then ? What makes it stand out ? As we've seen, it's certainly not the story; it's not even the fight scenes themselves. It's how realistically the fighter goes from underdog to champion while working on his personal issues. The physical transformation must parallel an emotional journey. In short, it's the acting, which explains why these films are usually nominated for best performance awards.

Warrior is a great example of that. On top of great performances by Edgerton, Hardy and especially Nolte, the film introduces a few differences from the genre that will make it stick in your memory : instead of the usual boxer/trainer dynamics, we follow the rise of two estranged brothers and their father (yes, two outsiders is better than one !). And the combat sport is mixed martial arts, which is a nice change of pace and will probably help make MMA and the UFC more visible. Real UFC fights can be really violent and bloody, but Warrior doesn't suffer from its PG-13 rating, as it manages to portray the sheer brutality of the fights in a convincing way.

All in all, Warrior is a great surprise : even if, like me, combat sports are not your cup of tea, it will still move you! Warrior truly is an underrated movie that deserves its spot in IMDb's Top 250. 8 out of 10.