Hangman

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...

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.

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.

Brittany Snow's entire character shouldn't exist, unrealistic and just awful development/acting/script regarding her entire role.

Entire ending is terrible.

I have, unfortunately, and there's nothing there: no script, photography, acting of any kind, production value... A void you can barely watch, if you can at all. (I'm thinking about making a list with REAL 0 to 5 movies, just for fun)

Before giving a 0 to 5, people should consider the above. Afterwards, they go into liking it or not.

For me, in this case, "Hangman" lacks a little care for the script - it could've been so much better. The rest of technical aspects for me is OK, so I'll start with a 4.

Then we have Al Pacino, Karl Urban and some supporting actors that did a good job - but I was kind of frustrated, so 2.

There you are: my rating is 6.