Hangman

The actors made a great job i felt like im with them ... wow good movie.. but u know i wish it could be more than one full movie... it could be better ... anyways i like it...

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!

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.

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 get why so many rated this movie so poorly on IMDb (so far), I just don't get it. Okay, some may have been turned off by Pacino's performance and have mentioned he was passed his prime, but even past his prime he is still Pacino and he can do a better job than most, besides he has not much more, perhaps even less, screen time as Detective Archer than Karl Urban and Brittany Snow, the other main headlining actors. I was satisfied with Pacino's performance and I'll go see his next movie. Director Johnny Martin has much experience in the movie biz even if this is only his fifth directorial foray; he has co-produced many more, has also a lot of experience in stunts. He got a good script from Charles Huttinger and Michael Caissie, then proceeded to make it happen in the best of traditional suspense directing, at least as good as I can recall. Thing is… I don't see enough movies in the genre with this kind of suspense and textbook dramatic building to the final scenes. So I just eat it up if the director and cast don't screw it up; they certainly didn't here. Karl Urban steals the show, as detective Ruiney, with an outstanding performance. His name may not be familiar to some but once they start watching the movie, his face will rapidly come back to mind thanks to his better known past characters in Star Trek, The Bourne Supremacy and many more, it no doubt will. He has one of those classic looks that can match directors specific needs. He is undoubtedly a lead character actor, so being paired with Pacino was a plus as far as this movie goes. Brittany Snow rounds off the lead trio with a flawless performance as Christie Davies, and thankfully her character in 'Hangman' was no fluff, but rather one which provided richness to the story. She plays a strong journalist, embedded with the detectives. Her character has a fascinating backstory and she acquits herself splendidly. I'm glad the writers wrote this part as they have and it just wouldn't be the same without it. I looked up her filmography and she clearly had much experience as an actor; it shows. I hope she gets more parts like this because she can deliver. The plot is simple but it's the suspense building and the development of the key characters that makes it a winner in my book. A serial killer, one calculating and sick criminal, sets out on revenge killing that involves both detectives, though one, Pacino, was retired early in the movie and the other going through a difficult period in his life. We do not know of their involvement until the story reveals it later, but the motive remains the intrigue, as much as who he is. His predetermined spree of seven intended victims reminded me of the highly successful 1995 movie 'Se7en' and another 1995 classic serial killer thriller 'The Usual Suspects'. I stand by the rating I gave the movie and I highly recommend it, of course. Sorry for the spoiler, but I hope it makes up for the cumulative/average 4.9 rating (at the time I wrote this review) and get you to see it.

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).

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.

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!!

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.

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.