88 Minutes (2007)

Wow, I can't believe that some people actually liked this movie...

This movie was just bad. It doesn't even deserve the one star I was forced to give it. The only good think in it was Pacino, and even he was sub-par.

The story was simply a rehash of every other "out of time" movie. Nothing new happened, there were too many characters. So many that there was no way for each of them to contribute to the film in a meaningful way.

The acting was bad and the script poorly written. Some lines were just so unbelievable that I wanted to turn the movie off.

The biggest problem is that the characters were so badly written that you are never able to connect with any of them. You simply don't care when any of them dies, or gets hurt, or anything.

The best part of this movie was the credits... That's about it.

Looks to me like it's time Pacino either retired, or raised his standards a whole lot.

Don't waste your time or money on this movie. November 10, 2008

Riveting but flawed!

Unlike most other reviewers, I actually enjoyed "88 minutes," despite obvious flaws. The film provides thrills, fast pace, a mystery to solve, and great suspense.

The usual story emerges: Serial killer goes to jail, copy cat murders begin again nine years later just in time to cause doubt in his guilt and reason for a stay of execution. We've all seen movies with copy cat murders when the guilty one is imprisoned. How is that possible? Answer: the usual--outside help. This is not a plot giveaway, but an oft used plot technique.

The onus is against Jack Gramm, whose testimony as an FBI forensic psychiatrist, sealed the murderer's fate. Now nine years later someone intends to kill Gramm 88 minutes from the time he receives the death threat. There is a reason for the 88 minutes.

That's as much plot as I can safely reveal. The story is worth watching if you can overlook the flaws. Here in no certain order are those flaws:

1. Jack Gramm as the object of desire of college students. Wha? He's 60+ years old. It's not the age--it's how he looks!
2. Jack Gramm's absurd hair style--huge and puffy!
3. Jack Gramm running and running here, there, and everywhere! Wha? Maybe Matt Damon. Maybe Tom Cruise. But not a 60+ year-old-man!
4. Even worse, this 60+ year-old-man can do all that running and not break a sweat or appear winded. Wha?
5. Those silly red herrings. Can't say anything more here.
6. The pulley system discussed in other reviews.
7. The odd disappearance of the red-haired assistant.
(Note: As a 60+ year-old myself, I am not making fun of what they can do or can't do. I simply expect realism.)

Here's a summary of the movie with no spoilers involved: When one psychopath meets another, all mayhem ensues.... Tick tock. Tick tock. November 10, 2008

88 Minutes that you'll never get back.

It's not that this film is actually bad, but rather it is just disappointing considering the very talented cast and it's potential to be a riveting thriller that is lukewarm at best.

Taking a page from the TV series 24 Al Pacino has the last 88 real time minutes of this 1:40 minute film to figure out who his potential killer is before his time is up. He's a forensic psychologist with a long list of enemies as he's put many in jail with his expert testimony alone. There are some good twists now and then in this story and, as many have already pointed out, lots of red herring too.

The direction is brisk and unobtrusive, but the script lacks the punch to support the director's attempt to make things exciting. This is also one of those films in which the supporting cast is better than the main cast. Pacino seems to be bored with this film and literally looks like he's acting panic-stricken. I mean, I can open my eyes wide too, but that doesn't mean I really look scared, does it? This is what critics call a "phoned in performance" that is often done by top actors to keep themselves busy until their next terrific film. It's treated like a part-time or temporary job. Now, the presence of the decent looking and okay acting talent of Alicia Witt, the stunning and very talented Helen Hunt lookalike, Leelee Sobieski, and TV's Judging Amy who makes 40+ look like a fantastic age to be, Amy Brenneman, are all far more interesting to watch than Pacino is in this film.

This isn't a bad movie and will make a decent rental, but don't expect a whole lot from this film as you might because of Al Pacino's presence. He's way off his game here and his supporting cast really outshine him, even though that doesn't take much with his performance in this film.

FYI: While the film made a tidy profit having cost 30 million to make, although that is hard to believe, it made about 70 million here in the states, it still got yanked from theaters after only a few weeks. It couldn't even break double digits on it's opening weekend where it made just under 7 million. Apparently, the producers where not very optimistic about the film before it's release as its release date was continuously delayed. The movie was actually filmed in October of 2005 on a tight 45 day shooting schedule and finally released in April of 2008. November 3, 2008

What up with the hair?

Al Pacino is a Seattle forensic psychiatrist, whose testimony secured the death sentence of a serial killer. Waiting on death row, a copy cat killer is on the loose. Not only is the copy cat killer wracking up bodies, but is stalking Pacino.

The movie is great, outstanding in fact, but someone needs to pull Al aside and talk to him about his hair. His hair distracted me throughout the movie. If baldness is such a concern, then get in touch with either Burt Reynolds or William Shatner. November 2, 2008

I know Pulleys

I read how a reviewer was disgruntled over the woman pulling up another woman using a pulley and how minutes later two men had to struggle to do the same thing and how rediculous it seemed to him/her. So when it got to that part I took notice, and at first agreed, but then when I watched it closer the second time I saw they in fact made it totally realistic according to what really takes place. When Al Pacino hurries to grab the rope before the suspended woman falls to her death he grabs it at the last pully. Mind you he is laying on the ground. If you've ever worked with pulleys, and I have, You need to be pulling from a standing position to put your whole upper body into it, including your back and shoulders. You need to overcome the inertia before the rope starts to feel the let off from the wheels of the pulleys. But, the key issue here is that as he tries to get a better hold he then grabs the rope above the last pulley wheel thereby eliminating its helpful effect. anyone might have done this without realizing their error and having to "lift" more of the actual weight without the pulley's help. If you're ever used a lever and fulcrum you know you can't lift a heavy sidewalk with a one foot lever, but with an 8 foot one the "leverage" is increased dramatically and up comes the sidewalk much much easier. the same principle applies here. Also, I didnt notice if she was wearing gloves or not, I have some that are rubber lined and they can pull a rope much easier, so there could even be other reasons, but the main point here is that the whole thing was extremely realistic. the true problem lies with why do people knock an entire movie based on some tiny little detail which they never understood properly anyway? Is that sensible? No! So we can disregard such petty reviews. Things like hair looking "poofy," as someone overly critical slams Pacino, as if his looks make or break a good movie. how petty and unimportant! The facts, which I can attest to are simple once again. I live in Ohio, but I used to date a woman in Los Angeles and during my visits there the Santa Anna winds some times blow in dry air from the dessert and I can tell you my hair was so frizzy and "poofy" as if I was into some off the wall look. All the locals know it happens, and its useless to try to fight it. unless you want to put hair spray on your hair, you get poofy looking. its a fact of life like gravity. The bottom line is, this is not a 2 or 3 star movie, its quite good actually and I'm glad I bought it. It's a movie I'll watch again next year as I cycle through my DVD movie collection. So, my advice is to blow off these low mentalities who find the most idiotic reasons to slander good movies. Then decide for yourself. I know good acting, and Al Pacino doesn't let us down one bit, as usual. I would have given this 4.5 stars,, but it needs to be lifted from the pit of inaccurate reviews so I give it 5 for justice sake! I give Al Pacino another 5 stars for his work in the movie, excellent job Al!!! October 30, 2008

More reviews at Amazon.com ...