88 Minutos

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!

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.

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!!!

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.

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.