Hardcore Henry

High Voltage was like tuning the stereo up to eleven, pushing the boundaries of crudity and exaggeration. It makes John Woo and Brian De Palma movies combined look like Disney flicks. It was a freaking brilliant movie for adrenaline junkies like myself, but I'd admit that movies like that and Hardcore Henry might be too, pardon the pun, hardcore for mainstream audiences.

I like to think of the movie Shoot'Em Up for comparison. Both movies have Looney Tunes-style logic and hyperbolic humor. Something that pushes the limit of what is normal and logical can be really fun for a kid like me, since normal and mundane can be so boring for me. That's one reason I enjoy hyperbole - it often pushes past what is normal and hackneyed. Sure, there are repetitive hyperbole out there, but when it gets good, like John Wick, it can provide great escapism.

One problem with these kind of movies though - they're like rubbers, good for one-time-use only. Once you've revealed what's in the magic box, the element of surprise in the hyperbole is gone and repetitive viewing can get stale.

Even so, it takes more than just "pushing boundaries" for the sake of to make a worthwhile film. Don't assume that the only reason people might not like it is because it's "too hardcore", whatever that means. Deadpool made over half a billion dollars and it's definitely on the same crudely violent wavelength as something like Crank: High Voltage.

I'd say even a singular viewing can get stale, especially when you see stuff like a Godzilla parody or a chat show dream sequence and realise that the filmmakers really don't have that many ideas to pad out a carbon-copy sequel (it's almost like The Hangover Part II in that regard). Also, if a film can be described as disposable - even by someone who likes it - then it doesn't say for much for its overall quality.

__________________
Iro's Top 100 Movies v3.0

Different strokes for different folks, mate. Deadpool is obviously a different kind of hyperbole than Crank and Shoot'Em Up. Adrenaline's the key here. Deadpool's more satirical than adrenaline-focused. Crank is more like porn for junkies. Don't assume there's no merit for such films just because the entertainment's not catered to your "wavelength", whatever that means.


As I can say for prostitutes and porn, but they still serve their entertainment value.

I genuinely think Crank is a great film in its own right, but High Voltage missed its mark completely imo.

Well I think it was a jolly good time for what it's worth. It's rare to see such fine pieces of escapism in Hollywood, surprisingly. I mean, Transformers is one thing, but it's no hyperbole. CGI robots bashing each other up hyperbole does not make. Hyperbole's an art, and the art of exaggeration takes more than just cool special effects.

This looks awful. Just watching the trailer gave me a headache.

__________________

Copying the phrases I used and misinterpreting the context in which I used the word "wavelength" does not automatically lend any more strength to your argument. Besides, It's not like I actually liked Deadpool that much in the first place and am not about to bother defending it.

I've got no love for Transformers, but I don't reckon that Crank: High Voltage is automatically on a higher level of entertainment simply because it guns for a hard R and constantly pushes for more graphically confrontational content in the process. If hyperbole and exaggeration can be considered art, then that doesn't necessarily mean that the art being made will be good simply by virtue of being considered art.

No, probably not, but it matters not. Your kind of 'arguing' is pointless and annoying at best. There's no end to it. I could assure you that if you perpetuate in your strange tirade against Crank, we'd be doing this all day. That being said, there's little need for arguing about why I enjoy one film and I certainly do not need to answer to anyone in my expression of said enjoyment, regardless of what certain delusional people consider to be "objective criticism" when it comes to something as subjective as film. It's ludicrous. Bah.


Never said anything about it being better, at least certainly not "better" in your twisted definition. No, I merely meant that hyperbole is an artform that Transformers movies weren't. The usage of the term "art" in my prior context didn't denote any sign of flattery, but was merely a mean of categorical description. To put it in simpler terms, I merely meant that Transformers movies were a totally different kind of eye-candy, even if such a simplified statement isn't entirely accurate.

Now, if you're quite done criticising a movie that's not even the one in discussion, we should move on.

Would have been better if they had a score and a life bar in corner of the screen.

Somebody finally understands the charm of the movie.

Perhaps you do have a point about the nature of subjectivity, but that doesn't mean your subjective opinions are exempt from being challenged in one way or another, and it certainly doesn't help your case to act like people who disagree with you are delusional. If that's your response to someone offering you an alternative point of view, I'm not sure how much you're going to get out of the discussions on this board.

Possibly a misinterpretation on my part, but for you to imply that it's a rare/fine piece of escapism and then compare it against Transformers does suggest that you're putting down Transformers in the process.

It's your kind of 'challenge' that sparks flame wars on YouTube. But hey, keep it up. I'm sure there's a gold medal waiting for you somewhere.

And I never said you were delusional. Sure, it might have seemed I implied it, but that's merely your inference, as far as I'm concerned. I merely said that those who treat the enjoyment of a film to be objective can seem kinda delusional in my honest observation. Not pointing fingers towards anyone, as far as I recall.


It is a fine piece of escapism to me, I'd reemphasize. It's also a different kind of escapism from Transformers. People escape to Transformers for one reason, I escaped to Crank for another.

It's your kind of insult-based rhetoric that undermines the credibility of your arguments.

Who else would you be referring to when you mention "certain" people are delusional (which is not a word to be used so flippantly) for thinking in a particular way and I'm the only one who's actually expressed such a viewpoint in this thread? That's Passive Aggression 101 right there, and the fact that you're doubling down on it by acting like I'm merely inferring any implied reference to me and then throwing a smiley in for good measure...that's just poor form in quite a few ways.

Say what you will. I don't recall needing to prove to you anything, nor could I comprehend your obsession with credibility and arguments and proving others wrong (as fascinating as it is). You must be fun on YouTube.

I don't recall either hurling any insults, at least intentional ones. I'm sure if you feel secure enough in your so-called credibility, you won't need to feel insulted.


Persisting this off-topic discussion is poor form.

Besides, I don't even comment on YouTube.

I agree.

Why, I was merely predicting your possible funness on YouTube, kind sir. You sure seem to belong to that lot. Care to continuing analyzing me with this quote as well? Seems your 'agreement' was hypocritical at best.

Your move. If you do truly wish to persist that is. But you agreed that we should stop, didn't you? Better prove your credibility.

I think I'm just going to lay out your possible intention in the open. I'm going to call this back and forth we're having... a game. And let's call this game, "Let's See Who Gets Banned First".

I think you've proved enough.

As did you. It was nice chatting with you. Not.

That's a joke, by the way, from Borat. In case you 'infer' the wrong thing again, aha.

This discussion is weird.

Borat? I think you need to sit down with Wayne and Garth.

__________________
5-time MoFo Award winner.