Hangman

Hangman (2015): A serial killer who invades homes, hangs and stabs his victims, we see this in an opening sequence. Then a family goes on holidays, leave their car parked at the airport. The killer breaks in, accesses their home address from the GPS, burgles their house and sets up cameras, moves into the attic. Mind games follow as he gaslights the family, moving things, turning them against each other. There is gore and violence in the film but the psychological horror is much more effective. Written and Directed by Adam Mason. 6/10.

I'll have to admit,Hangman have a rather interesting and provoking premise. But,that's as far as what you can get from this movie. All you will get is a "thriller" movie that fails as a thriller,lacks in thrills,lacks of character,Plot-less and empty storyline,cringe worthy dialogue,and an Editing so bad,it feels like you're watching a high school student's film project. I know that this movie is a low- budget indie movie,but this movie is just pitiful.and the main plot of the story itself lacks in explanations,and it will leave you scratching your head on what's the point of the story,and what's going on in this movie.

It has a sloppy visual editing,and a sound editing so bad,that in some unnecessary scenes,there's a sound that will blow your eardrums without any apparent reason. It also has a soundtrack that really didn't help,or maybe ruin a scene that's supposed to be tense.

If you are looking for a full of tense,groundbreaking,jittery independent horror flick,then this movie is not for you.Period.

Being shot in a kind of docu style remember paranormal activity, with night vision and stuff. Well it worked for a lot of scary flicks but here, it did not.

The story looked promising but been done before, an intruder in house and staying therefor days, watching you, this time with a lot of camera's and playing hide and seek, laying stuff everywhere to confuse his victims. But, nothing really happens. All you see is POV of the camera's before his victims, really, so that means that he is walking in front of them. sadly, nothing really happens only stabbing a youngster. Towards the end, but by then it's too late, the victims have to die.

Utterly boring, avoid at all costs.

Gore 0/5 Nudity 0,5/5 Effects 0/5 Story 0/5 Comedy 0/5

Let's start with the bad because that's the fun part. This movie will make you feel filthy. You know like when you have a mild stroke and can't change the channel and the tv is stuck on Fox News all night? Yeah that.

More on that later, let's continue bashing. There are a couple gaping holes which might bother you to the point of hurling popcorn at the screen (if your stroke hasn't paralyzed your pitching arm), such as how did that 250 lb body conveniently disappear? Or why didn't anyone notice all the blood in a public bathroom (must be a rough neighborhood). These holes seem a bit incongruous with the slow, methodical approach to the film which addresses each infinitesimal detail such as moving a flower pot to get a better camera angle. But a 250 lb body we don't care about. Ok.

Let's switch gears abruptly.

Jeremy Sisto is effing INCREDIBLE. All the acting, for that matter, is excellent from Jeremy all the way down to the 2 kids whose fight scene was so convincing I had to check if they were real life brother & sister (they are). The premise is that this film is a voyeuristic exposé of a normal American family, and major kudos to each & every actor for conveying this flawlessly. Of course that means it's not histrionic, not dramatic, there are no Oscar worthy monologues and tear jerking shows of emotion that make us clutch our pillow and reach for the kleenex. This is reality. Conversations are choppy, sometimes a bit awkward, emotions are muted, and interactions are, in a word: boring. And this is probably what your life is like.

"Hangman" is a found-footage slasher flick which on the surface seems like nothing new, but actually it has the most satsifying found-footage premise I've ever seen. The premise is this: The serial killer is an amateur filmmaker who meticulously sets up cameras, stages the action, films the killings, and most importantly EDITS everything together for us to see. So, unlike all the other found-footage flicks where either (a) it is left deliberately un-edited and raw, or (b) some mysterious person cobbles it all together and releases it as a movie, this film has an explanation for every shot. And since our editor is the serial killer, that gives the film a free pass to be cryptic, oddly-paced and at times inexplicable. (Inexplicable enough to hide a 250 lb body, you be the judge)

If you're an amateur filmmaker yourself, or a professional filmmaker for that matter, this angle will captivate you instantly and lead you to a deeper appreciation. Even if, like me, you're just a film buff who enjoys unusual ways of breaking that 4th wall, this is one of the best.

But now let's switch gears back to Reverse. Dear lord this movie will make you feel filthy. I don't mean that in a sexually perverse way (there are some disturbing sexual implications, but interestingly, our serial killer filmmaker chooses not to show anything explicit). I mean this film just disturbs you to the core. I suppose that's the intent of all horror films, but wow man. Even the most rabid splatter fan will say 'dude.'

It's the film's realistic voyeuristic approach, combined with an utterly detestable 'protagonist' (the serial killer), combined with the artistic approach of subtly declaring that the killer CONTROLS EVERYTHING YOU SEE that makes this such a nasty experience.

And on that note, even though I sound like I'm slamming the snot out of this flick, it is a complete artistic success. The feel bad movie of the decade. I'm reminded of the mid-1900s cinematic master Georges Franju (known for "Eyes Without a Face") who in 1949 filmed "Blood of the Beasts", a coldly methodical exposé of what goes on inside an actual slaughterhouse. The intent was to disturb the crap out of us, and it certainly does. Here we have a modern parallel, thankfully fictional and staged, but disturbing on a similar level in its reality and slow, unrelenting hopelessness.

I'm not being sarcastic when I say the filmmakers here achieved a rare pinnacle of success, much like Franju did with "Blood of the Beasts", but dude. My soul needs a shower. Time to watch a 90s Hugh Grant romcom and hug my pillow.

Zero originality whatsoever is to be found here.

Follows the mold of every single found footage stalker movie made just a little more oversimplified is all.

With a 30 minute plot (40 at the most) stretched out to 81 minutes and most scenes mainly being day to day scenes of the family doing regular things at home this movie is far more boring than it is disturbing.

The acting is... okay I guess, the family does act kind of like a family does. The stalker we only see from time to time and he's weird I guess, which makes sense.

I just looked at the credits and saw that Amy Smart was in it which surprised me, she was in it in retrospect but you couldn't really see it was here because she was only in one scene sitting by a table with the "hidden camera" being very far away.

So yeah if she is what makes you want to watch this don't bother. But then there is no real reason to bother watching this period.