User Reviews

Albert Pierrepoint was Britain's most prolific executioner, overseeing the hanging of more than 600 condemned men and women including Derek Bentley, Ruth Ellis and Lord Haw Haw. Adrian Shergold's film starring Timothy Spall in the title role is a dark period piece exploring the stark relationship between compassion and work ethic.

Pierrepoint approaches his grisly duties with pride, professionalism and a stoical detachment – a third generation hangman, he is well accustomed to checking his personal life at the prison gate while he gets on with the job at hand.

But duty and morality are constantly battling in the back of his mind - a struggle neatly illustrated when he is seconded to Germany after the War and tasked with dispatching Nazi war criminals. His clinical work here is deliberately and uncomfortably linked to the crimes of the Nazis who gassed their Holocaust victims with the same brutal precision.

Back in England, as liberalism begins to take hold and high-profile executions enrage a population bubbling with discontent, Pierrepoint's reputation in the eyes of the public slides swiftly and irretrievably from British war hero to callous murderer – a bewildering descent perfectly captured by Spall's mesmerising performance. Juliet Stevenson is not bad either as Pierrepoint's loyal wife gradually embittered by years of turning the other cheek at her husband's double life.

The film celebrates dignity and humanity but is laced with a uniquely British attitude evocative of Vera Drake and The Remains of the Day. Like these earlier social dramas, Pierrepoint culminates memorably in a momentary quivering of its previously resolute stiff upper lip.

I booked this independent little British film to show at Coalville's Century Theatre, on the Non-Theatrical circuit. Titled "Pierrepoint" here in the UK, this is a case of another quality British film being routinely ignored by the multiplexes in favour of the usual fodder presented for the masses. I was confident my regular audience would be interested by this true story of mass executioner Albert Pierrepont who really was 'a household name' in the 50s and 60s. In actual fact, Mr Pierrepoint was NOT 'the last hangman' in the UK. It really is a remarkably entertaining picture considering the obviously dour storyline, much aided by the portrayal of charismatic star Timothy Spall, who can be relied upon to always give an interesting and engrossing performance. Mr Spall is no matinée idol lead but not many would argue he is one of the most popular actors in Britain today. The film explains how Albert followed in the same 'career' of his father and Uncle Tom (who is briefly portrayed in the film), and interestingly reveals the technical side of his skillful and efficient methods for a successful result! Along the way, Albert is seen with Field Marshal Montgomery, who personally recommended Pierrepoint to carry out the Nuremburg executions, as well as other familiar people such as Timothy Evans, Derek Bentley and Ruth Ellis, all of whose cases fed the argument for the abolition of capital punishment. In the film, much dramatic use is made of Pierrepoint's execution of his friend, 'Tish', who often sang duets with Albert in the latter's pub. This really is true, very much a case of stranger than fiction. This film is strangely entertaining, never dull, although I noted some of the female members of my audience were regularly looking downwards whenever a hanging was shown. However, afterwards, there many favourable comments about this film and we were still talking about it at the post show drink in the pub afterwards! Obviously achieved on a very restricted budget, but a film to be recommended.

The Last Hangman Review

Mike Reynolds

It's a dirty job, but someone's got to do it. The clock strikes nine and the hangman goes to work, getting rid of criminals the old fashioned way. At the end of the day he puts on his cap and heads home to his wife like any other man. But what goes on in the head of an ordinary person who's job it is to kill? This is the question asked by Adrian Shergold, the director of The Last Hangman.

The film follows the true story of the rise of Britain's most prolific executioner, Albert Pierrepoint, and his struggle to be a lead a normal life. Pierrepoint is played by Timothy Spall, most noted for his great supporting roles in Vanilla Sky and The Last Samurai. Spall shines in this film, becoming both a calculating, intense killer and a jolly pub mate. As the film progresses, he literally transforms as his burden becomes greater. Juliet Stevenson plays Annie, Albert's arguably supportive wife. She portrays the guilt and paranoia of an English housewife painfully well. Through her, we see the full story of the couple's social and moral difficulties.

Pierrepoint's only real drive is that of any honest, hard working man. He just wants to be good at what he does. This keeps the audience in a emotionally conflicting state. The viewer desperately wants Albert to resign from his chilling career, while cheering on his incredible success.

The film is very nice to look at. What a feat. One can only imagine the difficulty of shooting a period piece independently. It was very interesting seeing the gritty grey streets of a wartime London recorded on 16. It seemed to give it a charming modern context, though there were jarring out of focus shots here and there. One memorable scene is brilliantly spliced with actual footage of a capital punishment protest.

Aside from the physical shooting of the film, there were strong symbolic devices at use. In order to hang someone efficiently, Pierrepoint would calculate the prisoner's height and weight. To do this he would look through a small peephole in the heavy cell door. Whenever anyone is shown through a crack, or a hole, it's a hint of grizzly foreshadowing. The method of passing time was artfully portrayed as well. Pierrepoint kept a logbook of all the people who he killed, their names written in perfect script. The stack of logbooks got bigger and bigger as years went by.

Films like The Last Hangman are important because they challenge our choices. This story makes us think of what we're responsible for in our lives and careers. Is the success worth the death of your inner self? That decision is up to us. Because the saddest thing about Albert Pierrepoint is that he applied for the job.

Capital punishment in Great Britain was abolished in 1964. Prior to that date there were many Home Office appointed Hangmen, none more prolific than Albert Pierrepoint, who served from 1932 to 1956, during which time he hanged an estimated 433 men and 17 women.

Following his father Henry and uncle, Thomas, into the family 'trade', Pierrepoint became the number one hangman in Britain and his career brought him into contact with many notorious criminals including "Lord Haw-Haw" ("Germany Calling"), real name William Joyce; John George Haigh, the famous "acid bath murderer"; Derek Bentley, still a controversial case and the subject of the 1991 film LET HIM HAVE IT; Ruth Ellis, the last woman to be hanged in Britain, and again the subject of a movie, DANCE WITH A STRANGER (1985); gangster, Antonio "Babe" Mancini; Theodore Schurch, the last person to be executed for treason in Britain. Perhaps the most controversial case in Pierrepoint's career was that of Timothy Evans, whose wife and baby daughter had been found murdered at their home at 10 Rillington Place, also the home of one John Reginald Christie. Evans was executed in 1950. Christie was later charged with the murders of seven women and hanged in 1953. Evans was eventually granted a posthumous pardon in 1966. Evans was played harrowingly by John Hurt in the 1971 movie 10 RILLINGTON PLACE, with Richard Attenborough as a chilling Christie (according to John Hurt on the DVD commentary for 10 RILLINGTON PLACE, Pierrepoint himself actually offered his services, under an assumed name, as technical adviser for the hanging scene in that film as the actual method was covered by the Official Secrets Act and, ever the professional, Pierrepoint wanted it re-creating accurately, and nor would he have wished his work to be misrepresented).

Pierrepoint's body of work (if you'll forgive the expression) was greatly affected by World War II, and he worked all over Europe including Germany, Cyprus, Gibraltar and Austria. It is believed that in 1945 he hanged 190 men and 10 women war criminals at Hameln prison in the British controlled sector of Germany, including Irma Greese, Elizabeth Volkenrath, Juana Boreman and the "Beast of Belsen", Josef Kramer. During the war itself he had assisted his uncle Thomas in the execution of 16 American soldiers, condemned by Court Martial for murder and rape, at a military prison in Somerset. The movie carefully portrays Pierrepoint the man, not Pierrepoint the executioner. When he does his work he leaves Albert Pierrepoint outside. He is totally professional: he doesn't care who they are or what they've done, all that matters to him is that they are human beings who have to die and he will achieve that as quickly and humanely as possible. All that matters to him is height, weight and physical condition. He is also portrayed as compassionate. When organising the order of the hanging of the German war criminals he selects a girl, who has just accused him of doing the Jews work for them, to be hanged first. His army assigned assistant agrees as she's an 'arrogant bitch'. 'No,' says Pierrepoint, 'she's the youngest. She'll be the most frightened.' And after the deed he insists that the remains be treated with due reverence: 'They've paid the price. They're innocent now. D'y'see?' The publicity surrounding the Nazi war criminals disturbs Pierrepoint, as people applaud him in the street and buy him drinks in the newly acquired pub owned by himself and his wife. This isn't right to him. What he does, his job, is private, he does not even discuss it with his wife. All this attention isn't right. Also there is now an ever growing movement opposed to capital punishment. To some he is a national hero, to an increasing number of others he is a murderer. He starts to question his role. Timothy Spall, known as a dry, comedic actor on British TV (AUF WIEDERSEHEN, PET) and usually the slimy, slightly dopey, comic villain in movies like HARRY POTTER and LEMONY SNICKETT, is mesmerising as Pierrepoint. He portrays a quiet, gentle man, and one who regards his profession with honour and pride. He is appointed by the Government; he is the best in the land. His is not to question the law or the decisions of the lawmakers; his is to do his duty to the best of his ability. And he does. Only when his own notoriety, the hanging of his friend and the changing mood of the country toward capital punishment creep into the melting pot, does his resolve start to falter, and only when the various prison authorities start haggling over payments for his services, something he sees as an insult to his position as Chief Executioner, does he consider resigning, which of course he finally does. There are a few historical inaccuracies and inconsistencies (such as the main fact that he was not the last executioner. Capital Punishment continued for another eight years after Pierrepoint's resignation) but this is the norm for this kind of movie, and on the whole the film is as accurate as any film covering over 20 years in 90 minutes. The acting is excellent in all quarters, particularly Juliet Stevenson, though Spall leads by a length. The period is very well captured and is a close cousin to VERA DRAKE in this respect. The main thing about this movie is that it lingers with you and makes you want to think and learn more about its subject. With Pierrepoint's 'clients' having played such a large part in cinema history, it's time we had a movie about the man himself. And this is it. Recommended.

When documenting a true story, criticism is often levied at the film-makers for condensing and twisting true-life events to suit their needs. That may well be the case. Unless the viewer has read first hand accounts of such true-life stories, then the film versions of these events appear stilted and fanciful.

Albert Pierrepoint's story has been well documented in not only his autobiography but by numerous historians and writers. With key events in the film being followed as closely as possible, it must have been nigh on impossible to keep everyone happy. Casting for this film must have been quite an exciting process. With people like Timothy Spall in the lead role, he showed all the care and attention that Pierrepoint was famous for. His wife, played by Juliet Stephenson, was a highly touching character. Although Mrs Pierrepoint never stood out in the original autobiography, Stephenson brings us a strong yet gentile woman, the driving force behind The Hangman. Eddie Marsan's portrayal as 'Tish' was casting at it's best.

A supporting cast of physically interesting character actors blended with superb lighting and set design, make a highly enjoyable and thought provoking film about the rights and wrongs of capital punishment.

The fact that the makers of 'The Last Hangman' managed to cram a fascinating life-long career into 90 minutes must serve as a tribute to their skill and craftsmanship.

I'd just been through a run of watching many poorly made, uninspiring and disappointing films in the last year, then luckily I saw this film Pierrepoint aka The Last Hangman which restored my faith in cinema.

Like all excellent films, it a simple story, expertly performed by a very strong cast. The other great element of a quality film is that it can be interpreted in many different ways by its viewers.

It shouldn't be explained as a portrayal of a man who hanged people although that is exactly what he did, what made him famous and what he will be remembered for.

For me Pierrepoint is more about working life. The job was always going to be a vocation as his father had been a hangman before him and he wanted to live up to a man he admired. We see the ends that he goes to, to be the best in his chosen field and I must admit I thought this was shown brilliantly; his care, his attention to the task, his desire to see the job done right. In the period of time that this story is set your job was something you took pride in not something you exploited to get better money and benefits while doing as little effort as possible.

It is impossible to be completely accurate when making a biographical film as you are condensing a persons lifetime into a couple of hours of screen time so therefore the director, writers, editor and producers need to shorten, edit and take a certain amount of artistic license.

Fortunately I knew nothing about Albert Pierrepoint before I watched this film so I didn't know what had been left in and left out of this account of his life, since then I talked to my father who knew many things about the man as he had lived and worked in London just after hanging was abolished and had seen Pierrepoint interviewed. He told me about a few things that weren't shown in the film, things that would have given my father an opinion about what type of person this famous hangman was. I've asked my father to see the film as I want to know how the celluloid depiction compares to his memories of the real man; even if he believes it to be inaccurate I'll still watch it again.

It is a dark, sad film which wouldn't be a great date movie but maybe a film you should watch the next time you have a bad day at work.

This film details the life and career of Albert Pierrepoint, the Lancashire hangman and owner of the pub 'Help the Poor Struggler' from the 1930s through to the 1960s. His profession is in the blood - following in his father's footsteps - but until the war he stayed anonymous, not even discussing matters with his wife.

Timothy Spall does well in the lead, although the historical accuracy is questionable in places. As a character study it works well, but ultimately it is a fairly depressing watch. The quotation at the end makes clear that Pierrepoint did become disillusioned with his quick and dispassionate job, moving from pride in the speed of his work to the feeling that something is inherently wrong with one person causing another's life to end with deliberate calculation.

Pierrepoint is a film which raises a lot of questions, but ultimately treats them in a superficial way. Historical cases well documented such as Evans and Ellis pass by without much note, which depersonalises them and makes their inclusion something of a lost opportunity.

I saw this DVD twice and read all the other user comments of this recent film before I considered I was ready to write my opinion on IMDb.com.

Capital punishment in the UK was abolished in 1965 and since then it has remained a controversial topic on which MPs have been given a free vote in the House (no whips office involved) and it has consistently been voted down by MPs ever since.The arguments for capital punishment range from "an eye for an eye"; why must the State keep killers alive at the public expense; as an example to other malefactors; to provide revenge for the bereaved families of the murder victim.I suppose the most controversial case cited for reimposing the death penalty stemmed from the Moors Murderers case from 1966, Ian Brady and Myra Hindley who died in custody.Even though they could not judicially be hanged, no Home Secretary since then has considered it politic to release or commute their sentence because of the expected public and media fury.Of course today in Britain killers are routinely sentenced "to life imprisonment" which depending on the circumstances, does not necessarily mean the killer's whole life.

Against this argument is the Christian doctrine of forgiveness and whether the State is executing an innocent man e.g.Timothy Evans (hanged by Pierrepont) instead of John Reginald Halliday Christie for the murder of Evans' baby daughter.

Albert Pierrepoint was certainly not "The Last Hangman" in the UK as I believe he resigned shortly after executing Ruth Ellis in 1955 after a continuous career as Chief hangman stretching from 1933 and as I said above. killers were hanged in the UK right up to 1964.In his 1974 auto- biography he turned against capital punishment with distaste as he considered it was merely the State exacting revenge and solved nothing.Considering he executed 608 murderers we must respect his opinions.I suspect those that advocate execution would not like to do the act personally as long as there is someone else to do it and bear the crushing guilt on their conscience.

Juliet Stevenson gives a marvellously understated performance as Anne Pierrepoint, Albert's wife and provides the home life and comfort to her husband.She is also the business brains in the marriage.We see the chilling, technical efficiency and speed which convinced the Allied powers in 1946 that a British hangman was the best for dispatching the many Nazi war criminals sentenced to death at Nuremburg.Albert was informed by the brigadier that the first batch to be hanged in a day was 13 with many more to come.Albert did not want to know what evil the condemned had done and tried to ensure he kept himself personally and professionally detached when performing his duties for the State.He even had a sense of compassion for the condemned by trying to complete the hanging in less time than his father's average of 13 seconds to reduce the fear and suffering in them.In one notable case he was done in 7 1/2 seconds.Likewise at Nuremburg he decided to hang the condemned female Belsen guards first with the youngest going first as she would be the most frightened.

To my knowledge this is the first film which accurately shows the technical method of hanging that was used in British prisons.It was ignorance by film producers of this that made their films unconvincing when showing a hanging scene as hangmen were advised to keep their methods entirely secret from the public.

All credit must go to Timothy Spall in the central pivotal role and the whole production team in evoking capital punishment in a Britain between 1932- 1955.

The movie tells the story of Albert Pierrepoint, Britain's most prolific hangman. This may sound like the plot of a cheap exploitative movie but I can assure you this is a fantastic movie which respects the man, the profession, the people executed and deals with the conflicts this strange profession carries. Thimothy Spall, a fantastic and very underrated actor, gives one of the best performances of his career. I've seen this movie twice before and should definitely see it again. Highly recommended

2005 Toronto Film Report Off I head to the Varsity for the first time this festival. Movie: "The Last Hangman".

Plot Outline: The life and times of Albert Pierrepoint - Britain's most prolific hangman.

Always feel comfortable picking films from the United Kingdom. If it has made it to the film festival, and it is UK produced, it will be good. At least that is what I have found over the years at the festival.

Now this project was originally a made for Granada TV in the UK. Not 100% sure if it has aired yet on television over in the UK. This is a very well made, well acted movie. The Director and actor "Timothy Spall" was there for the interesting Q/A session. Basically the story follows the Hangman 'Pierrepoint' (following in this father's foot prints) over his career as Britain's 'Best" executioner. How does this job affect him, and even more interesting how it affects everyone around him.

The most unlikely plot twist was to my amazement completely true. The filmmakers try to be as accurate as possible; there was no need to make anything up, the true story itself in interesting enough. The trip 'Pierrepoint' took to Germany after the war was particularly well done.

The Q/A raised the obvious questions on the Death Penalty, and the producers' feelings on that subject. There is a brief scene of 'Pierrepoint' cleaning up a 'lady' afterwords, it included some full frontal nudity. A lady in the audience asked why that was shown, and not a guy in the same position. In the attempt to be accurate as possible the director stated that when a woman is hanged there are "biological" differences that need special attention. He did not want to go into specifics, which was just fine with this blogger.

Great Film, but the subject material is dark, 'Pierrepoint' is shown at work for most of the film, which will put some people off.

I knew before watch the movie that it was originally made for TV. There is a lot of quality material that hits the airwaves. Watching a movie on to the Big Screen certainly adds to the experience of any movie. Now what if you watched some of the best "The Sopranos" episodes on the big screen? What about "Six Feet Under" or what ever your favorite drama program is. This is good, but do you need to throw your $10 down to see it in the theater? If the idea of seeing quality TV on the big screen is appealing to you, then the answer is most certainly yes.

My Rating = B

Anyone who has read Mr Pierrepoint's book, seen his TV interviews or heard his radio interviews will know this film totally misrepresents his life, character and work.

If you want to make fiction go ahead but don't pretend it's autobiography.

There is zero evidence that Mr Pierrepoint was ever troubled or disturbed by his work, he viewed himself as a public servant who's duty was to perform his duties diligently and efficiently.

The makers of this film chose to misuse Mr Pierrepoint as a vehicle for their own opinions knowing Mr Pierrepoint can not object.

If you want to know the true story read Mr Pierrepoint's excellent autobiography, there are also interviews with him to be found online.

Other writers have outlined what this film is about - Albert Pierrepoint, Britain's last hangman - so I shan't repeat a synopsis. The subject matter of the film is very dark, but what humanises it are the great performances from Juliet Stevenson and especially Tim Spall. The 8 is for the quality of the acting and the film is well worth seeking out for this alone.

I've not seen many reviews of the film so I hope you will forgive me if I post details of one:

http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/index.php?menuID=4&subID=471

You can also view a clip alongside the review

Hope this helps

An excellent movie to watch but there could have been more true facts on the people that he hung. One in particular comes to mind and that is Dorothea Waddingham (nurse).Pierrepoint did not execute Waddingham,he was the assistant to his uncle for this particular execution.

Quite a lot of what they call artistic licence in the film but an excellent movie all the same. Also in the movie i noticed that the metal eyelet of the rope always finished at the back of the condemned persons neck ,where it should have finished at the front under the chin to be factually correct.

In the movie as well they made out that Pierrepoint was in fact very close friends with James Henry Corbitt (tish & tosh).This was not so as he was a regular in Pierrepoints pub and they would sing together nothing more.

The film suggests that Albert Pierrepoint (AP) was offered an execution shortly after he completed training, but was disappointed that he was only offered the position of assistant.

In fact, AP served 9 years as an assistant before being offered a position as No 1 (Autobiography, "Executioner Pierrepoint") Although, in his autobiography, AP mentions "Sid Collins" nervousness, it is clear that Collins carried out the execution himself, giving AP half of the executioners fee in return for calculating the length of drop, contrary to the impression given in the film that Collins "flunked it", handing over responsibility for the entire hanging to AP.

Although it may be irrelevant, all contemporary references to the hanged poisoner Dorothea Waddingham refer to her extreme ugliness, in contrast to the benign characterisation made of her in the film.

It would be a particularly strange individual to claim that this is an entertaining movie. But entertainment isn't the point - some films challenge you and make you question the moral aspect of what you're seeing. And much like "The Reader" did, "Pierrepoint" is another film that asks more questions than it answers. It also features another fine performance from one of Britain's most under-rated actors but somehow, it didn't engage with me as much as "The Reader" did and struggled to avoid the stench and stigma of being a glorified TV movie.

Timothy Spall plays Albert Pierrepoint, a Lancashire grocery deliveryman who leads a double life as one of a number of executioners still operating in the UK. Quickly developing his technique and efficiency, Pierrepoint soon becomes considered the best there is which is why he is asked to Germany at the end of the Second World War to assist in hanging the various Nazi war criminals. Returning to his wife Annie (Juilet Stevenson) and his friend Tish (Eddie Marsan) as a hero, Pierrepoint's previously stoic nature begins to crack when the nation's views on capital punishment changes... and Pierrepoint finds himself doing the unthinkable.

Spall, one of the UK's finest actors, easily holds this tale of the tortured hangman together and gives the character a real pathos that I didn't expect. Honestly, I didn't know what to expect to this - it offers a dark, disturbing look at a man who took a strange pride in what must be one of the most unpleasant jobs on the planet. But as the inevitable stiff upper lip disappears (especially during the final half-hour or so), the film's views on capital punishment are all too visible. There isn't a laugh to be had anywhere, unusually in a British film, and anyone expecting a ray of sunshine should probably look elsewhere. There are one or two historical inaccuracies (Pierrepoint wasn't Britain's last hangman at all) but it's not exactly "U-571" when the Enigma coding machine was recovered by Harvey Kietel and Jon Bon Jovi. I just feel that although it's a well-performed and well-written effort, I can't imagine the sort of person who would want to watch it.

"Pierrepoint" can't really be faulted in terms of what is on screen - everything looks authentic, the actors do well in the roles and the script gives a melancholic, washed-out grey feel to the story which remains not only believable but oddly compelling. My issue is more with what the film is trying to say - capital punishment has been abolished in the UK for a number of years and something tells me that this isn't the sort of movie to shown in places like China or Iran where capital punishment still exists. I feel that the film could have told more of the story rather than ending when it did and also managed the time-line of proceedings a bit better - I didn't get any real sense of time passing, despite the rudimentary efforts of the dialogue. But "Pierrepoint" remains a curious little film, one with a strong message behind it but not the confidence to stand up and shout it.

Timothy Spall, one of Britains best currently working character actors (he can be seen in films varied between Harry Potter and the Sheltering Sky), is probably one of the only outstanding reasons to see Pierrepoint: The Last Hangman, and probably not until it likely will air on PBS some weekday night. It's not a poorly made film, for the most part (with the exception of one dream scene set in a field with a scarecrow, which is a revolting taste of schlock surrealism, it's got believable production values), but it's mainly in the script that it falters the most. We're given as juicy a subject as one could hope for- capital punishment in Britain in the late 40s and early 50s, with Pierrepoint (Spall) as the best in the not-quite profitable business. After getting some acclaim from superiors and sent to hang 47 Nazi war criminals in a week, he gets even more acclaim from his friends at eh pub and on the street via the press. He doesn't want it, however, as he tries his hardest to keep his personal life out of his cold, detached mode at work, which is in the frame of the best of professional 'men' at work, with everything kept securely inside.

A lot of this does make for subtly compelling drama, particularly with the execution scenes, and the the little moments in-between with Pierrepoint and his assistant, or in how he keeps it out of the life he has with his wife. It's when the writers push ahead with the most deliberate and obvious point of the movie, about making the professional personal (which I understand and could work for the sake of the film), is made into something that switches gears radically from the rest of the film. The whole tie between Pierrepoint and his best singing buddy at the pub feels as if it was put in to drive it further home about how he loses his faith in his abilities to do his horrifically successful job, and seems to lack logic to boot (wasn't there a *trial* after all?). The whole aspect of Ruth Ellis is also put in almost as an after-thought, with the scene following her execution driving home the idea that if this were a documentary instead, it would be twice as compelling given all of the fact and trouble with the English justice system of the period.

But as it is, for a could-be-TV-movie, it does have some very good strengths to it. Along with Spall, the other actors pull in equally subdued and careful work, even from his friend (whom, oddly enough, Pierrepoint doesn't find out his full name until before it's "go" time), and skillfully weaves restraint in with chilling scenes of hangings- and how measurements are made in the most methodical of approaches- into an average result.

I sometimes wonder why mostly older films are being hailed as the "best film ever made". Citizen Kane, the Godfather Trilogy, and so on. But why can't a fairly contemporary film be the best one ever made? I believe that a contemporary work can be just as good as the great classics - simply because the cinema industry must inevitably have evolved during the many decades since its inception. If you look at many older films that are considered to be very great, you can see that the quality of the work is not good enough to really engage modern viewers. For example the TV-film "The Bunker" features a miscast Anthony Hopkins as Adolf Hitler, some poor acting at places, unrealistic sets and shoddy craftsmanship through the entire thing. This is probably not due to any incompetence on the behalf of the film makers or the actors, but rather a result of time and money issues. Yet this TV film has only a 0.1 lesser rating on IMDb than "The Last Hangman." It seems to me that contemporary films that are actually not that good are often over rated because of massive budgets, distribution networks and incredibly skilled marketing. One example is the film "Avatar", which suffers from a horrible script that simply doesn't make sense. It truly does deserve the epithet "Dances With Smurfs" and will probably be destined for future oblivion. According to me, Avatar is the epithet of a brain dead popcorn movie that simply doesn't summon up any meaningful emotions. A good example of this is "La guerre du feu" of 1981 - a (probably) horribly over-budgeted and over-marketed disaster that features some very strange and poor acting. This film has the exact same rating on IMDb as "The Last Hangman". But who remembers it today? I dare you to watch this film without starting to laugh at the Neanderthal people. And I don't really think that is the effect that the director was after...

In contrast, "The Last Hangman" is a superbly directed and acted film that simply knocks out all of its competition. It features Timothy Spall, who stands out as one of the greatest actors of his generation. I should warn you that this may not be an easy movie to watch. The scene where the character Pierrepoint tells his wife about hanging his friend Tish left me completely devastated. But I believe that this film is a very strong argument against the death penalty. Perhaps Pierrepoint realizes, at the end, that you can kill people - but you can't un-kill them.

Great performances, especially from Timothy Spall, and delightfully not one terrible supporting role. Entirely believable all along. I wasn't even too disappointed in the one dream sequence..

Well filmed and each individual scene well edited, but... the entire film gets lost in the flaw of the typical biopic: too wide ranging. Trying to cover too much of the original topic, the story ends up a series of vignettes, hamhandedly points out key moments in history, gets unfocused and it had to go out of it's way to explicitly bring up the point they were getting to.

There were some great stories in here, and I have to believe they could have narrowed it to just, say, the moral conflict that emerges after the Tish "job."

When this film was first promoted back in 2005, I went and read Pierrepoint's autobiography. This was riveting, so I was looking forward to the film. There was no sign of it. Despite being a TV sponsored production it was hidden away after a limited release and three years went by before it appeared on ITV last week. Having finally gotten to see it I can only come to the conclusion it was because it was an embarrassment. The poor production values pointed to a limited budget. i.e. all the prisons were generic like the basic sets in a minimalist stage production; the military uniforms were either too big or too large,or had wonky hats;the hopeless miscasting of Ruth Ellis and Monty. Who had the bizarre idea of turning the medieval Hamlen prison into a ( presumably ) London derelict warehouse? The diabolical liberties with the timeline for artistic license. The elevation of Tosh from a casual acquaintance to his best mate was ridiculous and offensive. All this without the deliberate misreading, or was it sloppiness, about the execution process and post mortem cleaning. Had they read his book? Elementary research I would have thought. Then we have Spall portraying Pierrepoint as a simpleton and a misery guts. Also not apparent in his autobiography. Very disappointing.