|Page 1 of 5:||    |
|Index||49 reviews in total|
I hafta watch crap like this all the way through to see if there are any
qualities whatsoever to justify including it in my clients' video
watch this, not even a minute of it, unless someone has a gun to your
will, as I did, moan & groan at least 500 times, and pray that one of the
dimensional characters, all played by really bad actors, would turn and
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)
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.
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.
This movie is from the 80s, but it looks like it was made in the stone
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
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.
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...
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!
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
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
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.
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)
|Page 1 of 5:||    |
|Plot summary||Ratings||External reviews|
|Plot keywords||Main details||Your user reviews|
|Your vote history|