Hangman (2017)

  • Time: 99 min
  • Genre: Crime | Mystery | Thriller
  • Director: Johnny Martin
  • Cast: Al Pacino, Karl Urban, Brittany Snow

Storyline:

Decorated homicide detective Ray Archer (Al Pacino) and his partner, criminal profiler Will Ruiney, (Karl Urban) are tasked to catch one of the city’s notoriously vicious serial killers who is playing a twisted version of murder using the child’s game – HANGMAN, while crime journalist Christi Davies (Brittany Snow) reports on the crime spree, shadowing the detectives.

2 comments

  • “Have you noticed anything out of the ordinary?
    There’s a letter carved into her chest.
    A game of Hangman. “

    Mix the game show “Wheel of fortune” with a “Se7en” -ish thriller and you get a movie like “Hangman“. A film in which two detectives, Ruiney (Karl “Dredd” Urban) and Archer (Al Pacino), are chasing a ruthless serial killer. The victims are related to each other in a thoughtful way. Fortunately, there’s also this journalist Christi (Brittany “Bushwick” Snow) who provides the two seasoned detectives with ingenious clues at the right time. Probably that’s why she’s nominated for the Pulitzer prize. The crazy game the killer plays, is the famous “Hangman” game. And although Archer, as a retired detective, kills (no pun intended) his time while solving crossword puzzles in Latin, the solution of the puzzle doesn’t seem to be so self-evident.

    “Hangman” isn’t such a bad movie per se. To be honest, they succeeded in making it pretty exciting at certain times. But just like the game “Hangman”, its course is rather too linear and too obvious. The way some clues are found, is sometimes quite ridiculous. If all investigators were as inventive as this duo, solving murder cases would be a piece of cake. The most annoying thing in this film was the interference of the crime journalist Christi who, as a would-be authority in the field of murder cases, asked the right questions at the right time and interpreted clues in a perceptive way. The picture with the body of detective Ruiney’s wife contained such an obvious clue. It’s almost incomprehensible that these experienced detectives never noticed it. But no problem for our brilliant journalist. One look of her at the picture in question and she already knew what the others had overlooked.

    Even though Al Pacino isn’t written off as an actor yet and in my opinion he can still bring the quality of a feature film to a higher level thanks to his brilliant acting, his contribution here is somewhat a disappointment. “Manglehorn” is a perfect example of a film where Pacino demonstrated his class and professionalism as an actor. Even though this film is contentwise nothing to write home about, this class actor made it a fascinating spectacle. My conclussion was very simple. The film in question wasn’t necessary to prove that Pacino is an exquisite actor. This conclussion also applies to “Hangman“. The recruitment of sounding names guarantees the required media attention. But I’m not sure if this movie deserves that.

    Without Al Pacino, Karl Urban and Brittany Snow, this film would be nothing more than a typical Saturday night movie about a serial killer who’s fond of word games. The film will easily overshadow other crappy weekend films and certainly guarantees a pleasant evening in front of the tube. On the one hand it is recommended for lovers of the serial killer genre. On the other hand, the result is rather dull and uninspiring. Certainly not something to get excited about. And Al Pacino can’t fix it either.

    More reviews here : movie-freak.be

  • With a couple of car chases, the occasional fast cutting, and some tepid gore, I give you 2017’s Hangman (my latest review). In veracity, Hangman is the type of flick that David Fincher would watch and laugh his butt off in reverse envy.

    Hangman’s story involves just another sicko who murders people. Said murderer whose makeup seems laughable and trite, offs randoms according to the outline of a children’s guessing game called Hangman (hence the name of the film).

    Hangman, which could’ve been titled 11 PM (don’t ask), is like every other serial killer movie ever made. Its ending has a jolt or two but it’s not enough. Hangman is unoriginal, conventional, uninspiring, silly, and totally paint-by-numbers. Al Pacino stars and totes dyed hair, dyed goatee remnants, and a sleep-induced Louisiana accent.

    Hangman at ninety-eight minutes, feels just like a mediocre Law & Order episode (with an R rating of course). It has the obligatory police captain who is angry at his or her subordinates. It also has the obligatory detective who can’t seem to retire or is coming out of retirement for one last gig. Finally, Hangman has a journalist persona following investigators as they discover grisly bodies lined up for the slaughter. In the realm of the real world, this would never be allowed to happen.

    In truth, I couldn’t recommend Hangman unless I was paid to do so. Director Johnny Martin never seems to generate any tension or palatable intrigue throughout. With Hangman, Johnny boy fidgets relentlessly with image after image of darkened gruesomeness. It seems fitting considering that he can’t seem to light a scene so that the viewer has a clear idea of what’s going on.

    All in all, Hangman has blase acting from its side characters, a tired locale in the form of Atlanta (which masquerades as the The Bayou State), and an image of a continued clock that reminds everyone of Pacino’s past flop, 88 Minutes (“tic-tock, doc” ugh).

    Bottom line: Hangman is probably one of the dopiest thrillers since 2004’s Suspect Zero (that’s the pic where Aaron Eckhart whines on occasion). As a Redbox time spacer, it just can’t “hang”. Rating: 1 and a half stars.

    Rating: 1.5 out of 4 stars

    Check out other reviews on my blog: http://www.viewsonfilm.com

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *