Watch a big Hollywood movie like Batman v Superman and it's easy to assume you have nothing in common with the people who make films.

Why? They clearly don't bootstrap. They clearly don't struggle constantly to balance their vision against ever-present financial constraints. They clearly don't operate in the world most entrepreneurs inhabit.

After all, anything that costs $250 million to make -- much less market, which in Hollywood often means an additional tens of millions of dollars in promotion and advertising -- bears no relation to the products or services you create or the businesses you try to build.

Except in this case.

The folks behind Hardcore Henry have a lot more in common with startups and entrepreneurs than with corporations and corporate suits. (In fact, you might be one of those people behind it: the movie was partly funded by a $250,000 Indiegogo campaign.)

For example, instead of using expensive cameras, all but a few minutes of the film were shot using GoPro Hero 3 cameras strapped to a rig that Ilya Naishuller, the director, and various stuntmen wore like a mask. The result is a film that takes place entirely from the perspective of the main character, Henry.

In short, it's a movie that looks and sounds like a first-person-shooter(FPS) video game. 

And if that description doesn't make sense, watching this will:

In another entrepreneurial parallel, Naishuller and Sharlto Copley (District 9) started with an idea they were committed to make come to life.

As Copley said on Chris Hardwick's Nerdist podcast,

"My experience of making this movie was the closest I've had to District 9. It was something you knew was going to be different, that you were going to push the boundaries... we had a tiny amount of money and we just knew there were people that wanted us to make this film.

"My whole mindset getting involved was, 'Let's see if we can do it.' I knew this was going to be like going back to film school, it was going to be incredibly difficult... you don't have enough money, you don't have enough time, and as you go you try to prove to people you're (overcoming) each boundary."

Another entrepreneurial parallel: the filmmakers not only had a vision for the final product, they also had a vision for and a commitment to the way they wanted to work.

For example, every stunt in the movie is real. In the trailer you see Henry throw a grenade into the top of the van, see it blow up underneath him, and see him land on a motorcycle -- all in one continuous take. Instead of using CGI to accomplish all or part of the sequence, "Henry" is attached to a crane that lifts him off the van and deposits him on the motorcycle.

The technical aspects alone of Hardcore Henry push the boundaries of filmmaking.

Did the stunts have to be performed that way? No. The filmmakers simply wanted to perform them that way because how they did the work was -- as it is for you -- just as important as the final product.

Forget "the ends justify the means"; in their case the means were a foundational component of the end.

And that end is a film like no other film you've seen -- and one that shouldn't be judged on traditional terms. It's different. It's unique (at least for now; expect to see first-person point of view used a lot more in the future.) Film historians will someday see Hardcore Henry as a key moment in the art of filmmaking the way Star Wars revolutionized the use of special effects and Who Framed Roger Rabbit introduced cartoon characters interacting directly with people. 

Is Hardcore Henry a good movie? The action is non-stop, the humor skews sophomoric (but then again so do I), and the number of "Wait, how did they do that?" moments is incredibly high. I liked it.

You -- especially if you love character development, subtlety, and nuance -- may not. And that's okay, because just like most successful products and services, a movie should never try to be all things to all people. If you like video games you'll probably love it; if you don't, you may not. 

Either way, though, you should respect the film, if only for the innovation and integrity with which it was made.

Again from the Nerdist podcast, here's Copley:

"I jumped on knowing we don't have enough money to make this film. We have enough money to prove that we can do certain things right and to experiment and explore, and we kept going and at each step we were able to convince people to give us a little more money... we really had to shoestring. By the end we needed finishing funds and we did the Indiegogo campaign."

"There was a discussion about whether we should do (the campaign) up front and we were like no, we really need to have something we really feel proud of for the people that wanted us to make it before we go and ask.

"We just didn't want to go and ask for money that we felt was going to let people down."

If that doesn't sound like a true entrepreneurial ethos, nothing does.