88 Minutes (2007) Poster

(2007)

User Reviews

Review this title
265 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
2/10
Worst of Pacino's Career
C-Younkin19 April 2008
Warning: Spoilers
Al Pacino is one of those few actors whose career is so decorated and quality that you literally would see the biggest piece of crap in the world just to see what he would do in it. Over the years I've watched boring (Simone), long and preachy (Angels in America), and just bad (Oceans Thirteen, Two For the Money) movies primarily because he's the Godfather, Lt. Frank Slade, Serpico, and Scarface to me and he always will be. He embodies greatness and respectability, even in crap, and so I keep going back. 88 Minutes is not crap though, it's less than crap. It's amateur night at the script-o-rama.

Pacino plays Dr. Jack Gramm, a college professor who also works with the FBI as a forensic psychiatrist. When he receives a phone call telling him he only has 88 minutes to live, he must use his powers of analysis to save his own life. One possible suspect is Jon Forster (Neal McDonough), a serial killer who feels Jack manipulated the jury into sending him to death row. In addition, he also includes a woman he had a one-night stand with and a disgruntled student he slighted into his investigation.

The script by Garry Scott Thompson is embarrassingly, abysmally awful. It's so startlingly, unconscionably bad that after the first couple scenes, I was fascinated with the depths it was willing to sink too. Start with the tasteless opening scene. A woman is hung by her legs while a man cuts and rapes her. It's an appalling and uncomfortable thing to watch and above all it's not even necessary to show it. Moving on, the Pacino character meets with the D.A investigating the Jon Forster case in the next scene. It should be intense but the introduction of milk and cookies kills the momentum almost immediately.

The movie is a mess with background characters, all of which are underdeveloped and made to look like suspects. I understand the concept of adding red-herrings but when everyone from Jack's students to the campus security guard seem to be hiding something, it just gets absurd. And why does the killer try to kill Jack by blowing up his car and shooting at him before the 88 minutes are up? And why does Jack, a Forensic Psychologist, seem so skilled in handling a gun and acting like a cop? And what exactly is the killer trying to do here, frame Jack for murder by planting evidence or actually kill him? And why does Jack's teaching assistant (Alicia Witt) feel the need to bring up wanting a relationship with him right in the middle of them running for their lives? And why do we constantly need to be reminded of the death of Jack's sister by constantly flashing back to a little girl running on a beach. And of all the names you could have picked, why on Earth would you name a character Guy LaForge. This screenplay is just inconsistent and nothing is credible, even the initial threat is laughable in its execution And if you think you've already reached your ridiculous quota, just wait for the ending. It's an out-of-the-park homerun as far as retarded goes.

I was going to review the acting but since this is running longer than I expected, I just want to say that Pacino sleeps through the role and gets his paycheck and Leelee Sobieski is one of the cheesiest and phoniest people I've ever seen act. She should be acting in "Ogre 2" on the sci-fi channel, not anywhere near Al Pacino. "88 Minutes" is a movie of stunning badness. I found it hard to even keep track of all the ridiculous things that happen in it. It's still early but I would be surprised if I saw a worse movie this year.
96 out of 137 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
88 Minutes of Subpar Thriller Fare
RhyanScorpioRhys26 January 2007
I will not discuss any of the plot point of the film, as I do not wish to spoil any "surprises", but I will say that it's a sad state of affairs that a movie of this caliber is considered even nearly good. The characters are one dimensional, the plot trodding on all-too-familiar themes, and the acting is abysmal. Al Pacino, who used to be a fine actor, sleep walks his way through this movie and delivers the exact same performance as he did in "Two For The Money", "Insomnia", "People I Know" and "Simone" (I will admit I liked him in "Merchant of Venice"). This movie is not superb...it's not even good. Al, this is a wake up call to please return to the realm of acting instead of collecting the first paycheck that comes your way.
225 out of 347 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
There is a good reason why they don't want to release it
lukas823 January 2007
This is such a poor movie, it is unbelievable. Especially considering it has such a solid actor like Al Pacino. Fans of his will wish they never saw it.

Al plays the role of a psychologist consultant for the police who is also a teacher of forensic psychology. The movie starts the day a serial killer who was convicted based on his testimony is about to executed. But it is a bad day for Al's character because there is new evidence that suggests he helped convict the wrong man. Oh, not only that, but he receives an anonymous phone call telling him he has 88 minutes to live.

Al Pacino plays a hardcore guy in most of his films, that is usually what makes them great. It seems like they tried to do the same thing with this movie and accomplished the opposite. His character is surrounded by bimbo 20-year-olds throwing themselves at him and guys with leather jackets for him to beat up. But it just ends up feeling like a desperate attempt to prove he "still has it." The only thing floating this movie is a gimmick for a plot (the whole 88 minutes to live thing) which sort of ends of being a subplot anyway. Al Pacino fans are going to hate me for saying all this until they see it for themselves.
322 out of 507 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
People were over Exaggerating... Its not THAT bad...
ny_kv6 September 2009
I think that what people read our reviews is to find out whether or not the movie is worth the time or whether they should watch it so lets cut the crappy "I need attention" reviews okay... Yeah its worth the watch... it was fun and suspenseful to some people. Bottom line here is that it will not bore you. Have time on your hands? Need to watch a movie you haven't seen? then just got for it. You will not be blown away but you will be entertained for the hour and 42 minutes it runs.

I mean truly, its a movie... Heres how I seen it, Did the movie entertain you through the time? yes. Was a bit predictable? yes. Did it at least attempt to come up with a good plot twist? Yes! I mean this is not Pacino's best, but a decent watch none the less. I may not watch this twice on my own but if a friend didn't see it, I'd watch it with them. This isn't being soft on the movie either, it's being realistic... It had a plot, wasn't in my worst top 10, though it wasn't in my best but truly, it wasn't as painful as most threatened. Yeah we all wish that we can see another God Father or Scarface but less we forget, Pacino's an amazing actor, NOT in any way shape or form A producer/ Writer. He played his character well but some feel the script could've been made a little batter or not at all... Sorry to say I think this had a better twist then Righteous Kill. The bad scripts are still scripts none the less, if anyone thinks they can do/ write that much better then maybe you should bring your ingenious script writing to Hollywood, till then, we will watch what we have. Not so bad of a movie OK, worth the watch in my honest opinion, please feel free to respond!
36 out of 55 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
88 Minutes of......... of what?
nmlal6819 May 2009
Let me say this straight. This movie is such a calamity, so bad, so dysfunctional, that I'm still wondering what went through those people minds?

In my opinion, the last scene reflects what this nonsense is all about. Al Pacino, running and acting like a grandpa who is trying to look like a forty-year old, which ends of course into a total cinematographic tragedy. Worse than that, I'm truly convinced that he is aware of his pathetic appearance in this fragile movie and asks himself throughout the entire shooting "what the hell am I doing here?"

And if this was not bad enough, what is he doing out there staring with young actors that seem to come directly from one of those teenager horror B movies? Pacino seems completely uninterested, his dialogues and general acting deprived of the slightest intensity or wit. The last scene manages to bring all this sad spectacle together and, if we add the boring plot and especially the amateur editing, than I would suggest that we are in the presence of one of the worst movies ever.

Save your money and your nerves.
32 out of 49 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Good for a thriller, not as bad as people are saying
manubezamat3 June 2008
I actually had pretty low expectations for '88 minutes' since Al Pacino's parts in 'two for the money' and 'ocean's 13', for instance, didn't exactly impress me, but it turned out I had more good things than bad things to say about this film after watching it.

In '88 minutes' Al Pacino plays Dr. Jack Gramm, a forensic psychiatrist known for handling cases of serial killers. This time, a convicted psycopath is hours away from his death and raises doubts on Jack's veredict on him, claiming he's innocent, and Jack receives a call warning him he has 88 minutes to live.

In the first place, the initial scene is absolutely unnecessary and predisposed me into thinking the film was going to be a huge mistake, where Al would be behaving like a young man, which is kind of ridiculous at his age. But it wasn't so; it was an isolated scene.

The plot is well built, coherent, and there are no unbelievable facts in it. The atmosphere around the time fading until Jack's death is overwhelming; there isn't a moment in which the viewer won't be excited, waiting for the next move.

Al's acting isn't special; at times I felt like he was numb, sleep-walking, with no reactions whatsoever, but his acting does get better throughout the film, as the suspense gets more intense – the interesting part is he does show that old energy from his classic films every now and then.

What really doesn't do it for me, actually, is that, lately it seems that, with very few exceptions, Al's characters not only have pretty much the same personality, but the same looks. He's always tan and wearing black, even in real life ! It sucks because to me, one of the greatest things about Al is his great capacity in characterization. He gets deep into every little detail in his parts, which is why each character looks and acts so different from one another. It seems like that's been lost lately.

Overall '88 minutes' is a good thriller, but I'd recommend it mostly for Pacino fans.
71 out of 120 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
My my, how bad this movie is...
jeanbal17 January 2008
Warning: Spoilers
Al Pacino has been a great actor. Maybe the best of his generation, but when was it? Watching 88 Minutes I kept wondering why he was unable to close his mouth. Well, he seems to have problems to use his jaw muscles to just "close his mouth". And when he tries to run or jump stairs, what we see is just an old man limping badly. Worst of all, he is no more able to act with any credibility. He tries to look young and full of life, but really looks like an rippled alcoholic. But the worst is, of course, the movie itself. Inane plot ("You'll die in 88 minutes but I will try to kill you before..."), bad cinematography (have you noticed how many phone calls there is in this movie? 30? 40?), filming clichés (everytime there is a car trip, the car is filmed from above. How original!). And Pacino is surrounded by very pretty (and young) girls who are in love with him. How pathetic. If you really like the "real" Al Pacino, don't even think to watch this film. You might be pushed to think that extraterrestrials have replaced him with a bad copy.
48 out of 79 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Even worse than the critics are saying.
dead4754818 April 2008
Despite all of the horrific reviews it has received, I went into this film expecting a flawed but entertaining thriller. Nothing could have prepared me for the disaster this film is. The premise is pretty simple; forensic psychologist Jack Gramm (Al Pacino) receives a call saying that he has 88 minutes to live on the day that one of the men he put in jail is sentenced to die. This sloppy, horribly put together plot unfolds onward with bomb threats, exploding cars and suspicious characters every which way and it's one of the most ridiculous things I've ever seen. The story is just ludicrous containing so many contrived details that I had to fight back the urge to bust into severe laughter. There's an ex-boyfriend that ultimately has nothing to do with the plot, sexual 'tension' with every single woman on screen and for some reason there are a bounty of young, immensely attractive females who want to bang Al Pacino even though he honestly looks like he's about to fall into his coffin throughout the entire film. And Leelee Sobieski gives what may just be the worst performance I've ever seen. Just terrible. Oh, and the twist? You know those thrillers where killers have sincere motives? Yeah, this isn't one of them.
82 out of 145 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
Watchable only because it is mesmerizingly bad...
cinegal-230 May 2007
Warning: Spoilers
Hard to believe an actor of Pacino's stature could end up starring in this mess! The "plot" barely makes sense, and the roster of suspects makes it obvious right off the bat who the "mystery psycho" will turn out to be. Pacino is a Professor of "Forensic Psychiatry" (a specialty of dubious believability at best) who apparently works at a University with only one finished building where every student takes his class, and they all park in the same garage. Set in rainy Seattle, the biggest mystery here is why it is pouring on Pacino's speeding taxi, but once it rounds a corner an exterior shot shows a sunny day complete with pedestrians apparently staring and pointing at the film crew. Another head scratcher involves Pacino's ever changing hair length, style, and color all during an 88 minute period--guess he made a few stops at Supercuts in the midst of solving his own murder.
52 out of 89 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Good but mostly only because of Al Pacino
AudioFileZ10 April 2007
This movie uses time to create some urgency and a fairly fast pace to keep interest. These devices are used effectively so that combined with Al Pacino and a decent script we have an interesting thriller.

The story is a bit extreme, but the pace really did help me not to question that (too much) in the final analysis. The character played by Al Pacino is unsympathetic even though he harbors a terrible past that haunts him. That changes as everything falls apart around him in just over an hour. His struggle to find a killer that he believes will kill him, as well as others, overshadows his obnoxious ego. Has he met his match? Does he have some moral issues that either way are going to be his downfall? It makes for a pretty interesting plot.

This isn't the best psychological thriller...but, it's respectable enough to warrant a solid 6 and that is due to Al Pacino largely.
83 out of 148 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
In top 10 worst movies ever seen
Blossomsinthenight3 August 2007
This movie was so awful that I watched up to halfway through waiting for it to "start" - for the plot, characters, and overall tone to start making sense - before realizing it was never gonna happen. As another viewer commented, Al Pacino seems like an old smarmy geyser perpetually supporting fawning pseudo-model 20-something girls who gaze into his wise, knowledgeable eyes. It's pathetic. The plot is completely inconsequential and the ending is formulaic and bland. The visuals are very blue, grey, depressing and support the overall unpleasant viewing experience. Don't waste your time watching this, no matter how big a Pacino fan you are. I don't know why he did this movie, but it's definitely not worth your time no matter how bored you are!!!
97 out of 186 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Acceptable thriller thanks to Pacino
razvan_cendo9 February 2007
Warning: Spoilers
The problem with this movie is that it is made in a stereotype way.Iy is not a bad film,but the screenplay and action don't have something new. The possible killers are from a pretty big number of people and during the movie the director was able to make you suspect almost everyone.This is what I liked about it.And of course my favourite actor,Al Pacino,didn't disappoint me with his acting.Too bad he was the only one who impressed me.Of course he has the only leading role,the others have shorter appearances. Anyway,you don't find out who is the killer until the last part of the film,just like many other thrillers.Nevertheless,if you enjoy these types of movies you should watch it.You will spend your time in pretty good way.
94 out of 182 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
87 Minutes Too Long.
dunmore_ego15 December 2009
Warning: Spoilers
In 88 MINUTES, Al Pacino is FBI forensic psychiatrist Jack Gramm, who puts away a serial killer, Jon Forster (crazy-eyed Neal McDonough) and gets a phone call on Forster's scheduled execution day - a Darth Voice telling him he has 88 minutes left to live.

Coincidentally, Pacino's hair is so big, he looks like he is auditioning for a pussy-metal band from '88! Matter of fact, his hair is so poufed, and his goatee so bushy and his complexion so darkly weathered, he looks Punjabi.

A small public contingent accuses Gramm of falsifying evidence against Forster. Gramm is, after all, a womanizer and a Punjab, and those kinds of people are notorious for falsifying evidence.

As a bevy of sensual women orbit Gramm (Deborah Kara Unger as The Dean, Amy Brenneman as his gay secretary, Alicia Witt as a wide-eyed student with a crush, Leelee Sobieski as a law student, and the most sensual of all, William Forsythe as a doughy cop), he finds himself considering everyone around him a potential suspect to his own impending murder.

It's not as interesting as it sounds.

--Review by Poffy The Cucumber (for Poffy's Movie Mania).
11 out of 16 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
A Rare Pacino Dud
gary-44423 March 2010
Warning: Spoilers
A curious offering. The premise that the film's star, a hot-shot forensic psychiatrist, Jack Gramm,is given 88 minutes to live by an unknown assassin on the end of a phone, is a good one. Pacino is a fine actor. The plot twists and turns, is fast paced, and has a dramatic conclusion as the dead ends disappear, and the "reveal" in the final act unfolds. Add in some salacious sado-masochistic sex scenes and you should have the ingredients of a "gritty" psychological thriller. But for some reason the total is considerably less than the sum of the parts.

Part of this is due to the fact that although Pacino is convincing as an experienced psychiatrist, his dyed hair isn't, nor is his ability to womanise with females around a third of his age. Furthermore, Pacino's strength is as an outstanding cerebral actor. Yet he slips into "action-cop" mode on a number of occasions in ways which seem out of character, and inappropriate.

Even the 88 minute premise is played around with as attempts are made upon his life within that time frame. I cannot imagine that the plot will be too popular with feminists either. The gruesome sado-masochistic sexual torture of one victim makes for uncomfortable, and explicit viewing, and the female characters around Pacino serve as little more than eye candy . At 108 minutes overall, the 88 minutes run in real time, the story only just stays within its welcome too. A sure sign that the characterisation has engaged with the audience.

The finale is dramatic, if preposterous, and the action scenes exciting enough. But ultimately this is fairly standard formulaic fare with Pacino having to work far too hard to make up for both the shortcomings of the screenplay, and the underwritten roles of those around him.
8 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
An enjoyable well acted story
dylanfern25 February 2007
Just finished watching 88 Minutes, starring Al Pacino.

A fine performance and a good well made film which moves at a steady pace and comes in at just over 90 mins. The usual solid performance from Pacino and a good cast make this film easy on the eye, but to be truthful a bit too easy on the brain.

Plays almost like a made for TV movie, all be it a well made one. Every single person in the film could be a suspect and whilst watching I could feel myself thinking that the director went slightly over the top with that aspect.

This film will not win any awards and now I know the ending, cannot see me ever watching it again but I was entertained and felt a certain satisfaction of saying "told you it was them" to my partner afterwards.
76 out of 150 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Frantic and exciting thriller with good performances from Al Pacino and his nemesis Neal McDonough
ma-cortes21 December 2009
Tense and suspenseful thriller film with a stunning race against time. This Hichcockian movie deals about a forensic psychologist and University professor with tortured past named Jack Grimm (Al Pacino ) who receives a phone call telling him which has only eighty eight minutes to live. Jack was witness on trail against serial killer Jon Foster (Neal McDonough)and influenced the tribunal to condemn him to death row. In narrow time he desperately seeks to communicate with a problematic student (Ben McKenzie,OC), his associate Shelby (Amy Brenneman), assistant (Alicia Witt), his friend and FBI agent(William Forsythe), a security guard (Brendan Fletcher) and University dean (Deborah Kara Unger). Meanwhile being pursued by a delinquent (Stephen Moyer) and besieged by numerous threatening cellular calls.

Gripping, original action movie with Al Pacino desperately trying to find the means avoid to be murdered. Acceptable thriller full of intrigue and tense, this is a fast-paced, stylized action-suspense film. The tension of this picture keeps snowballing as the clock ticks ever close for continuous killings. The tale appears to unfold in real time as the many on cellular calls will verify. Most unusual is the device of having the victim play desperado and hunt the killer, and saving himself, as time runs out. The flick is well filmed in Seattle, Washington State and Vancouver ,British Columbia , Canada. Casting is frankly magnificent, Al Pacino as tormented psychiatrist, unsettling when approaches his last minutes of life, though Neal McDonough takes honors as a psychopath who attempts to turn the tables on the victims before Pacino can save them. Plus, a good secondary cast, such as William Forsythe, Deborah Kara Unger, and Stephen Moyer, among them. Adequate musical score accompanying the action by Ed Shearmur and inventively photographed by Denis Lenoir, both of whom share his skills in the following John Avnet's movie ¨Righteous kill¨ also with Al Pacino and Trilby Glover who again plays a defense attorney. The motion picture is regularly directed by John Avnet because of it contains some gaps and flaws. Avnet is a nice director who achieved his greatest success with ¨Fried green tomatoes¨ and ¨Up close and personal¨ and failures as ¨The war¨. He directed and produced some hits, though today also making TV movies as the excellent ¨The uprising ¨ and television episodes.
16 out of 26 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
I haven't seen anything quite this bad in a long time!
Fredolow14 January 2008
Awful awful AWFUL - this film really was a stinker, and I'm quite astonished at the number of good comments it's receiving on here. What on Earth Al Pacino was thinking of getting involved in something this dire is quite beyond me - perhaps money, but damage to reputation alone I would have thought to be adequate reason to steer well away. The script was strewn with clichés which managed to bring out the worst in everyone. The actress who played his sidekick for the 3rd quarter of the film looked completely lost, struggling vainly to add some meaning to her lines, with the long, poorly composed two-shots only prolonging the agony. Character development was thin at best and the fast-paced attempt at storytelling only led to one farce after another, making the whole thing completely laughable.

My advice - avoid at all costs. Whoever put money into this turkey deserves to lose it.
51 out of 101 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
Lost potential
moviesleuth24 January 2010
Real-time thrillers have an inborn sense of urgency that other thrillers can't replicate: we see everything happen as it is happening, and thus we are with the characters every step of the way. I'll be willing to admit that making this kind of a movie would be hard to pull off, since every shot has to be perfectly placed, and no scene can really be edited out. However, we should be able to expect a film that's better than this, especially if it stars acting legend Al Pacino.

Dr. Jack Gramm (Al Pacino) is a forensic psychologist who is famous for putting a serial killer named John Forrester (Neal McDonaugh) on death row based solely on his own testimony. Yeas later, as Forrester is about to go to the death chamber, Gramm gets a call saying he has 88 minutes to live. Thus begins a race against time as Gramm tries to solve his own murder before time runs out.

This film had promise. Flashes of it surface as everyone is running around scared that they're next to die (if you see the movie, which I don't recommend, you'll understand). Unfortunately, this is not kept up. The biggest reason why this is is because the script is terrible. And when I say terrible, I mean TERRIBLE. This is like high school age stuff. It seems to have been written and directed by high schoolers.

But the worst part is that all the characters are extremely stupid. Apparently they are all college students, but everyone has a lower IQ than the lead characters in "Dumb and Dumber." I'll admit that mainstream crowds are hard to please. Not everyone is a Mensa member, and that's why we only get movies like "Michael Clayton" every once in a while. On the other hand, they're not as dumb as studios think they are, which is why critics trash movies for their lack of intelligence. They like new IDEAS, not the same story told different ways.

The acting is as good as can be asked for with a script like this. I'd wonder why Al Pacino would be here, except that the answer is obvious: he was paid a lot of money. Cast a famous actor in a movie and people come in droves, no matter how bad it is. To be sure, I don't think that Al Pacino can give a bad performance, but this doesn't measure of to Michael Corleone. Alicia Witt would steal the film if she didn't have some of the worst dialogue I've ever heard. Neal McDonaugh has a few chilling moments (surprisingly). Leelee Sobieski, Amy Brenneman, Deborah Kara Unger, William Forsythe, and Benjamin McKenzie (in a role that was obviously meant as a crossover from "The OC" to film, but the justifiably delayed release prevented it from happening) are all on hand, but no one really leaves an impression.

I'll admit that I couldn't guess the villain before the end, and that's why I was so generous (this is not a good movie). What happens after is shockingly mishandled. But it is not worth it, even for that. To get there, you have to get through stupid characters, godawful dialogue, and inert "suspense." Trust me, you want to skip this one.
13 out of 21 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Someone needed a paycheck.
belchmon29 April 2008
Warning: Spoilers
Actually, one can't spoil what's already rotten. One can't kill what's already dead. One can't forget what's already forgotten. ...Was that a wig on Pacino's head? Yeah, that lame rhyme pretty much sums up the movie, 88 Minutes for me. The gum I stepped in on my way out of the theater was more enjoyable than this predictable grade "D" thriller. By predictable, I'm not saying that it was easy to peg who the murderer was in this convoluted mess. The film lobs so many Red Herrings at you, implicating everyone except for perhaps the key grip, that by the end of the movie, not only could I care less who the killer was, but I half hoped Fred and Daphene would show up in the Mystery Machine with the killer bound and gagged inside Scooby's travel crate. This movie is not even worth the 10 lines of text IMDb requires to post a comment. I sure hope I'm there now.
18 out of 31 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Exciting, real-time thriller
redwhiteblue508727 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.
41 out of 82 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
88 minutes you'll never get back.
gerrydoyle-11 July 2007
88 Minutes is an unforgivably tedious, cliché-ridden turkey.

A woeful script, pedestrian direction and dismal performances combine to deliver - what we can only hope is - the worst film of Al Pacino's career.

A thriller devoid of thrills, the movie is played out - seemingly at half speed - by a cast who seem crushed by the sheer soul-destroying witlessness of the whole sorry project.

This is one of those movies that have a barely concealed contempt for their audience. The kind of generic, soulless, rancid atrocity that fills the bargain bins in DVD hell.

Everyone involved should be thoroughly ashamed.

You won't believe just how long 88 minutes can feel. Avoid like the plague!
35 out of 69 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Really weak! Bad plot and lame acting
siderite4 January 2008
I don't think that Al Pacino is a bad actor. I know he can act and he can do it well. Maybe he was just annoyed with the quality of the script. Or maybe he needed a quick buck. I have no idea what happened in this film, but the results were dreadful.

Let me start with the plot: typical race thriller. Personally involved strong character (usually a cop) is on the clock to solve some problem or else. No one helps him, sometimes they even stand in his way, while he battles the odds. In this particular version the hero is personally involved, but does not show it, the people around him try to help, but they are either completely incompetent or pushed away by the very person they are trying to help or (most of the time) Pacino's character doesn't even tell them he is in need of help. As for the time limit, it is an arbitrary time limit that he can completely ignore if he really wants to. And as for the strength of the thrill... I guessed the killer in the first 10 minutes of the film. And not just by looking at the cast or reading magical runes. It was blatantly obvious.

Then the acting. Everyone acts sub standard, but Al Pacino is the worse. He doesn't seem to care a bit about anything in the movie. He is supposed to be a rational FBI profiler that puts logic before his feelings, but he comes out as slightly bored by the badly written intricacies of the plot.

So, shame on people that use clichés and aging famous actors to win some easy money, but even more shame to people that can't even get a cliché right. Watch some movies first, then make others. Gee!
12 out of 20 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Pacino delivers again
vranger3 April 2009
I've read some comments from people who couldn't understand this movie. That's predictable from the 'video game generation' of movie viewers whose idea of a deep plot is a high body count from automatic weapons. LOL

If you're a true fan of the mystery thriller, however, this movie delivers in spades. I had at least four theories of what was really going on during the course of this movie, and while one of them was on a parallel track to the real root of the action, I didn't quite get it right. That's unusual. I've watched enough mysteries and enough thrillers over the last few decades that I almost ALWAYS have it figured out well before the end. Here, I didn't. I was completely torn between wondering if Pacino's character was being threatened or manipulated by the bad guy(s), or if he himself was the bad guy and those around him were working to make him slip up and reveal himself.

Don't put too much credence in the opinion of the bubble head crowd. If you have a brain in your head, you'll enjoy this movie.
30 out of 61 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
I want those 110 minutes of my life back....
adrianandgerry1 September 2007
I found watching this film to be a dark,depressing experience. Not because of the hideous script, crass emotionally inconsistent acting (including Mr Pacino -Sorry Al!), banal-but-predictable plot (complete with by-the-numbers set pieces - someone had a checklist) or even because of the painfully inept direction but because it reminds you that there is a part of the film industry out there prepared to make and release terrible films such as this for a quick buck and willing to pull down A-list(ish) talent to it's grim level in the process. 5 minutes into this film you realise you've wasted your $5 rental fee and you feel the life being sucked out of you. Then you start to wonder how do films like this get made? Did they intend to make a turkey? And if not, why didn't someone (e.g. Script-writer, Director, Soundman, Mobile Caterer etc) at some stage stop and say "Hey guys, this thing we're doin' here is absolutely pant-wettingly, teeth-gnashingly, DVD-snappingly damn awful"? I would respectfully suggest the cast and crew of 88 Minutes find something better to do with the rest of their lives than be involved with films such as this. I shall attempt to do the same............
26 out of 52 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
cheap, not an Al Pacino movie
alfredportgens29 May 2007
Warning: Spoilers
I can not believe that it has 10 or 6 stars, come on this is one of the worst movies made with Al Pacino. The story stinks and is totally unbelievable. The acting is bad and the give me the feeling that they did it to make easy money. Come on, it isn't worth even one!! The "car" they use for the explosion is made from wood and the wheels are fitted like a toy car. And I know that they don't use a real expensive one, bud don't show it to me please!! And if you put a stiff at the sealing do it so that i think it is a stiff. I think that Al Pacino made this film because there are some nice actresses in it. I hope that his next movie is much better. Come on, you can do it!!
16 out of 30 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
An error has occured. Please try again.

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews


Recently Viewed