88 Minutes

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.

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.

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.

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.

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!!!