88

Two thing's come to mind with the movie '88'. Quentin Tarantino and 'Memento'. Director April Mullen has done her best to show us what it would have been like if Tarantino had made 'Memento', instead of Christopher Nolan. The result? Not all that bad. The film doesn't reach the intellectual capacities of 'Memento', but focuses more on the style. And while it doesn't come off in every scene, the overall result is pretty good.

The interweaving time lines are handled well. Thing's can get very confusing in these types of films but Mullen does a good job of keeping things easy enough to follow along with. Katharine Isabelle was excellent in the lead role, particularly in the flashback storyline. The rest of the cast were admittedly not great (Ironside and Lloyd were passable) but that is forgivable in a low-budget film like this. While the film never reaches anywhere near the potential a Tarantino or Nolan is capable of, it still isn't half bad. Worth giving a chance.

Actual rating 3.3/10 mainly due to the ability of cast: Katherine Isabelle, Christopher Lloyd, Michael Ironsides and a special mention to director April Mullen.

First, the movie is a cliché of the Hollywood (Canadawood) B cinema of girl goes gun crazy for revenge. Exploitation films usually run it after a rape or family violence but in this case it's boyfriend revenge. At least so we think. So it draws comparison with the superior Kill Bill. But it lacks the style and coordination of Kill Bill. In many ways, it tries to be Memento, also another superior film, but it is far more disjointed with too many cuts, parallel time(?!) and flashbacks which only makes the film confusing and nonsensical.

It's also disjointed in its treatment of its own title 88. The first 20-30 minutes it does build on it. So there's some interest. And someone pointed out 88 has a significance with Christopher Nolan's Back to the Future. Which adds to the interest. But somewhere in the middle, the film is confused and forgets about its own title. So why 88? It actually means very little after a bit of number play in the first 20 minutes.

It's like if you ever meet someone or have a friend who's had a drug or mental issue. Someone who experiments on drugs. They never make sense. And the experiment goes bad. I'm not sure how other reviewers give it a higher rating (or how did it get a 4.5/10 here, which tells you, it definitely can't be a good film). But keep in mind, often lesser films on IMDb get high ratings due to the limited reviewers being probably connected to the film (e.g, friends, employees) or strong fans. After a few hundred reviews or with time and loss of enthusiasm, it often goes down in ratings. (So why do I review it? I like reviewing both good and bad films. No real reason in particular but if I have time and the film strikes me in a way, in this case, Isabelle, Nolan and how they can be in a poor film).

Our heroine Katherine Isabelle plays Gwen, Gwenny or Flamingo. That is, yes, she doesn't have a clear identity or fugue state as the movie opens. One thing is for the main character to have a fugue state but the whole film is a fugue state. A woman who kills several people accidentally or intentionally? Are we supposed to sympathize with our character? Trying to draw into the character and making the film imitate the character doesn't accomplish much. Imagine The Hobbit being a short film on a small screen because the main characters are dwarfs and hobbits. And the men in this movie either get killed, kill themselves or die trying to protect her. It seems she had a violent past int he end but she never showed on police records although her associates (e.g, Cyrus) did. I'm not sure why what's so special about her, that people try to protect her.

Basically the film is trash like the sets as someone inquired where was this film so badly shot? It's like trash like its trashy characters. I almost never say that for any film but it's a rare film, maybe a 1 in 40 or 50 films. Yes, that bad but not the worst. 90% of my films I rate are 4/10 and above on IMDb. Nothing special about directing (rather poor), screenplay, cinematography, all substandard.

Just hardly worth watching, except for the somewhat good, curious casting: Christopher Nolan emerges from his Back to the Future to play a aged hood, Michael Ironsides always plays the cliché cop (or villain), and Katharine Isabelle gives a very good performance. She was terrific in American Mary, which is an underrated film on IMDb at 6.3. I would give it more a 7.0/10 if you can stand the gore and appreciate the originality. 88 tries to emulate that originality of character but falls very short. Special mention to April Mullen who plays Lemmy, a far more interesting character than as the director of this movie. It's a short cameo role as the gun dealer Lemmy who has a bizarre but funny flip sign in her abode/store. Probably the best moment of the film.

Without the cast, it would be a 2 or 2.5/10 or bottom 1 out of every 200-300 films. Just really, really bad without the main characters. But you may want to tolerate this film if you have nothing else to do but see what Katherine Isabelle or Christopher Nolan can do. But I think they themselves would rather not see this film on their own resume. It is that forgettable and straight to netflix.

-88 (2015) movie review: -88, which is already on Netflix?, is an action thriller about a girl who's former mob-ish boss kills her fiancé, so she goes nuts and tries to kill him. Only problem is that after the incident, she develops a sort-of new, mild personality that does not remember anything; an event that happens after traumatic events occasionally.

-I feel like 88 had the proper amount of cheesy and lame elements in it for me to hate on it, but then it threw in just enough good elements for me to say 'Eh' about it. So here is an 'eh' review: -The story feels new, but every element of the way they did the story, from the Reservoir Dogs past-to-present cuts, to the quick flashback cuts from EVERY MOVIE EVER, so literally the same ending as Rage. Okay, not the same, but similar. In fact, this film is 2015's Rage.

-The pace is good, but the flashbacks are even out of order, making some of them feel unnecessary, and making the film feel a little too long. For an 88 minute film.

-The acting. So Katharine Isabelle did a fine job. She was believable, but not great. She really tried hard. Christopher Lloyd did a fine job. He was believable and good, but he did not really have to try, and it shows. Tim Doiron is pretty bad. And Michael Ironside showed up in it, hurting my opinion of the film even more with his generic acting.

-The characters are all generic and cliché. Like I said, this film offers little-to-nothing new.

-The music was weird and almost Tarantino weird. Almost.

-A few of the scenes I thought were good and well done, and others I thought were student-film quality. Like 'Oh my gosh. I can't believe they are not dead.' I will give mega props to the ending. Although I totally should have known how it would end, I thought the ending helped pull the film out of the 'eh' for me. Like Rage from 2014….

-88 is also Rated-R for language, a somewhat strong amount of underwear, and bad blood effects everywhere.

-Anyway, 88 had a few redeeming features like the actual story or the ending, but I don't think they quite make up for bad fights, lame characters (and actors), and cliché everythings. As good as the ending was, 88 is not really worth the time.

88 starts with our main character lost and confused in a diner, and through multiple story threads we find out how she got there and where she is going. That's all I want to say about the story, because the less you know the more I think you'll enjoy the movie.

I thought 88 had a very "Memento-ish" feel to it, in that by design the viewer is very disoriented and along the way you gather information along with the main character until the inevitable "aha" moment and climax. I thought the pacing was great, the actors did a terrific job, and while I have no idea what the budget was for 88 it felt like a major feature film.

Speaking of the actors, Katherine Isabelle OWNS this movie. I want to go back and re-watch, but if I'm not mistaken she is in essentially every scene in the movie. Plain and simple, 88 doesn't work if she doesn't nail her role(s), and she plays it to perfection.

Bottom line, 88 isn't The Godfather or Apocalypse Now, it's not going to win any Oscars or make billions of dollars. But if you're looking for an exciting movie with several WTF moments and a great performance from an under-appreciated star I strongly recommend it.

OK, so this is maybe a 6, but I saw it at Glasgow Frightfest, and that makes an impact in itself, maybe I'll downgrade it to a 6, but maybe it is a 7! Who knows? I should, right? Anyway!

Going to try not to spoil anything here, and I will be brief.

I liked Katharine Isabelle in this one. She is cool, weird and not to shabby-looking either. Hard to put this in one genre, it's rather violent, got some drama, some action, some humor, and a little mystery to it too. But I liked it. It was entertaining, and again Katharine Isabelle is the real star here. She is fun to watch. She may slightly overdo her "I'm-so-incredibly-cool"-thing a little at times, or it might just be me. And if it's not me, I think it's the director and/or screenwriters fault.

Anyhow, entertaining little flick.