Hangman: The Killing Game

The deal here is expectations. Al Pacino playing a crusty cop practically being forced out of retirement by a serial killer as well as his old fellow officer with a connection to the officer's murdered wife. This could be a taught thriller. Well, forget about taut and lower the thrills. Hollywood mediocrity and bombast has spit out another wannabe "7" that goes south. The central thread of the crimes is the use of the hangman game by a daily kill. Don't ask how the perp can possibly string his murders together with intricate staging in such a compact time frame. This fact is suppose to be horrendously creepy and sinister one is to suppose? It comes off quite silly. Because the cops can't keep our attention even with Pacino the viewer gets the device of a young journalist who is signed-off to do a story about their dedicated under-appreciated jobs. Conveniently this reporter gets in just in time for The Hangman. Another layer of Hollywood that doesn't gel with a real crime story. So, the movie feels absolutely contrived and fake. Pacino is a waste as his laid back style doesn't add the element it's going for. The co-lead, Detective Ruiney as played by Karl Urban, barely registers even in comparison to Pacino's pedestrian Detective Archer. And as for the reporter Davies played by Brittany Snow it's so thrown in to the stew it comes off as pandering pure and simple. Hangman dashed all expectations for a return to some form for Pacino as it is a lame story with blah performances. Maybe because I'm stubborn I watched it to the end because I can't think of any other excuse?

I watched the Snowman last night and its just as poor as this effort! There doesn't seem to be any thought to constructing an interesting story in thrillers these days leaving the viewer feeling un-thrilled for the most part! Is there really a dearth of intelligent and smart scripts in Hollywood? All of these type of movies seem to be desperately emulating the excellent and original movie "7" and failing on just about every level.

Poor old Al Pacino is past his best if this is anything to judge by and Karl Urban is looking not far behind. The acting was barely passable, the story was pedestrian, un-involving thriller-by- numbers and not very clever although it tried so hard to be...ohh, and the end - well what can we say but the director obviously has delusions of grandeur if he thinks there will be a Hangman 2 - I mean the ending just didn't need to be and it just makes the whole movie look even sillier and ends up being what my old English teacher used to call "Cheating The Viewer"!

If you are looking for a decent thriller you might find it hard this year but try the excellent "WIND RIVER" but just forget this one and wait for it to come on telly as it isn't worth rental.

Hangman (2017)

** (out of 4)

Detective Ruiney (Karl Urban) is forced to take reporter Christi Davies (Brittany Snow) out with him so that she can do an interview. They come across a crime scene of a woman hanging with a letter carved into her skin. Ruiney asks retired Detective Archer (Al Pacino) to take a look at the case and within hours there's another body carved up. It turns out that a serial killer is on the loose and using the game hangman to carry out his crimes.

HANGMAN got an extremely limited run in a limited number of theaters and I'm going to guess the only reason it did was because Pacino was in the cast. This movie really is just a few notches above a direct-to-video release and that's really too bad because this should have made for a much better movie. The critics tore the film a new one and many called it one of the worst of its type. I think that's going way too far but there's no question that this is a complete misfire.

There are all sorts of issues with this movie including the screenplay, which really seemed like a first draft that needed a couple re-writes. I say that because there are a few logical errors with the film and it seems confused as to what it's trying to do. What makes the film even worse is that the direction by Johnny Martin just never manages to build any sort of suspense. From the opening sequence to the awful ending, the entire movie just doesn't have any tension and it just has a very cheap feel to it. The rather bland and forgettable music score doesn't help matters either.

I thought the idea of a serial killer using a game like hangman was an interesting idea and it certainly should have made for a more entertaining film. The mystery of who is doing the killer is hidden quite well but at the same time it's never overly interesting anyway. You stick with the movie because of Pacino but even he can't save the mess of a screenplay, which just doesn't do enough to make it more entertaining. Pacino is good in the role but this certainly isn't one of his best performances. Urban was good but nothing overly great. Snow was good in her role but there's no doubt it's the weakest character in the film and in all honesty the film probably would have been better without this character.

HANGMAN has some interesting ideas but sadly the execution and end result are a real disappointment.

I don t know what is harder to believe : the inability of the detectives to arrive BEFORE the murders or the extraordinary effort of the killer to hang those bodies God knows how...

May be for TV... Not the same as The collector, that WAS good.

I agree that Pacino just did it to pay his bills. Well, it is entertaining nevertheless...

In this cliched serial killer thriller from Lionsgate, Millennium, and Saban Films, and director Johnny Martin, homicide detective Ruiney (Karl Urban) is ordered to escort writer Christi (Brittany Snow) through his latest case so that she can write a book on it. It just so happens that the next case to land on his desk turns out to be a victim of a serial killer nicknamed the Hangman, since he both leaves his victims hanging, and leaves a hangman word puzzle near each crime scene. To solve this case, Ruiney has to enlist the aid of his retired ex-partner Archer (Al Pacino) who may end up having a personal connection to the culprit.

This barely-released police thriller made some headlines when it received a 0% rating on Rotten Tomatoes on its initial release. That score has gone up to 6% (out of 100), but the movie really isn't that awful. It's not good, either, but I've seen worse. The faults here lie mainly with the tired serial killer plot tropes, and some abysmal editing during the film's finale that makes things a little confused and laughable. Brittany Snow does a decent job as the reporter with literal scars from the past, while Karl Urban looks puffy and constipated. I mainly watched this for Pacino, whose choice in films has been really awful for the past decade or more, with a few notable exceptions. This one seems like another check-casher, and he puts forth just enough effort to skate by.