88 Minutes Reviews

  • Jul 31, 2019

    I just saw this movie today (7/30/19) for the first time on my roku. I honestly thought it was a good movie. Not perfect but I felt edge of my seat tension which I don't often feel for most movies. Some plot things seemed off, but I greatly enjoyed the movie.

    I just saw this movie today (7/30/19) for the first time on my roku. I honestly thought it was a good movie. Not perfect but I felt edge of my seat tension which I don't often feel for most movies. Some plot things seemed off, but I greatly enjoyed the movie.

  • Nov 12, 2018

    This film was very bad.

    This film was very bad.

  • Sep 17, 2018

    Would have been a better Criminal Minds episode.

    Would have been a better Criminal Minds episode.

  • Aug 03, 2018

    Not bad or good, 88 Minutes does involve some chilling moments, but doesn't do a lot to keep it going. But overall, Al Pacino was the only reason why I sat through it.

    Not bad or good, 88 Minutes does involve some chilling moments, but doesn't do a lot to keep it going. But overall, Al Pacino was the only reason why I sat through it.

  • Dec 11, 2017

    The critics skewered this movie as one of the worst of 2008. This is why I don't read the critics or solicit opinions before seeing movies. Pacino is not his best, and his hair is a raccoon's nest atop his head, but his performance is good enough considering the script and the performances of the other cast members. You can't have Shakespearean acting from only one person and have it be believable. The story itself is convoluted and unlikely, but it plays fair - the clues are all there before the big reveal. It isn't best movie material, but it isn't as horrible as it is universally panned to be.

    The critics skewered this movie as one of the worst of 2008. This is why I don't read the critics or solicit opinions before seeing movies. Pacino is not his best, and his hair is a raccoon's nest atop his head, but his performance is good enough considering the script and the performances of the other cast members. You can't have Shakespearean acting from only one person and have it be believable. The story itself is convoluted and unlikely, but it plays fair - the clues are all there before the big reveal. It isn't best movie material, but it isn't as horrible as it is universally panned to be.

  • Nov 09, 2017

    As far as psychological thrillers go, 88 Minutes isn't the best ever made, but it does provide a few nail-bitting moments and an intriguing enough story. Everyone hates this flick, and I can see why, it isn't flawless for sure, but a very good performance by the great Al Pacino always helps. It happens to every great actor to make a shitty movie, but this one isn't so shitty. If you're curious enough, check it out.

    As far as psychological thrillers go, 88 Minutes isn't the best ever made, but it does provide a few nail-bitting moments and an intriguing enough story. Everyone hates this flick, and I can see why, it isn't flawless for sure, but a very good performance by the great Al Pacino always helps. It happens to every great actor to make a shitty movie, but this one isn't so shitty. If you're curious enough, check it out.

  • Oct 12, 2017

    It's a ticking clock movie disguised as a psychological thriller. Al Pacino makes this film somewhat bearable to watch.

    It's a ticking clock movie disguised as a psychological thriller. Al Pacino makes this film somewhat bearable to watch.

  • Jun 14, 2017

    i saw this awful movie because of al pacino was in it it is an ok movie according to me

    i saw this awful movie because of al pacino was in it it is an ok movie according to me

  • May 25, 2017

    Decent thriller.....keeps you entertained and guessing. Idk why all the bad reviews. I mean def not Al Pacino's best film, but he does a good job. Overall, I liked it.

    Decent thriller.....keeps you entertained and guessing. Idk why all the bad reviews. I mean def not Al Pacino's best film, but he does a good job. Overall, I liked it.

  • May 19, 2016

    There are very few films I would call misogynistic. Even Michael Bay's Transformers movies had the decency to give their female leads at least one or two moments each where they contributed something to the plot. Not in this film. Here, they only exist to get brutalized, act as eye candy, be exposited at, or mess things up for our male protagonist. The first woman we see is getting brutalized by a murderer, the next who has any bearing on the plot we see is wearing nothing but an apron, brushing her teeth performing stretches. At least in the former case, the scene contributed something to the narrative, but here, it adds nothing. It does not advance the plot, and it only tells us that our lead character is willing to sleep around with women at least a decade younger than him. His secretary reveals dangerous personal information about him after getting drunk on a night out. One of his female students spends some time with him and, oops, she has a crazy ex husband now out for our lead's head! Now, in order to understand what really makes me hate this movie with a passion means I have to spoil the film's big reveal. So here it is: The one behind the attacks was none other than a woman who defended the serial killer we saw at the start of the film in court! Her entire motivation is that she's madly in love with him! The moment that really made me go, "Screw this movie" was when Pacino's character asks, "Are you going to kill me too?" and the killer says, "Only if he wants me to" in a seductive tone. She has no agency! None of the women do! The fact that the film can't decide whether it wants us to doubt out lead-despite the fact that we see the first killing take place-or whether it wants us to side with him is frustrating enough, but knowing the inept way it treats its cast and characters just adds insult to injury.

    There are very few films I would call misogynistic. Even Michael Bay's Transformers movies had the decency to give their female leads at least one or two moments each where they contributed something to the plot. Not in this film. Here, they only exist to get brutalized, act as eye candy, be exposited at, or mess things up for our male protagonist. The first woman we see is getting brutalized by a murderer, the next who has any bearing on the plot we see is wearing nothing but an apron, brushing her teeth performing stretches. At least in the former case, the scene contributed something to the narrative, but here, it adds nothing. It does not advance the plot, and it only tells us that our lead character is willing to sleep around with women at least a decade younger than him. His secretary reveals dangerous personal information about him after getting drunk on a night out. One of his female students spends some time with him and, oops, she has a crazy ex husband now out for our lead's head! Now, in order to understand what really makes me hate this movie with a passion means I have to spoil the film's big reveal. So here it is: The one behind the attacks was none other than a woman who defended the serial killer we saw at the start of the film in court! Her entire motivation is that she's madly in love with him! The moment that really made me go, "Screw this movie" was when Pacino's character asks, "Are you going to kill me too?" and the killer says, "Only if he wants me to" in a seductive tone. She has no agency! None of the women do! The fact that the film can't decide whether it wants us to doubt out lead-despite the fact that we see the first killing take place-or whether it wants us to side with him is frustrating enough, but knowing the inept way it treats its cast and characters just adds insult to injury.