Hangmen (1987) Poster

(1987)

User Reviews

Review this title
49 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
1/10
You Will Moan 500 Times
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)
32 out of 34 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
1/10
Don't be fooled
tgrube115 March 2006
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.
19 out of 21 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
1/10
Not the worst movie ever
emdoub30 May 2005
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.
18 out of 20 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
1/10
Bad, Real Bad
nospamforyou14 January 2005
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.
21 out of 24 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
1/10
This movie is not old enough to suck this bad and get away with it.
icesyckel20 March 2003
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.
15 out of 17 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
2/10
I have to agree.
Swimmervb20067 May 2007
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...
6 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
1/10
Humorously bad
John Grant26 March 2005
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!
6 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
1/10
Worst movie ever!
Jacques-Kinnaer24 October 2004
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.
6 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
1/10
Even worse than expected
james_oblivion27 December 2002
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.
6 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
1/10
When bad movies happen to good actresses
jasiaeight6 February 2006
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)
2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
1/10
Worse than expected
Mike18 April 2003
What can I say after I say the one line summary. Sandra does a credible job but what with the bad direction and story line it can't save it. Way too much pre occupation with guns. How can the Hollywood types rant about the need for gun control in our society and spend so much time and film footage focused on guns?? It's just worse than expected.
7 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
3/10
Don't watch because you are a Sandra Bullock Fan!!!
Rgdemond14 January 2001
I bought the movie on VHS for $2.99. Figured that would be the same as a rental price so why not. I overpaid. I've always liked Sandra Bullock. (Miss Congenialty is a great, funny film). There wasn't much Sandra in it but it must have been done before she had any acting lessons. Overall, the movie was dull, poorly written, poor camera work and even worse dialogue. I've seen better filmwork and dialogue on old Starsky and Hutch reruns.
5 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
1/10
A (1) is too kind a vote
mog12542 November 2005
I LOVE Sandra Bullock-She's one of my all-time favorite actresses-but this is a movie that she should have paid a long time ago to be trash-canned. I realize that it's almost 20 years old-but my dead grandmother can act better than these people did. Beware-it's not even worth the $ 5.50 WalMart rack...You know that when the acting stinks this bad that it's not even worth a couple of bucks-the sound quality is horrendous-there's no closed captioning to even hear the hideous dialog, and it looks as if it were filmed on a $ 1.98 budget. I thought that I'd like to see Sandra in an early role to see how she evolved as an actress-but YIKES is too kind a word to use...
2 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
1/10
this movie is fantastic 1
canaan-117 September 2005
The prior comments are way to generous. This movie is a waste of electricity and plastic. On the other hand, I have had a great deal of fun giving it to friends to watch and describing it beforehand as "beyond belief!" "no words can express how I feel about this" "This movie will move you" As expected, the friends took these nondescript comments as enthusiastic endorsements. They were wrong. The sadistic pleasure I had foisting this on people was well worth the $5 I paid for the movie. On the other hand, one (former) friend says I owe him 90 minutes of his life back. I particularly enjoyed the "gun's eye view" of parts of the movie. Truly awesome in it's absurdity.
2 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
8/10
Pure glorious schlock
sawatzky-829-1430327 August 2010
Warning: Spoilers
I can understand the disappointment of those who bought this movie for the picture of Sandra Bullock on the cover. I looked at the date of the movie and had to think back to what I was doing that year...1987... definitely no Sandra Bullock on the radar yet. That picture was just to depict a pretty girl and innocent bystander in the movie. I think back in the day this movie would have been accepted for the corny schlock it really was, a genre that has evolved to give us Scary Movie 1,2,3 & 4.

You realize that this is going to be corn, not serious drama the moment the opening political assassination begins. Instead of a sniper on a roof, they use machine guns in the halls. As the opening credits roll you are treated to further clues that this movie means to be bad - instead of a gun with a sniper scope, they show a gun with a 1000mm "catadioptric" camera lens stuck to the top of the gun (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catadioptric_system if you want to see just how ridiculous this is). That's not subtle schlock, that is full blown in-your-face meant-to-be-bad corn.

I give this movie full marks for doing what it set out to do, and minus a few points for poor marketing and plot. Even Scary Movie 1,2,3 & 4 had good plots.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
2/10
Still waiting for the sequel...
vitachiel16 November 2007
Don't worry when looking at the cover of the DVD, Sandra Bullock only appears at most 5 minutes in total in this cult classic. The entertainment value here is very high.

To name but a few of the many highlights that should be paid attention to:

  • The doubled evil voices of the chief bad guys - The special gun cam - The weird masks and outfits of the hit killers - The showy ways to catch a bullet and hit the ground - The abundance of bottom-up shots - The spacey scene in which Bullock falls unconscious on the street - The over-cliché Italian mob guy Moe (LaMotta) - The cheap synthesizer background music - The mesmerizing overdone gun fetishism


And last but not least: the super corny fist-fight scenes. Wish there would have been more of those...

Extra point for the successful attempt at making me laugh out loud.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
2/10
Bad bad bad
rayliner_free15 November 2007
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.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
1/10
This Movie is The Ultimate Cure for Insomina + 80s Retroness
ReeperTheSeeker27 June 2007
Warning: Spoilers
I walked into Blockbuster, itchin' to watch some good old fashion action movies. So i browsed around the action section until this movie caught my attention because the cover had in big bold letter SANDRA BULLOCK. An action movie with Sandra Bullock in it and it's rated R!? YAY! Although I will admit i prefer her in a comedy but if this is anything like 'Speed' then i was sold. Sadly Sandra really is not in this movie, her role is minor: "Panicky kidnapped girlfriend" (She is in fifth place on the actors listing for Jeebus shakes!) Apparently this was her first movie role (and after watching this movie, i figured as much) Sandra is the only living human in this movie, everyone else might as well be a Zombie in a B-Horror Flick. This movie deceived me saying Sandra was the lead . . . i fell for it like Biff from 'Back to the Future' when Marty yells "WHAT'S THAT . . .!!!" God, i wish i watched that instead of this.

Sandra is the only bright side of this movie, every time she is on camera it is like she is picking up shock paddles and yelling "CLEAR!" to get this movies going but it flat lines no matter how hard she tries. More on Sandra later . . .

The Movie is dull. Very Dull. Think of the Dullest moment in your life then imagine living through that moment for 110 minutes (for me, it is this movie). This movie even somehow makes Gun Fights and Bullet time effects boring, so boring that Elephant Tranquilizers are put to shame. And this movie's idea of Bullet Time is a close up of an AK in slow motion which mocks you as the caps spitting out of it represent each second of your life as it slowly ticks away. And I knew i was watching a bad movie because i found myself fast forwarding "THROUGH-THE-ACTION!" The plot? . . . there was a plot? Music? . . . even by 80s muck standards is Bad but at least it's the one thing that kept me awake. Acting? Sandra Bullock was good and . . . ummm . . . moving on. Is it any good since it IS rated R? No, unless R stands for Ridicules-snooze-fest.

And it is really 80s Cliché when a movie opens with an overhead view of a city (rocking guitar licks or power ballet) and ends with a gun fight in a grim factory complete with steel walkways and assorted pipes. Both of which this movie satisfies. At least this movie establishes what era it's from which was unnecessary since Sandra's hair was screaming "1980s!!!!" And a movie gets really ham fisted when you watch an assassin stripper kill a nerd in the bathroom and stuff his body in a box, which you respond to sadly saying: "that is probably the most action that poor sap ever got." Another Hammy moment is at the beginning when some-Secret-Agent-Dude caps a crowd of people and apparently this movie thinks people jump into the air and fall to the ground when they die. All that scene needed was the Mario death ditty or maybe Contra sound effects but Nintendo might have sued.

And it is sad when the main action hero of this movie rips off other BETTER movie icons. Before the big gun scene, Da hero is found standing in a boxing ring ('Rocky' anyone?), sporting a leather fedora (not 'Indiana Jones' too) with an ominous spotlights behind him (Terminator the 2nd before owning T-1000) What is really REALLY sad is that people on Youtube or Dailymotion can film better quality videos (with a crappy webcam no less) then this movie. I'm serious, most Rant videos recorded with bad audio and blurry picture are more entertaining then this movie. I cannot even call this movie by it's given name for it's very name bring back horrid memories of watching this cruel and unusual punishment (a freaking violation against human rights!) The only bright speck in this dark abysmal abyss is Sandra's career started taking off thanks to this movie. But oh Sandra . . . why did you have to be in such a nightmare? The paycheck better been worth it. The DVD also graces you with a little back story on Sandra as an extra, seen how she is the only one from this movie who end up being a house hold name. Which explains why this movie uses her name as bait for unsuspecting movie buffs, Crafty little critter.

I don't have much experience with bad films but i know BAD when i see it. I could bounce back from 'Mazes and Monsters' with a good old campy Bruce Willis Comedy. But not even Bruce could cheer me up after this movie. I have yet to see any Ed Wood or Uwe Boll but I think I'm amped for them now. For i can't even fathom a movie worse then . . . "GAG" . . . 'Hangmen' . . .
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
2/10
Amateurish
davidaplace-22 September 2006
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!
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Horrendous.
kevinwelland12 March 2006
This has to be one of the most dreadful films I have ever seen. Poor script, wooden acting, and the worst soundtrack of all time. Sadly this film somes up Americas addiction to the gun. The best moments of screenplay come with copious shots of guns being loaded and used. At times I had to laugh. In one scene we see people talking in a car, yet no sound from the car engine. Sandra Bullock was lucky that she appeared in this film early in her career. Otherwise she would have disappeared without trace. The only forgiveness I can give to this film is that it is obviously low budget. But what a waste of that budget. Sorry, but we are all entitled to our own opinion.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
1/10
worst movie I've seen in years
hood_catherine22 November 2005
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.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
1/10
Just say no
mule-1615 October 2005
I checked this out for free at the library, and I still feel ripped off. Yes, Sandra Bullock is actually in it, but only in five scenes totaling up to barely 5 minutes, and even those are fairly painful to watch. The rest of the movie is so bad that you'll spend most of the time hoping it will end soon, but only if you're one of those people who have to finish a movie once they start it. Everyone else will just turn it off. Don't worry, you aren't going to miss anything. Bullock's lines (assuming that you were tricked into watching this because her name is plastered on the case) are essentially just parroting of other characters lines, like this dialog:

Lisa (Bullock) - "Danny, please tell me what is going on."

Danny - "I don't know."

Lisa - "Whaddaya mean you don't know?"

Danny - "I don't know - it's something to do with my Dad."

Lisa - "Whaddaya mean your Dad?"

Danny - "I don't know - he ****ed up or something."

Lisa - "Why am I here?"

Danny - "I'm sorry Lisa. I don't know."

(moments later) Danny - "Some army buddies of my Dad . . . "

Lisa - "Whaddaya mean army buddies?"

See what I mean?

Bottom line - Just say no.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Awful movie misrepresented as a Sandra bullock film!
uhlek2311 October 2005
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."
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
1/10
Rip Off
jbloyd27 June 2005
I saw this one remastered on DVD. It had a big picture of Sandra on it and said "Starring Sandra...." and made it seem like she had a big part in it. Not so. She's barely in it. She does what she can with the script, but that's not much.

The sound was awful. By that I mean things didn't go together. Shots would be fired and the number of shots didn't correspond to the sound. People talking in a car while it's moving and the shot is from outside the windshield but there's no motor noise, road noise, or any other sound. Kind of weird.

Score was awful. It sounded like the same few notes over and over. Dialog really awful.

Acting was awful, I couldn't believe any of it. Fight scenes were like a Batman comic without the "BIFF", and "BAM". They were really lame. The shooting scenes, I mean with firearms, were laughable, literally. I fast-forwarded through a lot of this movie. Even then, it was too long.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
1/10
What the hell?
Qaoz21 May 2005
Warning: Spoilers
I watched 5% of this movie tonight and you may tell me that I need to see the whole movie to understand it, but frankly I don't think so.

What the hell is the story in this movie? I saw a lot of people running around in a factory, shooting at everything around them.

Where to start? Okay..

1) They were shooting around the place as if it was the Terminator or something they were trying to kill. The entire place is made of metal, but not a single bullet sparked on the metallic surfaces.

2) No ricochet. Metal vs metal is bound to cause ricochets, but apparently no one got hit by a stray bullet.

3) Magic bullets? In one scene a bad-guy is standing right in front of a good-guy when another good-guy pops out behind the bad-guy and pumps him full of metal. You see the bullets exit his chest as it explodes in a bloody mist, but the good-guy right in front of him doesn't get hurt at all! 4) After having just splattered a human being all over the wall, the two good-guys tell each other some jokes and they laugh and look like teenagers playing with soft-guns.

5) Sound? At one point the good-guys cut a wire and an alarm goes off (who the hell cuts a wire just to set off an alarm?). The lady screams out "Alarm in sector blah blah" and the bad-guy boss says "Okay.. this.. is.. not.. a.. drill.. blah blah" in a very, very amateur kinda way. Ooh, we're getting ambushed by terrorists, this isn't a drill, but I'm gonna sound like I don't give crap.

6) Focus!! First you see the bad-guys load up on weapons. For some reason the same guy gets the same Uzi twice. Deja vu or loop of scenes? You literally see every single bad-guy receive the same kind of weapon and they lock and load the same way. The weapons dealer pops in the clip and the bad-guy extra no. XX locks and loads. When they started opening fire you HAD to see the barrel flashes. Boooring!! 7) Actors or dummies? One of the presumed good-guys throw down a smoke grenade for some reason and of course the bad-guys are suddenly inside the smoke because they're smoke-blind or something so they don't see it coming. They cough and moan as if it was Anthrax in the grenade. Then a semi-boss bad-guy arrives and he doesn't even cough when he enters the smoke, he just pushes the other bad-guys away and they suddenly realize that the smoke isn't Anthrax anyway.

8) B flick? I think yeah! A guy sliding down a metal pipe wielding a Uzi in his right hand shooting away at someone in his eye height apparently. I'd like to see a guy fire a Uzi with one hand and I'd like to see him go get his hand afterwards. Extra bloody gore mess in a B flick kinda way. Small *pops* and a red hole with a torn shirt indicates that this guy is dead. Though the first bullet hit his heart the good-guy who is a super trained green berets still feel the urge to empty his clip into the dead guy.

9) One of these mentioned trained soldiers jump out from his hide with an empty clip! How stupid can you be!? Always check your clip before facing an unknown amount of enemies! 10) Boring scenes. Like the barrel flash scenes and the lock and load scenes, the movie is filled with time wasting scenes of people running around in an apparently empty building. Cut to the action if you're going for a B flick movie, please.

My two cents on this movie.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
loading
An error has occured. Please try again.

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews