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.

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 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.

In this film you will find exceptionally bad acting. Even the two heavy-weight names of Hollywood, Pacino and Urban can only do so much with the terrible script. Like in other flicks similar to this one, the makers probably meant to give a realistic edge to their storytelling, by having half the people stutter, filming the car chase like a YouTube video, or having the actors stare into nothing with a thoughtful (dumb) expression on their faces.

Whoever gave the director/editor/writer of "Hangman" money for this abomination, next time give that money to me please, I promise not to flush it down the toilet.

Two extra stars for Al and Karl, I love you guys.

I enjoyed the film! This is my usual genre- Mystery, Action, Thriller etc...I don't do stupid comedies & love stories...well, not unless its loaded w/killing action etc. My point is, I've seen lots of Bad and "B" movies & would NOT rate this as one. It isn't high, fast action, but serial's usually aren't...more mystery who dunnit... which this does have. It's not Zodiac, but was good, and I'd have no problem watching again or seeing the sequel if made. Sure there were a couple parts I went "Oh come on!" (Train hanging w/the car) but that's stupid writer sht. & found in most movies. ..and WTH is with the negative nelly's dis'n on Pacino & Urban they were both great in this! I'm a fan of both, and they've both been in much worse films!!

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.

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

Entire ending is terrible.

The film starts with Al Pacino playing a veteran cop Detective Archer on the verge of retirement. Pacino who would had been 77 years old when the film was released he looks like the grandfather of a veteran cop who is on the verge of retirement despite his weird dark hair!

The action moves a year after Detective Archer had a prang with an unidentified car to Detective Ruiney (Karl Urban) who is being shadowed by an ace reporter Christi Davies (Brittany Snow.) They come across a horrific crime scene of a woman hanging with a letter carved on her. The killer is calling out to Ruiney and the now retired Detective Archer by playing a game of hangman as other bodies and letters turn up.

Hangman is a bizarre low rent Seven knock off where the serial killer's method and madness is just nonsense. Stolen blood from a priest, one victim being someone who enjoys S&M, a speeding train heading for a hanging man who is still alive, a pig head, a detective in a wheelchair on the verge of a nervous breakdown. With all the insanity and killings, only two detectives and a journalist are on the case.

Hangman is a plodding, laborious film that is ridiculous. It can be summed up by a laughably bad chase scene of a man on a motorbike who then just stands there on the road as the chasing trio are speeding for him when something leftfield happens.

To top it all, what is Pacino doing with that silly southern accent?

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.

Detective Will Ruiney (Karl Urban) enlists the help of his recently retired colleague Ray Archer (Al Pacino) when a serial killer who uses the children's game Hangman as a basis for his killings. Ruiney and Archer find themselves in a race-against-time battle of wits with the killer and must try to track him down before he spells out the full word (with a letter being carved into the bodies of each of his victims). It seems that Archer and Ruiney are also part of the game and may be at risk when they learn that the killer has carved their badge numbers at the location of one of the murders...

Hangman follows the standard police-procedural narrative (and actually has a bit of a feel of Seven about it), so I don't believe the problem is necessarily with the material, but more with the delivery...

Director Johnny Martin is perhaps to blame for a lot of the film's failings; there's just no spice, zip or zing to anything here making the film feel a little flat. Given the nature of the narrative (having to try to get one step ahead of the killer and reach the victims by a certain deadline) the film should have had some urgency about it, but once you've seen 1 or 2 of the killings and see how everything plays out the same when the cops arrive the film starts to lose its edge and lacks suspense and tension.

The acting, like the directing, is not much to write home about. Pacino is clearly the big draw here, but he underplays a lot here and is far too sedate (but I blame the director for this). Karl Urban and Brittany Snow are so-so in support with nobody else really making the grade.

In summary then there's nothing wrong with the script and concept, but the lethargic direction and lack of excitement is what really hurts the film. Like I say the script has the legs to make it watchable, but I think a different director may have improved the overall quality of the film.

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?

Although this film follows a tried and tested serial killer formula such as Se7en it was still a very entertaining film. Al Pacino has been slated by a number of critics for this film, but I think that he played an exceptionally good role considering he is in his late 70's. I enjoyed the film and think that it really deserves more favourable reviews than I have seen here.

The David Fincher movie is far superior to this one. But having Al Pacino in this one, he elevates this above average. He takes it to a whole different level. When he says his lines, you can feel the gravitas he's pushing upon the movie itself. Not to take anything away from Snow and Urban, his co stars, it's just ... well we're talking about one of the all time best actors.

The thriller aspect of the movie works and it's nicely/decently done. The tension is there the thrill is there ... the bodies are there and the criminal aspect of it is there. You may see certain things coming in advance, but it's still nice watching it unfold

Watch it if you're a fan of Karl Urban, he broods and stares the whole way through, which kind of helps distract from the movie, which has not plot, no focus, and is ultimately trying to be too clever for its own good. AL Pacino, who I was excited to see in it, was disappointing, it's almost as if he was playing a caricature of himself. The story was muddled, and had too many holes, and way too many inconsistencies to be taken too seriously. Some nice direction, and fairly decent direction, but that doesn't mask what is all in all a poor film. Just enjoying it for a bit of smouldering from Urban, otherwise it's a shambles. 4/10

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...

A cop with a traumatic past (the unsolved murder of his wife) and a reporter writing an article on police work find themselves investigating a series of murders where the victim is left hanging somewhere, a letter carved on the body. Nearby a hangman's game is painted. It doesn't take long for them to get retired cop Archer on board. It turns out the killer does leave clues about the next victim. They realize that the killer is playing this hangman game and will kill a new victim every day at 11pm. Our team actually manages to make almost in time several times and catches several glimpses of the killer who manages to slip away every time though.

The reporter and Archer eventually realize that the murder of the other cop's wife is actually connected to this series of killings. The break in between murders of several years helps them narrow things down. Eventually they will confront the killer who does have a past with one of the cops.

Hangman is a B-movie thriller, with a strong cast (it's great to see the lovely Sarah Shahi here,) good performances, a story with some plot holes and predictable elements. It's not, however, as bad as other reviews make it seem. All those reviews sound the same, complaining about Pacino. Yes, this is not a million dollar budget, award winning movie. Pacino's performance is perfectly fine here and watching him is always a pleasure. The story doesn't satisfy entirely, but I enjoyed it a great deal mainly because it's refreshing to see a serial killer thriller these days and because of the casting of Pacino.

Love crime thrillers, and the storyline for the movie was actually really good. Serial killer who leaves clues taunting the detectives to try and catch him...

Unfortunately the words given to you describing the plot of the movie is the best that it gets.

Pacino couldn't figure how to pull of that deep Louisiana accent. Seemed to be casted to play a support role, but he either didn't believe in the movie or didn't care because that was some of his worst acting.

Karl Urban's character story was a mess, Wife was brutally murdered, what could have been key in the focus of the movie was just lost until it was as if the writer/director was like oh yeah, about that.

Brittany Stone was the lone brightspot in the movie. She did a better job "playing detective" (was a reporter) then the two lead actors who were actually playing detectives.

Movie had a strong resemblence to the Saw series, go figure as this was also a Lionsgate film.

Overall felt the story was promising, but as the movie progressed, the acting, writing, and directing regressed.

Don't believe all the negative reviews, it wasn't all that bad! This film was a good ride, I enjoy a good serial killer movie and this had me going to the end. Pacino is always worth watching, so settle in and give this one a chance!

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.

Is this the best serial killer movie I've ever seen? Of course not! However the plot is there, the run time of 98 minuets is just enough not to long and dragged out. Although like many movies it has its flaws it's worth the watch.

Al Pacino has a way of becoming larger than he needs be in many of his movies, but in this one he is restrained and quirky and extremely likeable. He contrasts well with the other two leads, the strikingly original character of the reporter following the detectives, and the lead detective whom is slightly damaged but intelligent and quick to thread the needle to keep the investigation on track. Both are played by superb actors. This is a fast moving film, tight and almost ingeniously plotted, with a good script and story and a diabolical villein that just keeps getting cleverer and cleverer, the detectives straining every resource to keep up. There is great action, two great car chases, and great heart as well, sensibly not over-played. Great tension. I'm giving it a 10 for overall originality and purity of vision. This is possibly the best serial killer movie I've seen this year.

I felt his movie was pretty entertaining, ignore the moronic reviews of some IMDB users, no way this movie deserves a 1 rating. Now, i'll be honest its not like this was the best murder mystery I have ever seen but this was not a bad movie, infect, I was pretty entertained by it, and i have a very high standards for movies. Al Pacino was awesome as always and this movies had some intense moments to keep you on the edge of your seat.