IMDb > 88 Minutes (2007) > Reviews & Ratings - IMDb
88 Minutes
Quicklinks
Top Links
trailers and videosfull cast and crewtriviaofficial sitesmemorable quotes
Overview
main detailscombined detailsfull cast and crewcompany credits
Awards & Reviews
user reviewsexternal reviewsawardsuser ratingsparents guidemessage board
Plot & Quotes
plot summarysynopsisplot keywordsmemorable quotes
Did You Know?
triviagoofssoundtrack listingcrazy creditsalternate versionsmovie connectionsFAQ
Other Info
box office/businessrelease datesfilming locationstechnical specsliterature listingsNewsDesk
Promotional
taglines trailers and videos posters photo gallery
External Links
showtimesofficial sitesmiscellaneousphotographssound clipsvideo clips

Reviews & Ratings for
88 Minutes More at IMDbPro »

Write review
Filter: Hide Spoilers:
Page 4 of 27: [Prev][1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [Next]
Index 261 reviews in total 

4 out of 7 people found the following review useful:

Pretty bad, sure.

5/10
Author: gazzo-2 from United States
24 April 2010

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

You won't get much of an argument from me here. (I saw it on You Tube-some guy has it broken down in 10 parts save for the first few minutes. Save yourself the price of a rental and do that instead) Everyone involved just seems kinda lost-Pacino phones it in-barely scratching the surface of 'Good late Pacino' in the Insider or Heat. He's not convincing. His wig is awful and acts as a running gag.

Poor Alicia Witt has nothing to do but stand around in her undershirt or sit in the passenger seat and semi-react to Pacino all thru the movie. She's underused and certainly too young for the Pacino character.

Sobieski as the killer/baddie. Well. I like her. I hated her performance here though. Like Witt-rather wooden, unconvincing, miscast. You don't for a second buy her ability to be in 4 places at once or coming up w/ that little body on the rope-and-pulley trick at the end. Her accent keeps switching continents and her delivery as the mad killer at the end Bruce Boxleitner flat. Just--awful.

Scads of Red herrings abound. The goofy doorman w/ the fake mustache? the tattooed rentacop? the one-scene cameo of the British biker dude in the hall who gets shot? the clean-cut student who has the confrontation w/ Pacino in the office? Witt? the Dean? You know--half the cast.

Most of the film shows Al running from overhead or renting a taxi(!) or semi-emoting into the camera. William Forsyth is 4 seconds from arresting him, is convinced to let him go thru the flimsiest of reasons while there's a body hanging around the top floor of the building next door, people coming and going lousing up the evidence of the crime scene willy nilly, etc. Egads.

Who wrote this stuff? You Tube it. ** if that outta ****

Was the above review useful to you?

4 out of 7 people found the following review useful:

I hate seeing these predictable boring movies!

2/10
Author: Arlis Fuson from United States
11 April 2010

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

So I have watched so many movies like this that they bore me to death. Pacino is what sold it I guess, but he sure couldn't save it.

So Pacino gets a phone call saying he has 88 minutes to live and for the next 88 minutes he basically does very little about it... Yea I said that right, he seems to not take it seriously, even though all kinds of stuff happens. He has suspects but cant prove any of them and meanwhile a guy in prison seems to be the one truly behind it. It unfolds and you find that you could care less anyway.

This story kept giving everyone as a suspect and with so many obvious suspects, as a movie watcher you know none of them will be the ones who are really doing it. The people that look like they couldn't possibly be involved are the ones that probably will and yea thats what happens here, no surprises.

Al Pacino used to be a great actor and now hes boring and lazy and you can tell he only acts because he gets a big paycheck and he has no passion for the movie he's making. Most of the actors on this movie were boring and dry and made it hard to care about any of them. I really don't like Leelee Sobieski in anything, she's a horrible actress. William Forsythe is a great actor and he's the only one who really carried the film for me. A guy named Christopher Redman played his part well and I think he should get more big roles.

I just didn't care about this movie or its boring story or it's lazy acting and boring direction. 2 out of 10 stars.

Was the above review useful to you?

5 out of 9 people found the following review useful:

Formulaic and Manipulative

4/10
Author: Hitchcoc from United States
3 December 2009

I got hooked into this movie like I would a TV police/CSI/Criminal Minds type of show (most of which are superior to this). Once I'd made the investment, I needed to see how it ended. All the while, I kept saying to myself, "This is really quite bad!" First of all, it pulls up every crime story cliché there is. The use of the time limit before his death, the list of potential suspects, all of whom seem either trustworthy or guilty as hell, exploding cars, guns fired through doors, and Pacino running around looking like he is going to explode at any minute. Not to mention the incredible number of resources this guy has at his disposal. I don't know what kind of money he makes, but his network, controlled by his lesbian assistant, Amy Brennemen, is beyond belief. He commands her to find things out and they are there within a couple minutes. Then there's the condemned man who may be setting this all up. Then there's the little sister he felt he betrayed and whose death has contributed to his considerable angst. It is a lot of sound and fury, really signifying nothing in a big way. With a little subtlety and some verisimilitude, a movie like this could work, especially with a pretty good cast--this ain't it.

Was the above review useful to you?

5 out of 9 people found the following review useful:

Predictable action

5/10
Author: gbx06 from Mexico
23 June 2008

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

There is not much to say about this thriller, although its premise was interesting, a man who must solve his own murder in 88 minutes – real time in the film- but when the movie begins, even when it doesn't abused of common places, falls into the trap of letting too many pieces to solve the mystery and makes action sequences so predictable as the climax in the university building that results chaotic, incredible and very complacent.

Even with all this Al Pacino goes well with his return to a principal role in a movie of this kind, despite the age, but it doesn't happen with the overacting of Sobieski and Witt, whose interpretation of naive and intelligent criminal psychology's students, never ends to convince.

So even though edition remains agile the 88 minutes or more that runs the film, the lack of steady directing and the maturity necessary in a script very complacent opaques what sounded like a memorable action film. One more to forget.

Was the above review useful to you?

5 out of 9 people found the following review useful:

Not Pacino's worst film...

4/10
Author: somf from United States
18 April 2008

That award still goes to Two Bits. Pacino should stay away from films with numbers in their title.(Godfather 2 is the exception). He has a film being release later this year called Righteous Kill where a lot of talk on that board is about how Pacino and DeNiro are too old to play their washed up detective roles. I disagree with that sentiment entirely, but those who felt that way have to get a load of 88 minutes. Grandpa Al has 20 year olds throwing themselves at him like he is a rock star. Being 53, I sure wish there was a smidgen of believability in that concept, but alas it is absurd. The entire film is absurd, the dialog awful, and everyone seems almost embarrassed in their roles. Pacino despite all this is still entertaining enough that the film scores a 4 in my book just because he could elevate a reading of the phone book to a 2.

Was the above review useful to you?

6 out of 11 people found the following review useful:

A hyperactive little thrill ride bumped up a notch higher by the cast

7/10
Author: bob_meg from United States
27 November 2009

I'd heard so much trash-talk about "88 Minutes" that I was reluctant to see it. I knew the basic premise --- forensic psych gets ominous phone calls counting down the minutes to his pending demise --- but heard it was so ridiculous that it diffused any real suspense.

Well, let's put it this way: if you regularly watch episodes of crime dramas and mysteries on TV and you buy what's in them, you can sure buy what's laid out here.

For all of the film's TV drama hyperbole, the fact remains that it's populated with some very strong performances from A-list actors and that alone bumps up its credibility. It kept me pretty much glued to my seat for its ironic two-hour running time. I could have lasted even a bit longer with it to get some more insight into the motivations behind the crimes, etc.

But this is a bump and grind adventure, and it never pretends that it's anything less tawdry, and who really cares in this case? It's not a message movie and the film itself is basically well-made.

There are about three times more red herrings than you'd normally expect and none seem especially outrageous. It had me guessing --- incorrectly several times --- for the most part.

Al Pacino brings a nice layer of gravitas to many scenes that could have been so cheesy in the hands of a really hacky TV actor. For fans of Alicia Witt, Amy Brenneman, Leelee Sobieski, Debra Kara Unger, and the always creepy Neil McDonough, it's a treat as well.

Was the above review useful to you?

41 out of 81 people found the following review useful:

Exciting, real-time thriller

7/10
Author: redwhiteblue5087 from United Kingdom
27 May 2007

This suspense thriller starring Al Pacino as a police psychologist/teacher, is a fast paced, entertaining little film, which keeps you gripped all the way to the end, even if the story is sometimes a little difficult to follow and doesn't really add up.

Pacino is good in the lead role, and seems to rise above the B movie material, which could explain why this film hasn't really been given a major theatrical release. If it wasn't for him, the movie could easily have gone straight to DVD.

Although the plot is full of holes and the identity of the killer and their motives calls a lot into question, it's the ride itself which is very enjoyable, and works perfectly well as a lightweight Friday night movie.

Was the above review useful to you?

1 out of 2 people found the following review useful:

Pacino has but 88 minutes to resolve a threat on his own life

7/10
Author: msroz from United States
25 October 2013

"88 Minutes" is a mostly a murder mystery, with the added thriller element that the man playing detective, a forensic psychiatrist played by Al Pacino, is under a death threat due to terminate in 88 minutes with his death.

Pacino's character, Jack Gramm, is a very rational, unemotional and intelligent person. He is exceptionally cool under the threat, and he knows that he is the essential person to resolve the situation, not any policeman, because the motivation of the threat and the most recent serial killing copycat involve him directly. He bedded down the latest victim. And so he embarks on solving the mystery himself. The story is quite complex because he is all the time casting his net and trying to narrow down the possible suspects, who must be familiar with both him and a serial killer scheduled for execution. He has to find the linkages.

It was a pleasure to see Pacino play this part. He is such a good actor and such a subtle actor. There really are differences in each part that he plays. This man Gramm is quite unlike his character in "Insomnia", say.

There is one place in the story, fairly early, where one person was where you might not expect that person to be, and that led me to a correct guess. Furthermore, there were some other hints about how Pacino was being trapped, framed and threatened all at once. But basically the story didn't reveal its cards and kept us guessing until very near the end.

Writing such a complex script must have been quite a challenge.

Scripts like this could not possibly be done without the cell phone. This omnipresent device is essential in almost every scene. It saves tremendous time and allows action to be speeded up and information transmitted much more quickly than in older movies. At times, I almost felt there was too much reliance on this device. I have to remind myself that it is merely an extension of the human's communication and information storage capacities. The speeding up makes it harder to follow at times, and I cannot say that I fully understand the role of everyone in this story. The explanations of how some of his students behaved flew by me too quickly to absorb.

Not that this matters too much. It's basically a Pacino show. I was not disappointed at all. I had no expectations about this movie, saw no previews, read no reviews and had no idea what it was about. This is how I watch most all the movies I am seeing.

Was the above review useful to you?

1 out of 2 people found the following review useful:

An Exciting Movie with Several Unexpected Developments

6/10
Author: Uriah43 from Amarillo, Texas
13 November 2012

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

After giving his expert testimony as a forensic psychiatrist against a serial killer, "Jack Gramm" (Al Pacino) receives a phone call saying he has 88 minutes to live. After that he continues to receive messages in one form or another counting down how many minutes he has left to live. During this time he searches for clues and possible suspects. All of this is against the backdrop of the imminent execution of the serial killer, "Jon Forster" (Neal McDonough) who also goes by the title of the "Seattle Slayer". Since Jack Gramm is also a college professor who has a reputation for being very tough on his students, he begins his search for suspects among those who have taken one of his courses. At any rate, rather than give away the surprise ending I will just go on to say that this was an exciting movie with several unexpected developments throughout. Unfortunately, I was a bit disappointed with the ending--specifically the identity of the killer--because it lacked plausibility. As such this film could have been much better if it had been more realistic. However, Al Pacino and Alicia Witt (as "Kim Cummings) were excellent and kept the film energized. Again, it's just too bad that with a budget of about $30 million, someone couldn't have come up with a more reasonable suspect and a more plausible ending. But that's Hollywood I suppose.

Was the above review useful to you?

1 out of 2 people found the following review useful:

About ten years too late for its audience

6/10
Author: Anthony Pittore III (Shattered_Wake) from Los Angeles, CA
10 September 2008

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

'88 Minutes' tells the story of forensic psychologist Jack Graham (Al Pacino) who is taunted and tortured by calls warning him of his impending death (starting at a deadline of, obviously, 88 minutes). As the film progresses, secrets of his past and the pasts of those closest to him are revealed to be more than they once seemed.

While it's not a terrible thriller, I do think it just came about at the wrong time. To me, it seems like one of those typical mid-to-late 1990s thrillers (like Gibson's 'Ransom' and the like) that flooded the market. The general mood, character development, and style are all reminiscent of that type of film.

There's nothing particularly awful or great about the film. The acting, even Pacino's, isn't dazzling (which is saying a lot as Pacino has always been one of the greatest actors of his generation). The writing (especially the dialogue) was amateurish at best, full of plot holes and very, very predictable. The direction was flawed, made worse by some ugly cinematography, although there were some good bits of suspense that could be considered as "edge of your seat" entertainment. . . but they were fleeting. In the end, it all came together to be just a substandard and totally forgettable thriller that was, simply, too average of a vehicle to include such a star performer like Pacino (though he has done some crap in his career ('Revolution,' anyone?)).

Pacino has some good work ahead of him for the next couple years. Let's hope the twilight of his career will leave him as the superstar he always has been.

Final verdict: 5.5/10.

-AP3-

Was the above review useful to you?


Page 4 of 27: [Prev][1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [Next]

Add another review


Related Links

Plot summary Plot synopsis Ratings
Awards External reviews Parents Guide
Official site Plot keywords Main details
Your user reviews Your vote history