88 minutes

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.

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.

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 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!!!

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.