88 Minutes (2007) User Reviews (285)

Reviewers make me mad!!! Now it's my turn to do the same to you!!

[mistertcj · 7/10 · 30 January 2017]

I really do have to laugh at some people's reviews at times, and over the years, if I totally believe all the bad press that some (if not all) films receive, it would never ever be worth my while visiting a cinema or buying a DVD ever again. If I see a film, like it, and then see all the bad reviews I am sometimes left thinking 'am I the only one that got it?' or 'am I the only one that thought this was good'. In short, reading too many reviews can drive you absolutely insane. OK, so 88 Minutes received largely negative reviews......especially on IMDb. So at the time of writing this, the film has a rating of 5.9, which I class as just above average (5 is average right?). I am more than just a little annoyed that most of those that gave the film an above average rating failed to review it. However, it leaves me with the conclusion that most people are more than happy to complain, rather than go with the flow. After all, I don't think that here are many films for which I haven't read a review from somebody saying that it's the worst film they've ever seen. 88 Minutes, in my opinion is a good, above average, watchable movie. But some of the contradictory comments on people's reviews did my head in. For example:- Al Pacino's performance............Al Pacino is undoubtedly a brilliant actor. His character in this movie is cocky, self assured, calm and in his opinion, always right. Pacino plays this perfectly, so why do people think that he was out of place? Was there any need for him overstate and overact? No there wasn't. Did he look uncomfortable in his role? No he didn't. To me, maybe the reviewers were expecting some powerhouse acting which they didn't receive. The plot.........come on people!!! It wasn't muddled. It was easy to follow. Throwaway yes, but don't we, every now and again enjoy a film that we don't have to think too much about? Yes we do!! It is true to say there is a certain degree of implausibility about things but people should just look at the movie for what it is.......entertainment. I, for one, was entertained, although I did guess who was behind the killings. I mean come on, even true stories have that certain implausibility factor about them in order to make them entertaining...don't they? The acting........it seems that because Pacino's performance was (rightly) understated, everybody else acted badly. It is true that some performances did not bring out the best in the actors (Alicia Witt and Leelee Sobieski), others were excellent, especially William Forsythe and Neal McDonaugh.

I'm done with the film now, but had to laugh at one on the extras on the DVD. The director stated that this was a 'low budget' movie. OK maybe it is in comparison to some.....but calling $30m low budget is an insult to my ears!!

Anyway.......conclusion!! A good, but not brilliant film that a few more of you have actually enjoyed but not openly admitted. Good grief, those of you that have reviewed think it's so bad, I am left thinking that I have just stepped out of the 'bad movie' closet!!

Watch this movie for what it is........entertainment!!!

People were over Exaggerating... Its not THAT bad...

[ny_kv · 6/10 · 6 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!

Good for a thriller, not as bad as people are saying

[manubezamat · 7/10 · 3 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.

Frantic and exciting thriller with good performances from Al Pacino and his nemesis Neal McDonough

[ma-cortes · 6/10 · 21 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.

Good but mostly only because of Al Pacino

[AudioFileZ · 6/10 · 10 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.

Worst of Pacino's Career

[C-Younkin · 2/10 · 19 April 2008]

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.

88 Minutes of thriller

[Terryfan · 7/10 · 2 August 2016]

Now I'm not going to say this is the best movie ever made but it is interesting to watch.

88 Minutes stars Al Pacino,Alicia Witt, Ben McKenzie,Leelee Sobieski,Amy Brenneman,William Forsythe,Deborah Kara Unger, Neal McDonough.

The plot it would be hard to talk about without giving it away it's one of the movies you have to watch to get the plot the writers must have study about the mind games because the movie is full of it from the start to the finish.

The score for the movie is bone chilling the feeling of anything could happen at any moment that's what the music does for the movie so it's one of the highlights for the movie.

The climax of the movie will surprise you and where the movie is really showing it's strength.

The Acting I agree is a mix at best but I have seen worse but the acting I'll say is Decent at best but Al,Leelee, Alicia and Neal's performances were not as bad people made it out to be Al made it work with his character along with him being on edge, Leelee shows she can actually act Neal was creepy each time he was screen.

That being said I have to see 88 Minutes isn't a masterpiece but not a real bad movie it has something to make it worth the watch it just need time to be given the chance to take it for what it is worth

I give 88 Minutes an 7 out of 10

There is a good reason why they don't want to release it

[lukas8 · 3/10 · 23 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.

An enjoyable well acted story

[dylanfern · 6/10 · 25 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.

88 Minutes of Subpar Thriller Fare

[RhyanScorpioRhys · 1/10 · 26 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.

Pacino delivers again

[VetteRanger · 8/10 · 3 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.

Exciting, real-time thriller

[redwhiteblue5087 · 7/10 · 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.

My my, how bad this movie is...

[jeanbal · 2/10 · 17 January 2008]

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.

88 Minutes

[hcir1024 · 17 February 2007]

I enjoyed 88 Minutes. Al Pacino is a solid actor and delivers a solid performance. I take into consideration that there are people that won't enjoy the film because Forensic Psych is a subject that the average individual has little knowledge about. If you are looking for a movie with a great twist and even better ending, check it out! Al ran his a$$ off in one too many scenes, they added some gun-play and an explosion to balance the drama with action, making the movie trailer (if any) exciting and mysterious. If your IQ is over 110 and can get through a flick without a bunch of action, this should be a definite prospect. I also think you will enjoy it if you are in the CJ or Psych field.

Drags In Places

[Bluesradio62 · 7/10 · 7 April 2020]

I definitely enjoy criminal drama and suspense, and I am a Al Pacino fan but there are parts of the movie where this movie does seem to drag.....would like to see a little more action, but it definitely does explore the world of Forensic Psychology........Overall not a bad movie, and I think it might keep you occupied for awhile.....

"You have 88 minutes to live."

[classicsoncall · 6/10 · 26 November 2019]

It's pretty standard for a movie thriller to throw in a few red herrings to keep the viewer guessing, but it seemed like every character in this picture might have fit that description. Even Jack Gramm's (Al Pacino) teaching assistant Kim Cummings (Alicia Witt), while running for her life along side her professor. The film did everything it could to plant virtually every character as a suspect to murder Gramm in the allotted time, that at one point I thought Jack's ex-wife turned lesbian (Amy Brenneman) was a potential bad guy. That part of the story alone had me scratching my head but I guess stranger things could happen than having your ex come back to work for you. But I'll say this, given Shelly Barnes was given an impossible work load over the course of the story, I'd say she was probably underpaid.

So, is this Pacino's worst movie role? I don't think I've seen him in any film where he didn't do a good job, so the fairest thing one could say is that he was a lot better as Michael Corleone and Frank Serpico. You can probably give the guy a break at this point, he's almost eighty years old.

Even worse than the critics are saying.

[dead47548 · 1/10 · 18 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.

Another replica...

[morcovescu17 · 7/10 · 24 January 2007]

I finally thought i was going to see another magnificent "Al Pacino" movie...boy, did i make a big mistake. Don't get me wrong, the man is absolutely fantastic an i admire him. But:

Some of the women cast in this movie don' know how to act. Really. In my short opinion: Jack Gramm is mister Jack Bauer from the series "24", i think you all know him. The man's phone is ringing throughout the whole movie. The only difference is Jack Bauer keeps it up for 24 hours because that's what his show is called, and Jack Gramm for 88 minutes because that's what his show is called.

I would have liked this movie 7-8 years ago. So many cliché scenes: the car bomb scene, the car in the underground parking lot scene, the one in the classroom and many many more. But don't let me ruin the movie for you, convince yourselves that it was not worth making.

The only reason i rated it with a 7 is because Al Pacino puts in one of his many good performances, not great but definitely good.

Oh, i forgot, they shouldn't have made Al Pacino run, the man is just too old...

Thank you for your time.

Watchable only because it is mesmerizingly bad...

[cinegal-2 · 2/10 · 30 May 2007]

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.

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

[bob_meg · 7/10 · 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.

Really weak! Bad plot and lame acting

[siderite · 5/10 · 4 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!

Funny

[CinefanR · 10/10 · 11 May 2012]

So bad, it's good.

And where do I begin to explain how bad "88 Minutes" is… Well, from the opening scene, where Pacino is dancing with a girl in a club, you already KNOW you're in for a treat. All the women in this movie are desperately and hopelessly in love with him, and he would sleep with anybody under 25 unless they are patients or students of his. I've always liked Al Pacino's hair and hairstyles, so I'm ready to buy this premise. But moving ahead… …The direction is incredibly bad and the soundtrack only adds to this impression of amateurism. The dialogues are the worst I've seen in a while, and the script only goes from bad to worse until the galactically stupid showdown.

The actor who plays the jailed murderer is just as convincing as Pamela Anderson would be in the role of a rocket scientist. It reminded me of Keanu Reeves in "The Watcher" trying hard to be scary- best Razzie material! Pacino's teaching assistant and Sobieski act like they are in High School Drama Class for beginners. Pacino looks mostly bored, despite the fact that he has 88 minutes left to live. SPOILER ahead ****************** Watching him recite inept lines is a real pleasure, such as the "killer-pumped-out-my-semen-out-of-the-dead-hooker" theory, which brings scriptwriting to a new level of hilarious stupidity. And there is more

Fun, enjoyable thriller made above average by Pacino

[agent_six_nine · 7/10 · 5 October 2007]

The storyline and characters are quite thin and sometimes difficult to believe but the plot and suspense are developed quite well. This movie might have succeeded without Mr. Pacino but his presence adds a lot of power to the film.

I like the fact that he took a role where there aren't a lot of other big stars and there's no possibility of an Oscar nomination. This movie was a lot of fun and watching Mr. Pacino give an excellent performance in a "simple thriller" fills me with admiration and respect for this seasoned actor. He really puts his heart into any project no matter how important (or otherwise) it might seem to the critics. Keep up the great work Al, you're amazing.

88 Minutes of......... of what?

[nmlal68 · 1/10 · 19 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.

Movie that knocks you out of your seat

[swAppp · 20 January 2007]

First of all, i must say - amazing. Al Pacino is still at his best. A lot of women actress and those crazy 88 minutes for Pacino. If you want to see a lot of shooting - don't expect that. 3 shots through all movie is all you will see. 88 Minutes is a must see for all thrillers fans. Not a movie for a dull housewife, because it holds your breath until 88 minute and then bang. You must see. Its something similar to "Unknown", but less mysterious and more unpredictable. Thats one of those movies, then you expect nothing, and get everything. In some point of a movie i even thought that i see the same young don from the godfather, running and entertaining us as always. So, sit back, relax, and then join Pacino in solving his own murder. Tick tack!