Hangman (II) (2017) User Reviews

The Worst Serial Killer Movie You'll See

[rapshade · 4/10 · 25 November 2017]

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 want to see a movie made by professionals, not this.

[thejoudblitz · 3/10 · 26 November 2017]

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.

Another formulaic disaster.

[omendata · 5/10 · 23 November 2017]

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.

Good story, bad directing, the worst acting.

[mrtylerjwatson · 2/10 · 29 May 2018]

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.

Hollywood Is The Hangman...They're Murdering The Genre

[AudioFileZ · 5/10 · 26 November 2017]

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?

Movie that made me want to hang myself, mán.....!

[matthijsalexander · 5/10 · 23 November 2017]

The synopsis/script is very promising, my expectations were high. A good murder mystery, a story with a twist. bring it on! Hangman, who doesn't know the game? Who hasn't played it at one point. An original idea. Combine that with a serial killer, and one has ingredients for a good thriller........

Unfortunately it turned out to be one big disappointment.

The main problem is unbelievably bad acting, utterly unconvincing. The police captain, Shahi, needs to win an award for most unconvincing role ever. Karl Urban, the lead, wasn't convincing either and portrayed a cliché Detective. And all that reflects on legend Al Pacino and the movie as a whole.

The script. The story has many holes in it and isn't quite affluent. They tried to connect dots without connecting them, or make a rather unbelievable assumption that leads to the next clue.

Unfortunately a B-Movie to me. Watchable, but wouldn't recommend it.

Pretty average indeed!

[shaun_cullen · 2/10 · 24 November 2017]

This movie was a big disappointment for me. The trailer made it look like it might have some substance to it but alas no. With Al Pacino, one of my two favorite actors of all time, and Karl Urban, a fellow kiwi of mine, I thought it would be at least half decent. Poor script, poor acting on all fronts and just nothing worth writing home about. Pacino does seem to be doing more and more stuff that seems like he is just paying the bills these days. I would disagree with another reviewer here about Wind River though. I thought that was pretty lacklustre also. Haven't seen Snowman so can't comment on that one but as for this movie I can honestly say give it a miss.

Hang on a moment ...

[linescraig · 1/10 · 6 January 2018]

I wasn't going to leave a review of this waste of time, money and fake blood because all of the other 33 reviews gave it one star as well, so, hang on a moment, how come it has a rating of 5.0?! Something fishy is hanging in the air here. This film is a complete and utter barrel of bollox from start to finish. It's preposterous in every way shape and form, most importantly because the script is clearly written by a seven year old who has no idea what a story is, much less motivation of characters. It's insulting, superficial, mindless twaddle, and I agree with other reviewers, Mr Pacino clearly did this for the money. He's considered to be a great actor (though not in my opinion) and he should know what a good script looks like before he accepts a role, so, obviously he just took this on to pay into his pension fund. What happened to the integrity of film-making? So called 'producers' with lots of money to invest to try to make a profit and get a credit on imdb probably.

If Urban wasn't in it, it would have been unwatchable.

[Sleepin_Dragon · 4/10 · 23 November 2018]

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

An Al Pacino Look-a-Like Perhaps?

[dongillette1 · 2/10 · 24 November 2017]

Somebody please tell me what kind of "accent" Al Pacino was going for in this movie--or if he's just given up and decided he needed a few bucks to tide him over for the winter. You know, when you see that Al Pacino's in a movie, you go in with expectations. And if he was looking to shatter these expectations, then he did it brilliantly because a high-school kid could have done a better job. Supposedly, Al quit drinking years ago but watching this performance you find yourself thinking, "He's off the wagon and thinks he's from Alabama..." "Yo guess is as good as maaaahn..." and all the normal "Al Pacino impersonator" posturing is there (sort of like watching Kevin Spacey do him on Letterman before Spacey became persona non gratis). The shame of this movie is that it could have been good. If Pacino had played it in something other than a sleepwalk and if the director had had his head out of his butt, it could have worked. Everything was there... except the acting and the directing.

A True Stinkeroo.... Two hours lost

[elacov-90391 · 1/10 · 18 February 2018]

A true waste of time, feels like a cheap production D movie, would have given ZERO stars. A beloved actor(Al Pacino) who truly needs to pack it up. His neck doesn't move separately from the rest of him at this point, see for yourself.To turn his neck its a whole body move. Main actor, Karl Urban came across a a wussy non leader actor,embarrassed for him. Disjointed story, feels like missing scenes. Car chase scene with fake sounding unprofessional "car noises".A police station with no phones ringing or background noise. A stinker.

Major disappointment

[pepo_wicked · 4/10 · 26 November 2017]

Well, i'm a big Pacino fan and I think i've seen all his movies (some of them more than once), but Hangman just left a bad taste. Pacino just seemed to me very tired and his performance shockingly weak.

Let's just say that the 4.9 score on IMDb is very indulgent. Overall Hangman is not an extraordinary movie, incomparable with others on the same genre.

A movie that can be watchable (once).

Absolute nonsense from start to finish

[doorsscorpywag · 1/10 · 27 November 2017]

Al Pacino was a great actor in his time and I like Karl Urban a lot but this utter drivel must have been used by them to pay off a gas bill or something.

Pacino played the part of what seemed like a drunk Irishman crossed with a Norwegian docker as his accent was something not of this earth and was the highlight of a turgid thriller as at least it made me laugh.

A ridiculously convoluted plot around the kids game Hangman which made no sense whatsoever. Nobody seemed to care about trying to solve the Hangman clues by interposing consonants and vowels as we would do as kids simply waiting for the next stiff hanging from one thing or another. The word was never solved by the cops and actually was not what it was 'revealed' to be as it had two letters on the end that made no sense at all.

The idea why the perp was doing this was too silly for words with a series of idiotic coincidences that were even sillier. Clues that were there simply to advance a screenplay that did not have a clue where it was going or why, that ended simply because they needed a quick conclusion to fill 90 minutes.

The woman reporter had a minor role in all of this but the actress was pretty dull and her part pointless other than she discovered something at the start. It would have not been noticed if she had disappeared after 30 minutes. The police captain was in a wheelchair for some reason that did not matter other than to add another 'clue' for Al. Poor Pacino was dragged back to the cops to work with his old partner Urban so he could remember something from the beginning that was 'important' to the ending.

The acting was pedestrian at best, the story dull and the Hangman connection absolutely pointless as it did not matter and there was no real sense for it other than a cool title.

Overall possibly the worst cop/psycho drama ever made and a new nadir for Al Pacino who should have retired 10 years ago.

serial killer movie

[serranomaria-19456 · 25 November 2017]

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...

Trying to be too clever and fails

[andrewrye-06535 · 3/10 · 25 November 2017]

I was looking forward to this. I like Al Pacino and Karl Urban and though it might just work. The story line was intriguing and although not new, sometimes a good director & writer manage to refresh an old story. Unfortunately they didn't

It started out looking clever and almost convinced me, then it went too far and conclusions drawn and connections made were silly and beyond a rational thinking person. They were getting to the next body just as they were dying and while the killer was still there through making far fetched connections between the deaths. It was just unbelievable. Also, Hollywood needs to sit up and take notice, this is not how cops/detectives operate, racing through the city without sirens and putting lives at risk. The story had so many holes you could drive a semi through it.

Al Pacino has resorted to over acting and sometimes the scenes just looked awkward,bordering on inappropriate. Especially when he seems to ad lib and the rest of the cast have to try and keep on script. It looks and sounds disjointed. Karl Urban looked to have trouble keeping up the accent and it distracted from his performance. He is out of his league doing lead acting and needs to spend more time developing his craft. His reactions and performance was B grade and added to the disarray. Lastly, who was the reporter and what did she bring to the movie? If she had been removed entirely from the film no one would have noticed. I didn't care for any of them and that's a bad thing in a movie.

Like I said, I really wanted to enjoy this movie but sadly it got lost in it's own belief that it was better than it was.

A 3 from me and I'm thinking that's a bit generous.

This must have been made as a tax write off

[catschasemice9594 · 2/10 · 5 May 2018]

I hope there is a Hallmark sympathy card for actors who get stuck in a movie with a script that is this bad. The story line is a patchwork of plot handles from a kitchen that serves reheated leftovers. There isn't an original scene anywhere in this movie. The writers for this film need to sit down and watch the first season of True Dectective.

I Liked it! Not sure why negative nelly's rated so poor

[kimbakal · 7/10 · 29 May 2018]

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!!

Disappointing and Rather Poorly Made Thriller

[Michael_Elliott · 12 January 2018]

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.

Don't waste your time!

[dumitru_branisteanu · 1/10 · 26 November 2017]

Worst movie of the kind, pale shadow of Cruising with a younger Pacino, or Seven with Pitt, Freeman and Spacey. Pacino is a great actor, but his looks hamper his performance - he looks like a hobo homeless younger wannabe. The nose job of the other actor (Urban?!?) is also impressive. The movie ending is incredibly dumb and hard to swallow. What an expensive flop!

What rubbish

[djmathers · 2/10 · 28 November 2017]

I was so excited to watch this. As a kiwi, seeing Karl Urban headline this movie was so awesome. Great movie title, cool plot. Sounded promising right? But no. It was far worse than i could've imagined. It was absolute rubbish. The detectives are thick as hell - always too late to the murder scenes, and some revelations are too ridiculous to believe. Zero motive in the end apart from the fact Oaxino arrested him a year earlier - really??? Ridiculous. And Karl - sorry to say - was not very strong as an actor in this one, which I hate to admit cos Im a fan. Pacino stood up though. But the movie overall? STAY AWAY IF YOU Don't WANNA WASTE 90 MINS OF YOUR LIFE! Seriously. You've been warned.

Did Hollywood get bought up by Bollywood?

[patmeng · 4/10 · 10 December 2017]

Slow boring performance. Stereotype sup-par acting. No energy, fast wrap-up and low entertaining value. Fastfood like value. In Jeff Labrecque's article in Entertainment Weekly, he writes that countless American actors have been negatively impacted by the large influx of actors from the UK. He pinpoints training as the main issue. There are far too many American actors who are prone to laziness.

TH_s m_vie is Te_rible

[DrunkenBuddha · 3/10 · 27 November 2017]

For the life of me I cant understand why Al Pacino is cast as a southerner in New Orleans. This movie could literally have been on scene anywhere. I have never seen such a terrible fake accent, from any actor. Why couldn't Pacino just have been scripted to originate from New York or something? At first I thought it may have just been a couple editing slip ups, but no... Countless countless times Pacino's accent goes from Southerner to New Yorker mid dialogue, and no matter how hard I tried, Im sorry, it just ruined the movie. If I were from N'olans, I might even be offended. I do not blame Pacino. And truthfully, Karl Urban and Brittany Snows performances were actually decently acted considering what there was to work with. The villain and premise for his misdeeds are terrible and lack any real suspense. And the follow through on the story and the ending just really undo anything it had going for it. The idea is sound as far as a thriller goes, a serial killing hangman leading detectives on a wild goose chase. But after enduring this, and discovering the hangman's message, and ... is that a twist ending? Go ahead and get the nylon rope ready and toss it up over your ceiling fan because if you watch this you'll want to hang yourself afterward.

A nice play on a kids game

[nancy240 · 6/10 · 9 May 2020]

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!

A Clumsy "Se7en Lite"

[joe6629 · 4/10 · 27 November 2017]

First, I like Karl Urban. I like Pacino (mostly). So I thought that there was good potential here even though "Hangman" is essentially "Se7en Lite"... except not as good as that might imply. There aren't any new ideas here - it's all pretty cliché' - and of course there is the requisite insertion of the Gay and Feminist Agenda that seems to contaminate every movie coming out of Hollywood these days. Ooo - so edgy! Step right up and *pay* for your daily dose of propaganda. Yawn.

Urban is saddled with the standard-issue "brooding, former hot-shot FBI agent" character and Pacino as his "burned-out-but-brilliant former (retired) partner" ... who's somehow allowed to be heavily involved in a serial-killer investigation(?) Snow plays a New York Times reporter who claims that her goal is to give some ... "honest insight into what it's like to be a police officer..." .. uh, sure. This coming from the paper that loves to promote hostility and violence toward the Police.

They are trying to decipher the "coded message" that the "Hangman" is sending to them via mutilated and ritualistically displayed bodies (insert "mysterious and never fully explained" connection to the two investigators) and even though they keep getting "letters" (via the victim's bodies) nobody bothers to put them on the diagram that they keep showing. Another (of many) bizarre thing is that the "clues" left to the detectives are ridiculously obscure ... and yet they figure out the "meaning" of each one in seconds ... and are never wrong.

Production value is good (overall) with the exception of some annoying "shaky camera" footage. The dialog is clumsy, the acting flaccid, and the soundtrack is tolerable ... but the biggest issue I had is that the story does not flow: the pacing is inconsistent and confusing. There are some jarring continuity issues between shots, e.g. you'll have a couple of camera cuts building tension, and one that immediately follows that falls flat - it doesn't fit. It feels like there were shots randomly taken out and others randomly inserted ... I found myself thinking, "Well... that was weird ..." a lot.

Some of the other pain:

There is no logic to how the victims are selected or why - yet they want you to believe there is.

Some of the flashback footage is cringe-worthy. I can imagine Urban saying "Man, please don't make me do that ..."

In one shot it's 11pm on the first day, in the next shot, it's 10:45pm on the second day. You'll feel like someone is hitting the "Next Chapter" button on the remote without telling you.

Detectives allowing a reporter to contaminate a murder scene.

The 30-something, crippled, Latina Police Captain. Really? What vast law-enforcement experience/expertise would have logically earned her that position? What is she? An Affirmative Action "3-fer"?

Pacino punishes you with one of the WORST attempts at a "Southern" accent I've heard in a long time. Horrific.

To conclude: If you have nothing else to do, and want to just put your mind in neutral (maybe drink heavily) it's a tolerable way to spend a couple of hours ... but a much better use of your time would be watching (or re-watching) "Se7en" instead.

With Pacino I had high expectations but....

[missmomosa · 2/10 · 29 May 2018]

My god this is a travesty. None of what happens would be acceptable on a real police force. Its all so immature as If no one...not even Pacino went over the script for inaccuracies. Dont get me started on the female ridealong....holy she would never happen. So much of this is flawed and I have 52mins left to watch.

The script is so broken like stuff just happens but with no idea why or how or any backstory. Its just unreal...too unreal to be acceptable. The detectives are stupid, the darn forensic scientist is stupid... the only acceptable believable character is the captain.