ChanFamous I wanted to like it more than I actually did... But much of the humor totally escaped me and I walked out only mildly impressed.

Humaira Grant It’s not bad or unwatchable but despite the amplitude of the spectacle, the end result is underwhelming.

Kaelan Mccaffrey Like the great film, it's made with a great deal of visible affection both in front of and behind the camera.

Bob This is one of the best movies I’ve seen in a very long time. You have to go and see this on the big screen.

vitachiel 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 fetishismAnd 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.

annevejb 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.

oblivionisathand Obviously, the only way anyone could make such a clichéd, cheesy, horrendously bad movie is because it was MEANT to be bad. Duh. Possibly the greatest candidate for a drinking game I have ever seen. Every time you find something clichéd or just plain bad, take a drink. Whether you're drinking alcohol or apple juice you'll be puking halfway through this movie. Truly amazing work of crap. Favorite parts: guy doing completely unnecessary roll out of an unmoving car, "drunk driving fights communism", "Terminate", "What about all those dead people?" - "I got him!" - "But what about those people?" - "I GOT HIM", "You don't even know me Dad", "I guess there's no one left to shoot *movie ends*", oh and most definitely "Beat it, cheese dick!"...loved every minute of it. If you ever need a good laugh, get this movie. It always cheers me up, because no matter how much I suck, this movie sucks that much more. Enjoy!

John Grant 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!