Hanger (2009 Video) User Reviews

Needs penetration.

[ElijahCSkuggs · 3/10 · 14 December 2009]

A clothes-hanger abortion survivor? Whoa! Who's turned into a blood-thirsty freak? Whoa mama! Graphic nudity? Mama mia! It's directed by Ryan Nicholson? Oh...hmmm...I guess I'll check it out.

I've gotta admit, even though this flick seems to have all the ingredients to sound like a pretty sweet and f'ed up flick, it's almost a chore to watch. Scratch that. It is a chore to watch. My biggest issue was how the story played out. The pacing was horrendous. Mix that with a cast of entirely unlikeable characters and bingo, a chore. And why are the characters unlikeable? Well, you can blame that on the amateur acting, and subpar writing. Just like Ryan's past movies he seems to not have a problem with giving his actors full reign of their characters. And when you have actors who aren't so hot at acting, it more than likely ends up being like this.

A thought that popped in my head a few times while watching this was how close it came to becoming a porno. And actually how it even felt like a porn flick at times. Ryan, you add some penetration to these films, and you'll instantly become the best horror porn director ever. Or at least the best working at the moment. Maybe think about it, eh?

There aren't many film-makers out there that are as carefree and in love with the horror genre as Mr. Nicholson, and that is the sole reason I keep seeing his movies. I hope instead of sticking to human horror he tackles something a bit more 'traditional', but leaving his trademark sickness to it. A creature feature or a big foot movie, but with the works.

Hanger was a gross, sleazy, dirty flick that should have been a crazy fun time, but ended up being boring, unlikeable, and felt like it tried much too hard to be funny and shocking. The handful of disgusting scenes and graphic nudity can only go so far.

p.s. Edward Lee's Bighead just called you a copycat.

Now, THIS is an exploitation film...

[innocuous · 4/10 · 19 July 2010]

Like Roger Ebert, I have to give some credit to a film that does what it sets out to do and has no illusions about social value or artistry. That's "Hanger" in a nutshell. Pure exploitation from start to finish. (This review refers to the uncut edition, as though a cut edition would be any better.)

Perhaps one of the most striking things about the film (other than an obsession with genitalia) is the heavy use of facial appliances. There may be two male actors who are not heavily covered with facial appliances throughout the film (and I have my doubts about one of them). Female roles fare a little better, trading "money shots" for not having to wear prosthetics. The whole thing comes off like a medieval allegorical play, with all the players in masks representing their roles.

Overall, not as funny or interesting as "Gutterballs." It is much more extreme than "Run, Bitch, Run," which hardly rose to the level of exploitation anyway. And it's not nearly as creepy as "deadgirl," which is in a completely different class of film-making (i.e., much superior).

The best use I know of for "Hanger" is to show somebody an exploitation film that exists for no other reason than to exploit. Still, you gotta admire honesty.

Not recommended for people with reasonable standards of decency or any expectations of artistry.

Hanger hangs on....barely

[yaktheripper · 4/10 · 26 July 2012]

"Hanger" is NOT a good movie. It is, in fact, repulsive and low budget and I dare recommend this but for a select few. There are problems galore. The acting is pretty substandard, the cinematography is less then stellar, and the plot is pretty thin. There are HUGE holes in this bad boy... Yet, it does have it's charm. There is a large does of humor to be found, alongside some grotesque imagery and a brave, if not poorly conceived, script. This is a splatter revenge flick with gumption and originality though it's window dressing is of the hand me down variety. There is a liberal amount of sexuality that serves little purpose beyond getting pre- pubescent teenage boys to watch it...so it has it's desperation as well. If your looking to round out your low budget, monster/revenge movie list then by all means look into it with a healthy amount of skepticism. If your looking for the next cult classic...there MIGHT be enough to give it credence. However if your looking for a movie to sustain the weight of it's shocking plot description you will be disappointed. It's a movie that 2 out of 10 will think was "alright".

You got to be kidding me

[dschmeding · 2/10 · 7 July 2009]

I guess I qualify to fit the target group of this movie, after all I have seen previous movies by Nicholson and "Gutterballs" was real fun. Sure, all his movies have a trashy flair and the sexual shocking was there every time... but "Hanger" is a different thing. You can describe this movie like a cross between "Street Trash" and some stupid 70ies Revenge Movie. Basically this could guarantee some interesting 90 minutes for fans of Movies like Pulp Fiction/Boondock Saints and underground horror. But what Nicholson delivers here qualifies for the Troma Catalog in one of the lowest drawers.

The movie is set in the dirty red light district and revolves around a prostitute who gets a back alley abortion with a clothes-hanger by her pimp (is that guy supposed to be black or what... since the Chinese guy is barely Chinese I guess tough guy Leroy is a non-black black guy??). So you get were the title comes from which is also the name of the aborted monstrosity walking the street with a deformed face, a stoma, baby-talk and toy rabbits. Now Mr. Hanger meets his father (like most characters with serious prosthetic work on his face and especially nose) and they plot some rough revenge. Funny thing is that this "plot" always tends to be dropped on the sidelines for some lame masturbation or gay sex jokes as well as ridiculous soft-core sequences of some meaningless chick (I don't get her deeper idea for the plot) working her snatch in her office.

All this leads up to one of the most ridiculous shoot outs in movie history (let me guess.... Mr Nicholson liked Boondock Saints very much but really took a deep dive here)that like everything in the movie is thrown in a pot and blended to a tasteless mush. Basically all you get is tasteless jokes about deformed retards (all those back alley hicks reminded me a lot of "Street Trash" yet "Hangers" stretches it much further), you get some guy collecting tampons and making tea out of it, a gay retard using hangers stoma for a fun ride, fart jokes, prosthetic dicks with cartoon "boing" samples, some killed prostitutes and a torture sequence with a blowtorch (Hmm, reminds me of something else) which is like many of the not so many gory moments in this movie plain ridiculous. The way the scenes are bound together and especially the dialog come across like written by a retarded horny 16year old writing a script with his dick in his hand.

Come on Mr. Nicholson... there is a boundary to stupidity on a level that the viewer feels ashamed for the director and you crossed it. The ending of your movie deserves to enter the halls of trash to serve as a warning of how it should never be done.

A Film That Reeks Of Desperation

[Aka_Who · 1/10 · 3 August 2009]

It becomes clear from the very beginning that this film has nothing to offer. The entire story is just one giant pathetic cry for attention. Obviously trying to appeal to audiences who love all things sick and twisted, Hanger desperately tries to be offensive and controversial. And in this aspect the movie fails miserably. I love all things over the top and I did not find Hanger to be offensive or disturbing in the slightest bit. In fact I found this movie to be an insult to the intelligence of fans of disturbing entertainment. You have to do more than just bring up touchy subjects and expect everyone to squirm. Putting a decent story behind it would be a good start. And spend the extra cash to get a capable group of actors together for Christ's sake. Where did they even find a camera that produces such poor video? Hanger is an example of low quality horror at it's worst. Such a disappointment. Especially after the directors previous film Gutterballs turned out to be so good.

First Ryan Nicholson i didn't like...

[ultra_tippergore · 4 January 2010]

Live Feed was a good gory movie, Gutterballs was better, so i was very excited to view Ryan new movie, Hanger. Unfortunately, it was a let down for me. Don't know why, maybe I'm getting old. Maybe. But Hanger was very boring, i watch the Uncut version, and yes, its hardcore gore, with very good bloody fx and very good looking naked bimbos but its just boring. I hope one day to watch it again and start loving it, that can happen. The first time i watched Live Feed i didn't like it and then it became a movie that i watched easily four times if not more. 4/10 for Hanger but all my support to Ryan Nicholson for always try to deliver the goods with extreme gore

Hanger

[Scarecrow-88 · 2/10 · 12 March 2010]

Ryan Nicholson's follow up to his cult hit Gutterballs concerns an 18 year old who was hideously scarred after being pulled from the vagina of his prostitute mother by her sadistic pimp. Leroy(Ronald Patrick Thompson)leaves his pregnant whore(played in an unflattering role by Debbie Rochon) lying on a bed in a pool of her own blood and dumps her offspring in a garbage can. Hanger(Nathan Dashwood), as he is affectionately labeled, is taken under the wing of his dead mother's former john(Dan Ellis)and given a job in a scrapyard where he forms a friendly bond with a chinaman, Russell(Wade Gibb). A wheezing freak named Phil(Alastair Gamble)also works at the scrapyard and he has hostile homosexual urges that will soon be met when he drugs Hanger and Russell, sodomizing them. There is also the daughter of the scrapyard owner, Nicole(the unbelievably hot Candice Lewald)who gets all hot and bothered when alone in his office. Meanwhile, we learn that the john who has removed Hanger from his squalidly existence is indeed his pops and vows to get even with Leroy for killing Rose(Rochon). Well, the humor is as crude as it gets and the movie puts major emphasis on unpleasant sexual content that may provide more discomfort than laughs, unless your tastes are of the lowest quality possible. There's, for instance, a scene where Phil "rods" the puss-oozing orifice in Hanger's hip shortly after anally raping Russell. Russell has an unsavory fetish for Nicole's tampons. Most of the characters are buried under heavy prosthetic make-up to look as ghastly and dysfunctional as possibly with personalities to match. Leroy, in particular, is a loathsome cretin who makes everyone's life miserable. Actually, no one in the film is of much worth, because even Hanger, an obvious victim of extraordinarily unfortunate circumstances, destroys a Jehovah's witness by tearing off her breasts and eating out her insides with his ferocious, badly mangled teeth. The photography and audio of the movie are of an inferior quality making Hanger look very reminiscent to a Henenlotter vehicle, except less funny and more obnoxious. Many of the cast members from Gutterballs return in Hanger, barely recognizable under their sickening disguises. Lots of fake penis and the fetus removal which produces the horrifying result of Hanger is shown in grisly, elaborate detail. Only for audiences whose demands for trash know no bounds.

Pure trash.

[aqos-1 · 1/10 · 28 July 2009]

This movie is a piece of junk that couldn't make up it's mind if it wanted to be a horror movie or a porn. It fails at both. I understand why the actors in this movie made sure they were so heavily made up. I'm sure it's so they wouldn't be associated with this trash. If I had seen that this movie had anything to do with the people that made Gutterball, I wouldn't have bothered to watch it. It was another movie that couldn't decide whether to be horror or porn. I love Troma and Lloyd Kaufman, but this movie was bad even by their standards. It's always nice to see Debbie Rachon and Lloyd in a movie, but do they really need publicity that much? I will pay closer attention to titles that feature anyone that had anything to do with the making of this movie. I should have been paid to watch it.

This one crawled back out of the bucket.

[chef_cam2005 · 1/10 · 19 November 2009]

Quite possibly the most pathetic piece of crap ever, to waste perfectly good celluloid on! I mean it. What on earth could have crawled so far up this directors nether regions and died, forcing him to give birth to this gigantic, infected, steaming turd? The mind boggles at the apparent lack of true friends this guy must have for so many to tell him that yes, this is an acceptable product to release to the viewing public! Pathetic SFX, coupled with actors who wouldn't even pass an audition for Big Brother, & topped off with a cameraman who can't even keep the "action" in screen OR focus provides one of the all time lows in movie making history! And all that before the opening credits!! I'm embarrassed to have seen this and for anyone who had the misfortune to be caught up in this mess. Could rate as the worst thing I have ever, or will ever see in my life. Watch this if you find things like vaginal discharge or rats milk, appetizing.

A piece of trash, but what a great piece of trash!

[nasteen8 · 7/10 · 19 September 2011]

Some people will hate on this movie but I really enjoyed it's over indulgent nature. It was a piece of B movie garbage that I would watch again and again.

Now don't get me wrong here, if you're looking for a truly great movie, just forget about even looking at this film. It's only for those folks who love super trashy, B grade, ultra violent and sick movies. Chalk full of sex, violence, gore and for some reason, every man in this movie has a messed up face (which really grew on me).

Even the good guys in this film are completely vile, so you can only imagine how disgusting the bad guys are.

I vote a 9/10, simply for the fact I love the over the top dialog, grotesque characters, violence and gratuitous sex.

sick and twisted and not in good away

[atinder · 1/10 · 13 December 2009]

This movie start of so bad, the acting is so bad. plot is sick

The movie start off from other horror movie, 3 prostitute are watching. one of there look like 62 and other one as got burnt mouth or something and Rose the main one who is pregnant. Then we see Leroy who is fed up with her not bringing in any money from her pregnancy.

Next scene we she her with someone else and Leroy attacks her after he catch hers with the that other man, who had just dump her and he get rid of the baby with a hanger

This movie is sick and twisted and not in good away, i do not want to see man trying to step a bloody pregnant lady,stomach even if see a prostitute (That was in the first seven minutes of movie) Then movie get even worse

18 Years later for some reason the child is now some kind of monster who goes after prostitute and kills them ?

I could not take anymore of this rubbish so I turned it off 1/10 .

Fun, over the top, gory... Why is this rated so low?

[last_cheese · 8/10 · 22 May 2013]

This is one of those movies that almost shouldn't exist. It's so disgusting and vile that's certainly a scene that's going to offend or sicken every viewer. This movie takes almost every taboo and plays it to it's most extreme, never taking the camera away for a second.

The movie is about a prostitute who becomes pregnant, and starts losing clients. Her pimp becomes enraged that she isn't making him money and performs an impromptu abortion with a coat-hanger. She dies, but the child does not. He is raised by a homeless man until he is 18, when his father picks him up, and lets him stay with a retarded Asian named Russell. He goes to work at a scraping company with Russell, occasionally killing off anyone who bothers or insults him. This includes crushing a hookers head open when she screams at his face, a Jehovah Witness who intrudes into their apartment, and Phil, a man who drugs and rapes both Hanger and Russell (the movie does not cover much up). During this, Hanger's father is being tortured by Leroy (the pimp). Leroy believes he has killed him and dumps his body, but he isn't dead. Leroy sets up a trap and kills Russell, when Hanger attacks him, but Hanger's father returns with guns and equipment and they two shoot and kill each other. And that's the end.

Like Gutterballs, this movie is very gory and the special effects are top notch. It is filled with nasty visuals, shocking imagery, coarse language, nudity... It has it all. This movie will offend pretty much every viewer, but as long as you have a sense of humor, it won't affect you. There's a lot in this movie that would discourage potential viewers, but they are not the audience for this movie. Ryan Nicholson knows his audience and makes movies for them; they're exploitative, schlocky, violent, everything campy B horror/schlock should be. Also, look out for Lloyd Kaufman's appearance in this movie, it's crazy.

Sleazy freakshow.

[HumanoidOfFlesh · 7/10 · 10 October 2010]

Rose is a hooker who has become pregnant.Her abusive pimp Leroy decides to perform an abortion on her by using a coat hanger.But the baby doesn't die during horrible procedure.Eighteen years later Hanger gets a job and a apartment.With the help of The John they both plan to get a bloody revenge on Leroy."Hanger" is a dirty and exploitative indie horror flick directed by always reliable Ryan Nicholson.It's totally bad taste and politically incorrect.The atmosphere of "Hanger" is grubby and dirty and it resembles "Basket Case" or "Street Trash".The film is not as fun as "Gutterballs" and "Live Feed",but if you are a fan of utter cinematic smut and filth you need to see "Hanger".7 abortions out of 10.

Childish, irritating, pathetic.

[horizon2008 · 1/10 · 8 October 2013]

I love extreme horror. I've never seen anything in horror cinema that's offended me and it's doubtful I ever will. As long as it's not tagged on animal cruelty like in Seed, or Cannibal Holocaust etc I'm pretty much untouchable when it comes to whats put on the screen. The baby scene in Human Centipede 2, the son scene in A Serbian Film (and the newborn scene), the bath scene in the August Underground movie etc. These are some sights many found hard to take, but I was OK with them, which brings me to Hanger.

This is probably the trashiest pile of garbage I've ever seen put to celluloid, and by saying that it's absolutely no recommendation whatsoever. The director here apparently likes to declare his love for horror cinema now and again but sadly he hasn't a clue how to produce it, instead thinking that stringing together a bunch of (hopefully to him) offensive shots will pass as some kind of great horror art. This really is not the case.

I'm not going to list the things that take place in Hanger, but I wasn't offended, rather I found the entire piece of excrement irritating to the extreme. It looks as if a bunch of drunk teenage boys threw it together while sniggering at what they were doing, only thing being, a bunch of drunk teenage boys wouldn't have been so juvenile. Hanger exists as some worthless attempt at being as shocking as possible, but given that the director has attempted it with no class whatsoever he miserably fails.

The characters in Hanger scream and shout their lines at one another while most wear some prosthetic make up (to hide their association with this stinker maybe) and it's (almost) obvious a lot of it was aimed at being funny. Rubber penises, full frontal soft porn, and some pretty bad special effects just aren't funny at all though, and I'm guessing by now my review is reading like some disgruntled Hollywood blockbuster lovers who stumbled upon the wrong type of movie and became appalled by what he saw. This couldn't be further from the truth however.

I found Subconscious Cruelty as a movie enthralling, and I'm particularly mentioning this film as it's said the director of that set out to shock but (ironically) failed for a totally different reason. The second act of SC (what many consider the most shocking part) stands as brutal, dark, and perverse piece of cinema which I couldn't tear myself away from. I will watch it again, whereas this sad waste of film will never enter my eyes a second time. Ever.

Don't be fooled, offensive is not what makes good horror by any stretch of the imagination, but placing something shocking within a good storyline or piece of dialogue can leave a viewer dumbstruck. It's evident Ryan Nicolson hasn't a clue what that means. Yes he's directed some wishy washy shows for TV which really doesn't count for much, and I found his movie Torched just about sufferable, but as for Hanger, it's sad, irritating, childish, and pathetic. Grow up Mr Nicolson.

It's going to be a bumpy ride. Welcome to the rest of your life.

[lastliberal · 11 July 2010]

I don't know how many Debbie Rochon movies I have seen, but there is always room for another one.

This is the latest edition in Troma's catalog, and it even features Lloyd Kaufman.

Most will be grossed out in the first 10 minutes after witnessing an abortion by coat-hanger. The baby lives and we join him when he is grown (Nathan Dashwood). Otherwise the movie would be over, as he seeks out the pimp who killed his mom (Rochon).

This movie has all the trash you can imagine: cannibalism, freaks, smashed heads, blood, gore, and things too disgusting to mention.

Vicious & vile, but lacks the spark of Nicholson's previous work

[Shattered_Wake · 3/10 · 4 November 2010]

For the past few years, Ryan Nicholson has been one of the shining examples of modern exploitation cinema with such ultra-violent flicks as 'Live Feed' and 'Gutterballs.' Nicholson returns to this sector of modern with 'Hanger.' In 'Hanger,' the survivor of a botched abortion (the fetus, not the mother) rises from his depraved roots to seek vengeance on all those responsible for his near-death. Prostitutes, drug dealers, and pimps. . . no one is safe from Hanger.

It takes a very specific mindset to not only enjoy films like those of Ryan Nicholson, but even to stomach them. They are often filled with such perverted & grotesque subject matter that the casual film-goer will be, without a doubt, unable to even sit through them. 'Hanger' is as good an example of this as any. Abortion, rape, murder, and drug use are about as controversial as subjects can get for a film. . . and they're all brought to the forefront without a second thought in this film. To ease up the difficulty of some of these ideas, there is some outward humour, like B-movie legend Lloyd Kaufman (co-founder of Troma Films) as Melvina the Tranny. This definitely is not enough, though, to make this an easy watch. Even some of the most hardcore horror fans may have to look away at some scenes.

Even with the grotesque and depraved nature of the film, it does not feature the spark it requires to make it an overly worthwhile watch. Unlike Nicholson's previous films, it is, simply. . . not a fun time. And, sure, it's not meant to be 'fun' in the way something like 'Ghostbusters' or 'Shaun of the Dead' is fun. . . but, I was expecting something entertaining at least like his last film 'Gutterballs.' Even with all the disgusting gore, vicious violence, crazy characters, and nonstop nudity, the film really was a pretty tedious task to sit through. The pacing was awkward and uneven, the characters were all horribly unlikable, and the story wasn't nearly as interesting as it should have been with such subject material. The inclusion of Debbie Rochon, a queen of B-horror, was a nice benefit, however.

Even with all the film's problems, respect should still be paid to Ryan Nicholson for pushing the limits with his films. It's something that is not done enough, especially with all the glossed-out PG-13 abominations of classic cinema we've been receiving throughout the past few years. For that reason, Nicholson needs to keep doing what he's doing. . . just, hopefully, better from this point on.

Final Verdict: 3.5/10.

-AP3-

Awful, tasteless and terrible

[sldier543 · 1/10 · 21 January 2013]

*** This review may contain spoilers *** Don't waste you're time on this terrible thing called a movie. The makeup and gore was very stupid and cheap. The acting was stupid and the whole movie just sucked I have no idea why the actors were in this. Ryan Nicholson has some sick twisted problems. I'm glad I didn't buy this cause if I did I would personally go to Ryan Nicholson house and demand my money back that's how bad it was. Twisted rape scenes not even good death scenes like I said cheap movie with cheap make up and gore. Starts out with a pregnant hooker getting beat up by her asshole pimp. Trust me you will hate it I'm surprised I watched the whole thing.

Seriously, this movie can go to hell

[lovecraft231 · 1/10 · 18 March 2011]

In today's realm of horror films, one director who I'm not a particularly big fan of is Ryan Nicholson. A part of the newer generation so to speak, he's an effects man (whose worked on the infamous "August Underground" series) turned director whose movies seem to take a juvenile approach to shocking and offending people with nasty gore and all kinds of depraved behavior. In all honesty, I'm making his efforts sound much better than they actually are, when in reality, they are very difficult to watch, and not in the "this is disturbing" way. I mean in the "why the hell am I wasting my time on this bulls#!t?" way. Case in point: "Hanger", which may be his worst effort at trying to offend viewers yet.

The film starts with a pregnant prostitute named Rose (Debbie Rochon), who becomes a hooker (remember, that's what they become when they are dead-or at least the show "Archer" says so) and has said fetus aborted via wire hanger. Well, said fetus actually survived, and years later, is a has grown up as "Hanger" (Nathan Dashwood.) He's also a bloodthirsty maniac out for revenge, and a man named "The John" (Dan Ellis) believes he's the killer mutant's dad.

That's the plot to "Hanger" in a nutshell. In case you're thinking "that's it?", then you are not alone. In actuality, the movie is essentially an excuse for Nicholson and his cast to get away with all kinds of gross and all around perverse behavior, which would be fine if it weren't akin to a kid putting on a geek show to shock and offend us. Look, I'm all for shocking movies, but this tries way too hard to be shocking and all around disgusting, and it's clear that's all it has going for it. I know Nicholson is making something for a niche audience, but me? I don't have time for a movie that has things like an grotesque, racist Asian stereotype, tampon fetishes, graphic masturbation, and plenty of rape, mud and nastiness and nothing else. If trying to gross out and offend audiences in an attempt to be subversive is all you have, then get out of here, because I want nothing to do with you.

It also doesn't help that nobody here-not even genre vet Debbie Rochon-does a good job here. The whole cast basically either mails in their performance, or goes over the top to the point of sheer banality. I know, these are all supposed to be unlikable characters, but come on, at least give us some decent performance amidst all the filth. Also, there's a Lloyd Kaufman cameo. Look Lloyd: I love ya man. I love what you've done for independent cinema, and I know that you are always willing to appear in someone's movie. That out of the way, come on man, can't you at least say "no" to appearing in a movie once in your life?

Speaking of which, "no" is what this movie gets. There is no reason to see this piece of s#!t. I'm sorry, but all the filth and ugly behavior in the world does not make for an entertaining movie. In fact, it makes for a tedious and god-awful one. Seriously, this movie can go to hell.

New School Gore: Knocked Up

[Tromafreak · 5/10 · 2 December 2010]

Debbie Rochon!! Alright, now that I've got your attention, I'm gonna tell you about a modern Exploitation film from 2009 in which the legendary actress lowers herself enough into making what turns out to be a glorified cameo that I really had high hopes for. A film which I kinda consider a disappointment. Hanger. A film which obviously accomplishes everything it's trying to do, yet, i can't help but see it as a total drag. Hanger just ain't much fun. Is there really anything else that needs to be said about it?

Lloyd Kaufman makes a brief appearance. That's pretty cool. Right? Anyway. Hanger begins 18 years ago, with a pregnant prostitute named Rose (Rochon), who is given a homemade, unwanted abortion by her pimp. That's right, with a hanger. Poor Rose dies, and the fetus is thrown into a dumpster. The end, right? Nope. The little fella, who would later earn the nickname 'hanger', would not only survive, but would emerge from the garbage. Fastforward 18 years, and the deformed Hanger is very unstable, and very, very capable of murder. As timid as the little fella may seem, all he really wants is gory revenge. Despite this underachievement of Exploitation, these guys at Plotdigger Films have a lot going for them. I mean, Gutterballs, as overrated as it might have been, is actually pretty good. But Hanger could have used a little more thought and development, which could have led to, I don't know, maybe a little comedy relief, just to take the edge off the complete and utter ferociousness of it all. You might as well just watch Slaughtered Vomit Dolls. If these guys fancy themselves as a Canadian Troma, they've got a ways to go. I'm no expert, but if I was to make a movie, and I was fortunate enough to end up with Debbie Rochon, I might try and work around killing off the gorgeous one before the story even gets started. But like I said, I'm no expert, and ya know what? Neither is Ryan Nicholson. Hanger ain't a terrible movie compared to a lot I've seen, but then again, it is pretty terrible compared to others I've seen. If you just don't care, and you have low standards for Exploitation, I guess it wouldn't hurt. 6/10

No, it's not so bad it's good, it's just really really really bad.

[bbickley13-921-58664 · 4/10 · 4 November 2014]

The problem with the "It's so bad it's good" situation is too many film makers today are going for exactly that as if their predecessors originally wanted their art to be considered the worse film ever made.

Not everyone can be Troma, and having the great Lloyd Kaufman make an awesome cameo in your movie is not going to get you there. The movie was all shock but no real value to the shock. I can clearly see he's a fan if the house of Toxie, and I kept that in mind as I was watching the movie, but it did not work for me.

I think he should have focus on a more coherent story than he gave us, instead he focus on shock value. I'll admit there was some shocking moments in the movie that are really cool, and I would tell you about them, but then you might want to see the movie just to see these moments, but it's not worth the 90mins.

Rarely do I say skip it, but Skip it.

Unapologetically nasty and delightfully grubby.

[BA_Harrison · 7/10 · 19 December 2009]

Say what you like about indie director Ryan Nicholson, but the man is fearless when it comes to depicting on-screen depravity: there is nothing that he isn't afraid to show in the name of 'entertainment' (and if there is, then I'm not even sure if I want to see it). Since his low budget debut short Torched seared itself into the minds of extreme horror fans with scenes of OTT gore and eye-watering genital mutilation, the man has assaulted our senses with his full-length torture-fest Live Feed and the 80s-flavoured, ten pin bowling themed rape-revenge/slasher Gutterballs.

Now the director plunges even further into the depths of perversion and filth with Hanger, a sure contender for the title of 'most offensive trash movie ever', topping even the excesses of Troma's Terror Firmer and cult melt movie Street Trash. I guess whether you see that as a recommendation or not depends entirely on your particular taste in trash.

Hanger certainly starts as it means to go on, with a gut-wrenching scene featuring the forced abortion of a baby via coat-hanger, performed on soon-to-be-dead whore Rose (Debbie Rochon) by her sadistic pimp Leroy (Ronald Patrick Thompson). Unflinchingly captured in extreme close up, the bloody foetus being ripped prematurely from the womb leaves no doubts about Nicholson's intentions: to push the boundaries of taste as far as possible. But this is only the beginning...

Eighteen years after being saved from a dumpster by a vagrant, Rose's hideously disfigured son, 'Hanger' (Nathan Dashwood), is taken to a waste disposal plant, where he has been secured a job by one of his mother's regular 'johns' (Dan Ellis). Here Hanger meets ugly, sex mad, tampon-sniffing, Chinese co-worker Russell (a memorably quirky and hilarious performance by Wade Gibb), who quickly becomes his best pal. Also working at the plant are the less-than-friendly gay rapist Phil (who cooks up a GHB topped pizza in order to roger Russell in the ass and Hanger in his stoma!), and Nicole (Candice Lewald), the incredibly hot office worker who likes nothing more than the odd-spot of impromptu masturbation (taking the film firmly into porn territory). As our hideously scarred hero becomes accustomed to his new life, The John (who turns out to be Hanger's dad) plans revenge on Leroy and his skanky ho accomplices, a job which requires him to enlist the help of his son.

Nicholson's most bizarre movie to date, Hanger doesn't seem to have fared too well with fans of his previous work, and as I write, not one of the 7 IMDb comments have rated it higher than a 3/10. I can understand some of the backlash—the film is a departure in style for Nicholson, the flow of the narrative is kinda awkward, the absurd humour and extreme violence seems incongruous at times, and the ending is perhaps a little too abrupt—but despite these drawbacks, I still found Hanger to be a worthwhile experience. Maybe it's the fact that I respect Nicholson's uncompromising, no-holds-barred approach; perhaps it's because, despite being so unashamedly stupid at times, the film still manages to shock when it matters; or maybe it could be that I'm just a bit wrong in the head: whatever the reason, I found this to be a satisfyingly silly and sick flick that succeeds in making the viewer feel dirty for having watched (always a 'positive' in my eyes), and one which I can see developing something of a cult following over time.

I'm going to buck the trend and rate Hanger an unprecedented 6.5/10, rounded up to 7 for IMDb.

Hanging out

[kosmasp · 1/10 · 29 April 2020]

Ryan Nicholson probably does not care what someone things about his movies (and I mean the ones he directs not the ones he does special effects for, very likely you've seen some of them) - and it is a good thing overall. No one should feel a pressure or should change what they do, because others don't like it. There seem to be enough who have "fun" watching this.

Now having said that and as you can see, I myself did not like what I saw (and I'm not talking about disfigured characters or beautiful ones, the latter mostly women and also nude). Gutterballs at least had a sense of overall story - at least it felt that way. This also has a story (also revenge), but feels very disconnected. Now that does not really matter if you like to be provoked, if you like directors doing outrageous things, like penetrating a body with a penis - and not where you think this would take place ... but I leave the insanity for if you want to watch this.

Having said that, the low budget effects are decent. But again, they are here to shock. And while I do like Debbie Rochon, it's not like she leaves a big dent here ... no pun intended. A compilation of the "best effects" should suffice for those interested - I don't think you'd missing much story wise or acting wise ... again this will very likely appall you though (not judging, not recommending)

....and I thought I was depraved...

[bullsonparade-986-905736 · 9/10 · 25 February 2011]

Well, it certainly is a rare day when a movie manages to gross me out, a very rare day indeed. This is only logical, however, as Hanger is a very rare kind of movie...

Hanger is exploitation in its PUREST form. Its tasteless, its disgusting, its disturbing, its cheesy, its mindless, its stupid, and, quite frankly.... its perfect.

It takes a truly soulless person to not be able to see the beauty in pure, unadulterated filth such as this.

I found the tacky prosthetics, over-the-top characters, ridiculous story, and low budget sets give this film a very nice, vintage charm. In fact, the over-the-top, horrendously stereotypical characters are probably my favorite part.

This was intended to emulate the REAL exploitation films of a bygone era, and it does so flawlessly, and that's the problem most people have with it. They forget that they didn't like those films, and expect to like this one.

Don't get me wrong, this film is disgusting. I said before that this film had its moments that I couldn't stand. In fact, Russel's used tampon fetish creeped me out so much, that I found myself doodling a poster for a (fictional) film in the same genre (Zombie Lesbians from Outer Space Part 5 in 3-D), whenever Russel was on screen.

Also, its probably just because I'm gay, but I really hate that chick with the glasses who seems to be masturbating in every single scene she's in. First, I hate how the film keeps cutting back to her rubbing herself with a pen or something whenever there's a torture scene going on and its just starting to get good. Second, they waste about 20 minutes of my life panning the camera up and down her nude body, and she doesn't even die until the last 30 seconds of the film, AND SHE DOESN'T EVEN HAVE THE DECENCY TO DIE ON-SCREEN.

Though, its implied that Hanger bites her nipples off and thoroughly disembowels her, searching for a fetus that isn't there, and just the thought of that makes me happy. What a useless character.

All that said, its strange, disturbing, and at times painful to watch, but sit through it, you'll look back and you'll like it a lot more once its over.

Sure, I liked it for what it is

[rwagn · 7/10 · 2 July 2010]

Sure it has no budget. Sure it was shot on video. Sure the actors are community theater stock. Sure the props were all obtained at the local porn outlet. Sure the story makes little sense. Sure the effects are robust and disgusting and more than a little amateurish. Sure the whole thing reeks of high-school level obnoxiousness. Sure it's bloody and disgusting. Sure it's funny. Sure didn't take itself too seriously. Sure it's like a train wreck that you can't turn away from. Sure most people are going to hate this movie. Sure they are correct. But I sure did like it. I can't wait to see his prior movie "Gutterballs". I haven't laughed and been repulsed like this since I saw "Redneck Zombies". I love this kind of gorilla film-making-it's cheap and often a labor of love. The director comments that the film took 10 days to shoot and he considers it an epic! You have to love that. This is not "Citizen Kane" but I would take this over the next "Halloween", "Friday the 13th" or "Nightmare on Elm Street" remake any day.

Amazing Film.....In Concept

[tjkooker · 4/10 · 17 July 2011]

That's right the concept and idea of the film is amazing.

A lady of the night is pregnant and her pimp aborts the baby with a cloths hanger, but since she is already far enough long the baby is ripped out alive and thrown in a dumpster while his mother dies. So after being raised on the streets as a disfigured freak he is out for revenge.

See amazing concept, the DVD case has stuff of that nature on it which is why I bought it, but was I fooled.

It's nothing like that, well a lady of the night is with child and her pimp does so and she does die but then he's raised buy a bum who treats him like trash, gives him to his father, the man who loved the lady of the night, and he's the one who goes for revenge not Hanger.

No Hanger just gets a job, lives with an Asian guy, and kills for no reason. Yeah that's right the guy we as an audience should be rooting for kills people for no reason.

Every character in the film is a bad person and not really likable so who cares about them and the only character worth paying attention to is the Asian guy because he does say some funny things.

It should be a grind-core, exploitation, gore-fest of a horror film but instead it plays like a horror comedy that is not a good film in either genre.

You can skip it and live or see it and be mad it's not what you wanted.

This is the type of film that needs remade by a real writer director not a SFX guy.