Hangmen (1987)

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' . . .

Update at December 2008.The earliest feature of Sandra Bullock, on the IMDb scale, has to be of historic significance to at least one or two people.Is it possible to watch this as entertainment, to enjoy what is there and not damage yourself or others or put the story down? From the comments when I first posted this, not with sensible people, but it is practical to me.* I held off from watching my 4x3 format budget label copy until Christmas day, 2006. The negative side of the comments on this film became intelligible straight away, at 22 January 2007 they were all negative. But by the end I was glued to it. Buffy's Glory had a Christmas meal? Whatever, at least I believe that my choice of viewing could have been a lot worse even though the comments I have read here do not line up with that.The negative reaction at first. I have come across that in the other early Bullock I have. I responded this time by looking at the visuals, ignoring the sound for a while, and they looked effective, well acted and put together. Mostly I found the script flow of words and actions to be okay too. Blatantly low budget is a problem, but there is a lot there despite that. Still, the main difficulty is not the same as with those other early Bullock. I find Hangmen 1987 to be a bigger viewing problem.* When Hangmen works I find the soundtrack to be like a concrete music that I can accept as music, the whole thing becomes music. The words are words, but it is also relevant that they are part of the music flow. Gamelan equivalent. I have trouble tolerating the musicality, of the early part especially, unless I make big adjustments. Nice if the soundtrack was reassembled.Sound level: On my system I need to turn this way down, to around 20% of the level I would use for a normal feature. That gives the words as still clear, if quieter than normal. The start demanded a lower sound volume even more than the later parts. It could be that my DVD's sound balance is geared to old style low fi television.Perception: Some of the verbal acting style is deliberate corn, mostly with the bad guys but some of Sandra's early part is classic corn. I need to shrug that off and it helps me if I consider the actual dialogue to be secondary. I must not demand much of Hangmen, but the way that is achieved needs integrity.As to what the story is about, most other stories I have seen in this low budget style group are parables.I consider this to be of the – shooting – genre. If I accept that is all that it is then I can flow with it and enjoy it. A story from the shooting genre, where shooting is the reality.I had assumed that early Bullock would tend to have a strong element of comment about individual politics, I experience this as having shooting as the star.Compared to shooting genre blockbusters, Hangmen is a non starter, weak corn. As a non-aficionado I do find this to have potential to be real cute. I need to not demand much of it but I find that easy with this, most might not have the negative skills that it takes for me to enjoy this movie. I have a lot of experience of listening to speech as rhythm without noticing the words.Around Christmas 2005 I was discovering some maturer Bullock. 28 Days (2000) and In Love And War (1996), but also The Vanishing (1993). I could not flow with them as I can with this. They felt as if to have music for some of those with a more mature taste.For me, Miss Congeniality (2000) and Practical Magic (1998) and Two If by Sea (1996) and While You Were Sleeping (1995) are the masterworks, many of the other later stuff are less approachable to me than the very early stuff such as Hangmen.

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.

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.