User Reviews

Sandra Bullock is my favorite actress..... But this movie was so horrible, I couldn't help but chuckle throughout the movie in disbelief that I was actually watching something so crappy. Ha ha. The audio editing is horrible, They try too hard to come up with creative camera angles. Because they're just weird and stupid. The script sucked. Acting was horrible, storyline not very good. Very unrealistic, even for a movie. But it is a 20 year old movie..... so I'll give it a bonus point for that. And yeah, the music was terrible. But we all got to start somewhere. And submitting these things is such a hassle..... 10 line minimum... bother. Well now I know why I couldn't find this movie in the movie store.... I had to purchase it offline to see it... good thing it was only $.58 cents.... even though shipping was $2.59. Oh well.... I don't recommend anyone wasting their time and money seeing this film...

WAIT until you've watched most of all other films ever released, wait a year, then watch this when you're ready for something with such low production values it that will not challenge anybody's imagination.

I agree that whoever rated this movie as a ten-star production has to be doing it to skew the data. Anything above 8 would be odd.

Nice to see the very young Sandy Bullock in her poofy hair for the short time she was featured, though she overdid the New Yorker accent but other times her southern (Virginia & NC) accent did sneak through. Ancient history for this accomplished actress who has grown so much since this film.

The DVD I rented had two bonus features, a mini-bio section that only featured Sandra's bio - taken verbatim from IMDb. It also had a Trivia Quiz as a bonus - 3 questions. Hope you get them all right!

I give it a 2 - I reserve a 1 rating for Guy Ritchie and Woody Allen films. We don't even remember what this movie was about. The only thing we recall is one gunshot scene where the actors drop to the ground, roll to the other side of a hallway or something and then get back up shooting. It was like watching 80-year-olds with 2 broken legs trying to perform the 'stunts'. Also, when the characters were driving in a truck, the engine noise (or radio? can't recall) would vanish entirely when the actors were talking.

And, like others, we bought it because of the Sandra Bullock front cover. very sad, very bad.

I hafta watch crap like this all the way through to see if there are any redeemable qualities whatsoever to justify including it in my clients' video libraries. Don't you watch this, not even a minute of it, unless someone has a gun to your head. You will, as I did, moan & groan at least 500 times, and pray that one of the one- dimensional characters, all played by really bad actors, would turn and shoot you dead.

Even if you are the biggest Sandra Bullock fan in the world, it is not worth even watching the two or three short scenes in which she appears.

I want to kick the asses of the sleazy marketing people who put Sandra's huge picture on the face of this DVD box and have them thrown in jail for mugging me or something like that. I really wish I had the chance to read a review of this film before I bought it.

Please, give me a call, and I will pay you $10 to remove this movie immediately from my inventory before it stinks up the whole place! (just kidding--please don't call)

But certainly a serious contender for one of the worst 10 of all time.

I got this DVD cheap, with Sandra Bullock as headliner on the case. This is false advertising - she's on-screen for almost 10 minutes of the movie.

On the other hand, there was no other selling point for this movie - the dialog was horrible, the editing was apparently done by someone who was strung out on Quaaludes, the directing was ... well, let's just say that my 14-yo daughter could do better, but I hope she never sees such faint praise from me. It's possible that the family cat could have done better.

Sandra does a creditable job for a first film, in the short time she's on-screen - and that's the only redeeming quality of this film. Stupid story, poorly written, and transferred to film as only a 7th-grade Media class should be able to do.

In short, this is dreck.

If you have ever shopped at Wal-Mart, then you probably know about the $5 DVD bin that sits by the electronics department. Well, that is where I found this movie. However, I was tricked! You see, the cover of this particular DVD had a big picture of Sandy Bullock on it and even listed her name as a "headliner". I picked it up thinking, "Wow, I didn't know Sandra Bullock did this movie?!?!" So I was pumped to go home and watch a cool Sandra Bullock movie. Much to my surprise, Ms. Bullock had a small role.....very small role. She plays the girlfriend of the son of the CIA agent. Talk about supporting actress. She may have had no more than 2 lines in the movie. Besides being deceived of this being a Bullock flick, I looked past that and I continued to watch an "action-packed" film. Negative! At one point, for special effects, a gun was taped to the camera. You gotta watch it to laugh at what horrible really is.

I won't go into detail about why this movie deserves an awful rating, plenty of other people have already done that. Suffice it to say that out of the over 400 movies that I've owned on DVD, this is the ONLY one that I got rid of- it was so worthless that I couldn't see ever wanting to watch ANY of it again.

However, I do have a comment on the ridiculously high average rating of 2.9 (as of 3-15-06). While skimming through the 4 pages of reviews I saw no rating higher than 3 stars. Looking at the voting history, 78% of users rated the movie as 4 stars or less. It looks to me like a few people are stuffing the ballot box to keep this movie off of the IMDb "bottom 100" list. It would be interesting to see how many of the 30 users who rated this movie as 10 stars (none of who wrote a review of the movie) are actual active users.

Don't be fooled, this movie isn't worth your time.

This movie is from the 80s, but it looks like it was made in the stone age. The effects are way too cheesy. My copy has Sandra Bullock on the cover, which was why I bought the movie. She was in the movie for about 5 minutes of total screentime. She would most likely deny all involvement.

In short, there is no part of this movie worth seeing, except to laugh at how bad it sucks. Rent this to see the worst film ever made, bar none.

This movie is #1 in the list of worst movies I have ever seen, with "Lessons for an Assassin" on the #2 spot.

The acting is lousy (sorry, Sandra Bullock, but even your performance was horrible!), the music score could have come from a bad x-rated movie and the story was downright ridiculous. It had this in common with a typical action movie: the dialogues were short and consisted mainly of one-syllable words. But contrary to the average action movie, there was no real action in this one. Boring.

The only reason I continued watching it was in the hopes that at one point, there would be at least one interesting scene in this movie ...

Thumbs down on this one.

Notable only as the acting debut of future big-time Hollywood starlet, Sandra Bullock, this ludicrous action flick is so full of holes that one might easily suspect termite infestation. The storyline is incomprehensible and very poorly thought out. The production values stink of cheese. In fact, a total LACK of production values would have been better...at least the film might have seemed grittier that way. The ADR is laughably bad and omni-present in the film. It's debatable as to whether or not ANY of the dialogue tracks from the actual shoot were used.

The performances are, for the most part, horrible, though there are a few exceptions. In those exceptions, however, the performances are undermined by the fact that the director was obviously giving the actors poor direction and making them act completely out of character at times. (i.e. characters going from passive to panicked in the blink of an eye. Bad Direction.) Also, the constant "weapon sound effects" (magazines being loaded, slides being cocked, etc.) are completely overused and, more often than not, totally out of sync with the on-screen actions. Add to this cheesy "Bad Guy" vocal distortion for the lead villain (mainly so that you KNOW he's the villain in this incomprehensible mess of a film), and you have a recipe for disaster.

The situations in the film go well beyond standard "suspension of disbelief" and become downright laughable. One lead character spends a good portion of the film tied to a chair before he DECIDES to use the butterfly knife tucked in his sock in order to free himself. So, my questions are...why didn't he do this sooner, and why does he even HAVE the butterfly knife. He wasn't searched? RIGHT. This is one of a hundred examples of completely ludicrous situations which have somehow been crammed into this 90-minute package.

In whole, "The Hangmen" plays like an unbearably bad R-rated TV movie from the '80s. If not for the subsequent success of Sandra Bullock, this would have NEVER found its way to DVD. But it has, so my only advice is to steer clear. Watching this film may actually impair your IQ.

You don't find movies like this anymore. These are the kind of films that really take you back, transport you to an entirely different time and place. The world revealed in this film is so far gone and so out of our range, that movies like these are almost an historical artifact. This separation from our time is what makes films like these so interesting. Not every day do you get to see how old-time computers worked, and it's amazing that Danny's dad was able to send him a message on his computer console through the phone line (basically the precursor of texting, probably something that phone phreaks used to do). I love any movies that show computer terminal text, as it gives a glimpse into the development of the Unix system, the ancestors of modern day Mac OS and Linux. Also, not every day does one see old Conan the Barbarian posters-which papers Danny's dorm room. One also gets a glimpse of a hot babe swimsuit model poster - and it's not Farrah Fawcett either!

The film is basically about a boy, Danny Greene, whose father, Rob, is an (ex-)CIA agent, and whom he never sees, since Rob and Danny's mother are apparently divorced. Rob just wants a relationship with his son, a thing that Danny does not want, as he feels hurt from his father's absence in his life up to that point (Danny doesn't know what his dad did for a living). Rob reaches out to Danny to spend more time with him now that Danny is almost done with college, and wants to hunt and fish, offers that Danny refuses, as he is not interested in such activities. Nonetheless, assassins are out to get Rob. Rob urgently sends Denny a message on the phone line system mentioned above to not trust anyone and to find someone named Dog Thompson. Hooked already?

The bad guys intercept the data message transferred over the phone line (encrypt your messages). While Danny is gone, they send a hit-woman posing as an escort to his room, who seduces and slays his roommate. Da fuq? Now, they are watching him from every angle and have him cornered. Can Danny escape?

He runs to his mom's place. Suddenly there is a knock at the door. "Please mom, don't answer that," Danny pleads. But too late, mom doesn't believe him, and suddenly two "firemen" who need to do a fire inspection are at the door, and inside the house. They take out Bowie knives and slay his mom. He hides under the bed, then runs out. Will they find him? You'll have to watch to find out!

This movie may have the only instance of a first-person, POV shot of a man holding a gun, i.e., the camera is at the rear of the gun, and shows the hands holding it, just like Halo style. If not, Halo got it's inspiration from this movie.

The gratuitous violence in this movie is off the charts; each character seems to be shot with at least 20 shots. It's hard to generalize, but this movie seems more violent than many modern movies, including Tarantino; although I haven't seen the Crank or John Wick series. This movie also reinforces for me the idea that guys in the '80s loved guns--guns, guns, guns. This film spots the most intense and large number of guns of all styles, tiny ones, big ones, and all sizes in between. There is one extended scene where Rob has to go to a crime boss to purchase a large amount of weapons, and another where members of the good guys squad bring in an AR to a diner and show it to the waiter, who fondles it for many minutes even as other customers come in. Apparently, in the '80s it was common fare for waiters to examine guns in restaurants. You don't see so many automatic guns like this in movies these days. At other times, it almost feels like a horror movie (e.g., the firemen scene). You gotta give '80s movies their due; if not anything, '80s movies had a lot of guts and gusto.

This movie obviously wasn't well-known, as it seems it went straight to video in the US, whereas in Brazil it actually opened in theatres. Despite its flaws, this film is a great addition to one's VHS collection, especially those that like the '80s, like movies in the DIE HARD/SILENT TRIGGER vein, or want to see retro-tech involved in an espionage/assassin-type plot.

When I first saw Hangmen, I don't think I watched all of it. In fact I remember I found it boring. Cut to a few years later where I'm now in the nineties, I viewed it again, this time finding it much more entertaining. It does have a lot of acting and VIOLENCE by some quite merciless parties. And you know what it also has, besides an impactful and involving lead- a young Sandra Bullock in her first pic, ever. Hangmen of course isn't the best film ever made, or even good, but it is a quite involving popcorn flick if giving a chance. There might be a couple of moments you feel yourself droning, but I found the whole thing quite a nifty B grade Canadian action pic, with unknowns, except for it's partial known lead and Bullock. The story is quite good of an CIA agent, told to stand down, as so a corrupt agency can do their own thing, only our main guy intervenes, thus bringing hell down on him and his men who are taken out. His son who's girlfriend (Bullock) like himself was taken, teams up with an old CIA buddy of his Dad's to get her back. We have some quite nasty baddies in this appealing pic, and Bullock, shows us how real stars are born. There are much worse movies out there, than this one, believe me. Go easy on it, give a chance.

I had a bad feeling when I saw the cheap title work. It only took a couple of scenes to confirm that this movie is a real stinker! The only enjoyment I got out of this was to laugh at the technical flaws (example - the background "car sounds" audio just disappears during the scene with Danny and Dog in Dog's car). Production shows a total lack of imagination (example - slow motion machine gun fire repeats many times). Sandra Bullock plays essentially a bit part, completely unnecessary to the plot. To say that this movie actually HAS a plot is doing more justice to the writing than it deserves. The antique computer hardware is kind of interesting. This film was released in 1982 (not 1987 as the IMDb database indicates) and then current "high tech" was an amber screen on a 4.8 MHz IBM PC with floppy drives. Maybe the PC was the real star of the movie... at least it was interesting.

We got this on DVD for a couple of bucks in the bargain bin at WalMart. As the other reviewer notes, we paid too much!

I don't know how this DVD made its way into my collection - my wife suggested it was one of these "3 for £20" deals at a high street store. The thing isn't worth 66p, let alone £6.66! Having invested heavily in it, I felt duty-bound to watch it to the end, just to make sure it was equally bad all the way through - and it was.

The dialog was awful, the story line was impenetrable (I still don't understand what the hell was going on, despite having read the synopsis), the camera work was disjointed and hopeless, the acting was wooden (not helped by the dialogue).

In fact there were no redeeming features - no, not even the lovely Sandra Bullock, on whose glittering subsequent career this pile of dross has probably been sold. She should get her agent to buy up all the rights to it and then bury it ASAP.

As a final amusing example of the director's ineptitude, there was a scene where the young lead is conversing with his father's ex-army sidekick while driving. This was the clearest bit of dialogue in the film - no engine noise whatsoever! I look forward to the engine-damping technology eventually making its way across the pond into British cars!

This movie is soo bad that I've wasted way to much time already talking about it. Soo bad...really... ...BAD... and I'm not even that critical... ..I'm almost ashamed to admit to having seen it... Sandra's few minutes show you how far she's really made it... I mean really anything next to this is really Oscar worthy for her... I suppose the only way for her to look at it is there's no way but up after this one...I suppose she had to start somewhere... but really...soo bad... ...awful really... bad is too good a word for this s**t ....but I don't want to get mean now... but really how can u not after wasting 90 minutes... 90 minutes of my life that I'll never get back... 90 minutes I could have spent doing something better...like sitting on my butt and staring into space..that would have been time better spent... (walks away shaking head)

The DVD version we bought had Sandra Bullock on the cover, but we've discovered it was a picture of her from another movie. Unfortunately, she is in this movie very little. You can, however, see how far she has come.

The one other bright spot in the movie, besides her very small part, were a few of the location scenes, shot in NYC and New Jersey in the 1980s.

The sound is terrible. Sometimes the background noise is so loud that the dialog is difficult to hear. Sometimes the dialog has been redone without any background noises at all, which is disconcerting. For example, sometimes when they are in the car, the noises from the car are too loud, and then suddenly there is absolutely no extra noise at all. The director is fond of close-ups on faces, and then it's clear that the movie has been over-dubbed because the words don't match the lip movements. Through most of the movie, the voices sound like the people are speaking into a tin can.

Background music, when there is music, is distracting instead of adding to the movie.

The direction is laughable. Goofy camera angles and sound effects make the movie look like a joke, especially during times when there is supposed to be tension, like in the middle of gun battles. The writing is terrible. There are some subplots that make no sense, and most of the characters come off looking very stupid because there is no explanation at all to their motivations. The writer/director tries to explain some of the relationships between the men that were together in Vietnam, but none of it makes sense. These top assassins and former soldiers don't seem to be able to see other people's shadows or hear other people moving. The actors go from calm to panic and back to calm again without any warning. It's simply a combination of bad directing and bad writing.

The production values are so bad that at first, we thought we had stumbled on someone's student film that just happened to have Sandra Bullock in it. If you like laughing at really poorly done student films, then this movie is for you. Otherwise, avoid this movie.

The DVD release of this movie hopes you will buy this movie on the name and face of Sandra Bullock. Her picture (from years after this film) basically is the cover art... and the back cover art... and the inside cover art... the same picture. Her name is prominently shown on the front cover, all 4 edges and the disk itself. She is the first name in the list of stars. Her biography is printed inside the case. This film must revolve around her character, right? WRONG! It is her first movie and she plays a minor role. After watching the movie, every role seems like a minor role. The character Dog actually displays some personality. Less than an hour after watching it, I don't even remember the names of many characters.

Maybe if I watched it several more times, I could actually figure out the plot, but I don't think it would be worth the effort.

Oh, wait, I just remembered a funny bit! Shoot-em-up video game fans will get a kick out of the "Doom-cam". Looks just like a first-person shooter game. Hands and gun pointing out in front of the camera.

I am generally not a person to be critical of movies, but this may be the worst movie I have ever seen. I kept expecting some silhouettes to walk across the screen, sit down and start making fun of it.

I'm just glad that the money we spent on this (used) went to charity.

We also found this movie on the discount rack and made the mistake of purchasing it because Sandra Bullock was featured on the cover. The cinematography was terrible and the back of the DVD box told more about the plot than the movie itself. Oh and I love the Uzi cam....NOT.

Easily. EASILY the worst movie I have ever seen. Run away. Quickly.

This movie was COMICALLY awful. It seemed to me more a film student's final project than a full movie production... and it is shamefully bad. The cover of the rental case that I picked up had Sandra bullock prominently displayed on it (while in the film she is on screen for less than 10 minutes) wearing a hat crudely photoshopped on her head that she never wore in the film. This movie is best enjoyed as an object of ridicule -- and is masquerading the incidental fact that Sandra Bullock is a tertiary character in it to get people to view it. That fact alone is almost as funny as the awfulness of the movie itself. It is as much a Sandra Bullock movie as "28 days later" is a sequel to Sandra Bullock's "28 days."

OKay, I got sucked into this looking for some young Sandra Bullock but stayed for the action. By my calculations, 4200 rounds were shot for each guy killed by a bullet. By far the worst marksmanship in film history. As for Ms. Bullock, I thought perhaps it might be illegal in my state to be checking her out at her age in this movie. She must have cut out of ninth period study hall to make this film. A small part but the guys in the suits put her on the cover to suck in guys like me. Not bad enough to be good, just bad.

This film stinks more than limburger cheese! If you find this at a garage sale, LEAVE IT THERE! I love Sandra Bullock and yet HATE THIS MOVIE... Although ashamed, I do own a copy, and the studio has changed the cover to play on the fact that Sandra Bullock is in this at all. They play it up to be "A Sandra Bullock Movie". She only has a small part in the whole movie and she does her best with that, but she is young and had not learned her talent yet. Well everyone has to start somewhere...