Hangman

No need to get too long with it, the movie is just bad.

A horribly pretentious story that is full of holes and just doesn't work, pair that up with terrible acting from good actors, just a disappointing mess.

Just give it a miss.

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 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.

Great actors, great idea, but could have been executed better. Not sure if it's the writing, or the directing, but it could have been better. I was able to watch the entire movie, so it'a still worth a viewing. Temper your expectations, and you will enjoy this one.

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.