88

Gwen (Katharine Isabelle) suddenly notices that she's at a diner in a fugue state. She has flashes of memories and troubling signs. She finds a gun in her bag and accidentally shoots the waitress. She escapes from the cops and continues her crime spree.

This is a mess. The bigger question is if it's a fitting mess. The premise is that Gwen is confused but the movie ends up confusing me. This is definitely ambitious and I can applaud that. It's just not done well. I do like the actors. I expected Isabelle to do two completely differing characterization for before in her flashbacks and after the diner. That should be the better path.

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 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.

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.

Short Review: This writer wrote a very positive review of American Mary (here on the IMDb) noting that it was not only a superbly produced and directed little indie, but that it finally gave Isabelle room to shine, and she was brilliant in it. The implication was that casting directors would take note and her next film would be a step up .... well, that did not exactly happen....

Longer Review: To understand this film you need to understand two things initially:

(a) The films made and distributed in the 1970s were a reaction by film-makers to industrial-quality and soul-less films produced in the 60s, possibly the last decade where the big studios from the 1930s still held sway. The films of the 70s -- now almost a "lost decade" to reviewers -- deliberately broke all the rules of editing, pacing, cinematography, continuity ... to be different, to make a point. As such, they succeeded, but they still were not especially good films, nor did audiences get much joy from them.

(b) what the Canadian and Austalian film industry have in common is that both are creatures of government fiscal policy, not responses to viewer demand. In other words, both were artificially created by bureaucrats. In the case of Canada, the industry lucked out when American producers, fed up with high costs and tough unions, saw a chance to reduce top-line costs by shooting in the North. While the Canadian industry is financially successful, and has spawned some excellent product, it still remains the easiest venue in which to produce knock-offs, bad sequels, and B-movies where the main goal is a successful financing and not necessarily a satisfied audience.

SO...

With these two concepts firmly in mind, I would opine that Isabelle's much-awaited followup to American Mary is, disappointingly, a weird and vacuous homage to the 70s style of film-making, featuring an incomprehensible plot, erratic direction and editing, and massive stretches with no dialog at all because -- frankly -- that saves even more top-line money for the production. That it was produced in Canada only serves to emphasize how this was at its core a financial exercise, not an artistic one. And to those reviewers who dare suggest that the presence of Christopher Lloyd and Michael Ironside somehow raises this to an A-class production, all I can say PA-LEEZE, the former is at a point in his career where any work is good work; and the latter has of late mainly become a voice actor for animation. (The fact that Ironside himself is Canadian and started his career by making Canadian films in the 70s only adds a new and un-needed sheen of irony to any discussion of "88").