Hangman (2001 TV Movie) User Reviews

HANG IT UP

[Mitch-38 · 4/10 · 22 July 2001]

What really had the premise for being a great "who-done-it" mystery, falls flat with a script that waned toward the end. The predictability factor came in heavy around the middle, and the plot of using a dupe to do ones bidding is pretty formulaic. Lou Diamond Phillips, who is a super and intelligent actor, can't carry the picture on his presence alone. Madchen Amick also performs greatly, yet can't save the script, either.

While certainly not a turkey, HANGMAN never realizes its full potential, and the supreme lack of urgency or suspense didn't help. What the viewer is left with is a story that probably sounded good on paper, but fell far short on actual, physical execution. No pun intended. Recommended, but just barely over the mediocre hump.

Murder mystery by rote

[=G= · 5/10 · 25 August 2002]

"Hangman" is yet another by-the-numbers TV serial killer mystery with that sun-never-shines Canadian dreariness all over it. Featuring two under-rated B-movie stars, Phillips as a homicide cop and Amick as a rich and retired shrink, "Hangman" spins a yarn about murder using the child's word game of the title name played via computer with real people getting hung. The film does little to distinguish itself and many will find the ending unsatisfying. However, it also does little wrong, making it a worthwhile small screen watch, albeit marginally so. Just drama with no stunts, shootouts, sex (almost), or sensationalism. (C)

It's OK, considering it's a TV movie

[TBJCSKCNRRQTreviews · 6/10 · 31 January 2004]

This was an OK thriller, the plot is especially good, but it just isn't as good as it could/should have been, even for a TV movie. The plot seemed great when I read about it, but it just wasn't very special once you got into it. The movie is another typical "guess who did it" mystery thriller, and it primarily fails because it's almost instantaneously obvious who the perpetrator is, and from there, it's just watching the cops get to the bottom of the case, which you've already done. The acting ranges from good to just above average, but none of it's totally bad. The excitement of the movie is barely ever present, as most of the movie consists of the mystery of who did it(which is obvious very early on in the movie), and not the possible suspense of "can we save someones life?". It's just above average, and I guess it's worth watching if it's on TV, and there's absolutely nothing else interesting to watch. You could do a lot worse than this though, as a thriller it's just above average, and that's good enough, as this type of thriller rarely is more than that. 6/10

*sneeze* I'm allergic to dust.

[Jack the Ripper1888 · 21 April 2002]

This movie smells like something that has been sitting on the shelf for a long, long time and is finally being brought down. HANGMAN is one of the worst suspense thrillers that I have ever seen. It isn't even thrilling. Or interesting. Nothing about this tripe is good. None of it. The "twists" at the end were stupid too. There wasn't even a good final blowout. Instead it just ends with Lou Diamond Philips walking off into the distance. There is very little originality. It is just the same as many of those other cop movies that we see. Killer kills people and two cops must team up with the hott witness who can help them find the killer. Same old, same old. The best parts of the entire movie were probably the sex scenes. Don't see this. The back of the box makes it sound like some good scary suspense movie. What it is, is a steaming pile of dog s*** disguised as a movie.....1/5.

An interesting thriller

[Mirek_Dymitrow · 5/10 · 3 July 2002]

This isn't a masterpiece, still it's a smart and interesting thriller. Although the genre is a bit over-exploited, this movie has a capturing and really original story. The brutal techniques of the Hangman are something I've never seen on screen before. The acting is OK, not very overwhelming, however convincing. The ending might seem as a let-down, yet it's not stereotype compared with other films.

A Cunning Foe

[bkoganbing · 7/10 · 1 December 2008]

Lou Diamond Phillips and Madchen Amick are the only Americans in a Canadian made for television film Hangman. It's a complex psychological homicide thriller about a bunch of murders by hanging that center around some psychologists.

Phillips is the lead detective assigned to a group of killings known as the Hangman murders. That's the way these victims depart this mortal coil and all of them seem to center around former psychologist Madchen Amick.

The film has more twists then those pretzels you see at your local bar. During the course of Hangman, Phillips and his team come up with several theories of the crimes.

There's not a shot fired and the physical violence is kept to a minimum, in the manner of Alfred Hitchcock. Yet things are kept pretty tense in true Hitchcock manner.

Lou does a fine job underplaying his role as a detective who just can't get a handle on the case. His foe is an incredibly cunning one which you won't appreciate until the end.

I wouldn't miss it, especially if you're a fan of Lou Diamond Phillips.

Hangman

[Scarecrow-88 · 5/10 · 31 December 2008]

Serial killer detective thriller regarding a Police Detective's search for a slick murderer using an Internet game of Hangman, as a challenge to find him/her. Detective Nick Roos(Lou Diamond Phillips)enlists the aid of "retired" pill-popping psychotherapist, Grace Mitchell(Mädchen Amick), who supposedly awakened to find a man hung in her living room. As Roos and his precinct squad work to find the killer, a development seems to be occurring, those chosen by the Hangman are affiliated with Grace and her former place of employment, a psychiatric institute ran by her estranged stepfather, Dr. Henry Mitchell(Robert Haley). As Roos pursues leads and evidence, his team uncover suspicions of an employee, Paul Jarvis(Grant Nickalls)who was once a patient at the institute, carrying a torch for Grace. Roos also discovers that Grace's reason for leaving had to do with an affair and some bad blood associated to Dr. Henry's associate, Dr. Natalie Walsh(Rosemary Dunsmore). It seems that Natalie was having an affair with Henry as Grace's mother lie dying. Natalie's medical practices with patients was reported by Grace but Henry saved her from being terminated thanks to his powerful influence with the board. In turn, Grace was marked, with Natalie using her affair with a deeply depressed patient as leverage. Meanwhile Jarvis was stalking Grace, obsessed with her since first meeting her in the institute. The film shows that Jarvis was sneaking into a room right next to Grace's, even calling in a masseuse who would be a victim of the Hangman game..this took some gall considering that an armed policeman was guarding Grace's room and Roos was talking to her about the on-going case.Obvious, for those who have seen their fair share of these films, Jarvis is a red herring and the true mastermind will be revealed even though Paul isn't an innocent.

The film features familiar traits often associated with these types of films and crime shows dealing with a detective who is burdened to find the killer, and we see how Roos is led on a wild goose chase with his superiors demanding answers, willing to close what they believe is a solved case when a man of his experience knows something's amiss. Also, the film(..as often as occurs in this type of crime thriller) allows the super-intelligent killer to perfectly plan and execute these incredibly difficult/elaborate Hangman murders encountering no problems, carrying them out without a hitch. I always find this far-fetched, but there are serial killers who have survived for a long time, duping police and investigators, but considering who the mastermind is in this film and how incredibly hard it would be to pull off the murders, staged the way they are, the participants involved, and the exact precision it takes without even the slightest mistake, you have to accept it as entertainment in order to fully swallow what's taking place. The film doesn't end the way many often expect, not at a neat resolution for our heroes as is often the case in the past involving detectives and their catching the killer responsible. We're asked to take a leap of faith considering that we must accept a character's personality changing quite drastically when the reveal takes place and the film unveils it's hand. Like many television shows and crime dramas, the detectives often face heavy resistance from sneering, slimy big-city lawyers who enjoy embarrassing them when it is shown that they were either wrong about an arrested suspect or just didn't have the proper evidence to hold him. And, like any giallo or mystery, the story opens numerous suspects, and a motive for committing such crimes soon is enlightened to the viewer. I think this film will possibly find a home with those who like slippery thrillers where the killer stays one step ahead of the police until the lead detective puts two + two together..the whole cat-and-mouse aspects might draw you in if you are a sucker for this sort of thing. Startling erotic sequence isn't expected and unveils the psychology of the murderer who'll do whatever it takes to get revenge. As always Lou Diamond allows his detective a sense of dignity and compassion, but he's quite gullible at times which exposes him as being human when it comes to shady characters with ulterior motives. Flashy role for Mädchen Amick, whose character is complex and conflicted, with plenty of skeletons in her closet.

Not Bad for TV

[crowscavenger7 · 7/10 · 29 January 2008]

OK, so not the greatest move of all time, but definitely one of the best TVmovies I've seen. I've always enjoyed it when we get to watch the cops figure out what the audience already knows. If the truth can be told, I didn't figure out the whole thing before time, I had suspicions, but was filled with reasonable doubt (you see what I did there?) Then again, this unusual brain lapse can be attributed to the fact that it was 2am. And I do like the ending, even if it was inconclusive, simply because it seemed a bit more real than some (insert Arnie voice here) "taking out da trash" ending.

The characters were well drawn enough for the purposes of the movie and it was an especially strong performance from Lou-Diamond Phillips, even if a few of the other performances weren't quite up to scratch. But hey, its a TVmovie, whaddya expect? Perhaps the best thing I can say about it, is that I was gonna give it a little while then go to bed, but it held my attention until the end. And thats a good sign!

Not much - in Canada or anywhere else

[caa821 · 2/10 · 3 February 2007]

Sometimes I get the impression when the produces/director/cast/crew for the "made-for-tv" movies cross the border into Canada (as they often do,), some sort or ray or odorless gas descends upon them -- causing movies to be less than they otherwise should be.

Some of them (unfortunately, all too few) should be excellent, but are only "good;" those which should be good, turn-out only "fair;" and so on.

This one could have been "O.K," or "fair." But it was pretty bad.

The performances were fairly good, and the actors/characters somewhat engaging. But an average story went downhill as events progressed, and the ending was contrived, a bit silly, and about the most boring and unimaginative in the history of film-- in Canada or anywhere else.

Entertaining and suspenseful with an unexpected ending!

[disciple128 · 8/10 · 16 November 2001]

This is a great film! It's just as entertaining and thrilling as a good crime/thriller should be. The actors all do a great job, and the ending is as unexpected as it gets. That doesn't necessarily mean that it is a good film in many cases, but here it clearly does! So if you're looking for a film with a lot of plot twists and an ending that will leave you wondering, this is that film!

The film was great until the end.

[Movie Nuttball · 5/10 · 16 August 2005]

Hangman is a fair film that has a good cast which includes Lou Diamond Phillips, Mädchen Amick, Mark Wilson, Vince Corazza, Robert Haley, Grant Nickalls, Rosemary Dunsmore, Stephanie Moore, Dan Lauria, Judah Katz, and Eric Skye Erickson. The acting by all of these actors is very good. The thrills is really good and some of it is surprising. The movie is filmed very good. The music is good. The only downfall is the sex and nudity scene when Amick is on the guy. I thought that was silly and lowered the film and which I thought brought the excitement of the film down a few stars however, the film is quite interesting and the movie really keeps you going until the end. This is a very good and thrilling film. If you like Lou Diamond Phillips, Mädchen Amick, Mark Wilson, Vince Corazza, Robert Haley, Grant Nickalls, Rosemary Dunsmore, the rest of the cast in the film, Action, Thrillers, Crime, Dramas, and interesting films then I strongly recommend you to see this film today!

Decent.

[BastardBlob · 19 May 2001]

It's another one of those '2 cops on the trail of a serial killer leaving clues for the police'-genre movies (there are most then you would think in this genre), but this one does have an interesting premise and good pacing, but the acting is rather flat and the ending was a bit of a let-down.

Obviously nowhere near as good as 'Seven' but better than a lot of films of that type, I'm giving 'Hangman' **1/2 out of *****. Watch it if its on TV or if there is nothing better to rent.

Why Was Louie In This?

[chthon2 · 4/10 · 3 February 2003]

A generic cop thriller. The boys in blue hunt down a killer/stalker who likes to play sadistic games of "hangman" with the cops to give them a chance to save his victims.

The only thing in this movie I thought was good was Lou Diamond Philips, who seems to be great in everything i've seen him in. Why he chose to do this, I have no idea.

The basic premise could have gone somewhere, but there was a great deal of cheesy, cliche dialogue and I thought the actor playing the killer was miscast.

And I have a problem with the director here. Was he and crew doing shots of whiskey with the teamsters right before shooting began? I don't like giving overly negative reviews, but to tell you the truth, after seeing this, I think I will pass over anything with Ken Girotti's name on it. This was just a very poorly directed film. Even with the cheesy dialogue, it could have been good with Lou Diamond Philips and a director who knew what he was doing.

Pattern Exhaustion.

[rmax304823 · 5/10 · 18 February 2016]

It's a Canadian made-for-TV movie about a psychiatrist (Amick), a detective (Phillips), and a serial killer (?).

It's about what you'd expect, nothing more and nothing less. If this continues, the fantasy world of TV and movie will have more serial killers than victims.

They all seem to have some kind of game they play with the agents of social control. There have been -- let me think -- serial killers who leave clues based on Alice in Wonderland, the seven deadly sins, the arrangement of stars in the cosmos, and the number of Hedy Lammar's marriages. Well, I just made that last one up, but you get the picture. This serial killer plays a game called hangman, which I've forgotten how to play, so the tensest scenes made little sense.

But then the entire movie doesn't make much sense -- something about acquiring valuable land and a conspiracy between a killer and someone we thought battened on probity.

Lou Diamond Phillips as the detective stands out because of his australopithecine features and his cheerfully flat delivery. Madchen Amick is notable because of her name. It so -- so -- TEUTONIC.

The ending seems to leave an opening for a sequel, but I can't believe that. You probably won't remember the movie for long after you've watched it.

it looks a very predictable who did it but the end is non american

[decelle · 8/10 · 15 July 2001]

This film has to get it from the actors and the story. No shooting, speeding cars or supermans. Allthough there are some gaps in the scenario, the films is above the other serial killer movies. According to other comments the end is disappointing, I found the end plot rather original,surprising and making sense when you look back on the whole film.The actors act very sober but that makes the movie believable.

First hour is great, last 30+ minutes ruin it

[Katatonia · 10 November 2002]

I really thought the first hour of this movie was really exceptional. However, the last 30+ minutes of the movie literally ruin it. The plot simply becomes too unbelievable to suspend your disbelief. And the ending is just a big disaster as far as movie endings go.