88 Minutes
|
List Price: Our Price: $1.28 You Save: $13.66 (91%) Availability: Usually ships in 1-2 business days Buy Used: from $0.01 (click here) Category: DVD See more DVD releases |
|---|
Buy this DVD movie at online store in your country
Canada
Canada
Movie Reviews of 88 Minutes
Movie Review: Great Pacino Movie
Summary: 4 Stars
One of the best things of this movie is you have no idea where it is going. It was a great suspense thriller that kept me trying to figure things out through the entire movie. I had my suspicions of "whodunnit" through the film and was proven wrong on a couple of occasions. Pacino's acting is incredible as usual and would highly recomment this film to anyone.Movie Review: Time is Counting Down for Jack
Summary: 3 Stars
Nine years ago, Dr. Jack Gramm (Al Pacino), a forensic psychiatrist, was the key witness in the trail and conviction of serial killer Jon Forster (Neal McDonough). Today, Jon is set to be executed for his crimes.
Jack not only has his own psychiatric firm, but he also teaches at the University of Washington in Seattle. He wakes up this morning to learn that one of his students was killed exactly the say way that Jon killed women.
Then he receives the phone call. "You have 88 minutes to live. At 11:45, you will die." At first he considers it a crank, but the more the person calls back, the more he takes it seriously. Is Jon guilty? Who murdered his student? And who is going to kill him?
I was attracted to this film because of the ticking clock premise. I am a sucker for those kind of stories, I guess. And as a thriller, it worked. I spent plenty of time cringing waiting for the next big event to come, hoping it wouldn't scare me.
I thought I had the villain pin pointed early on, but turned out to be wrong. Once I figured that out, I did pick up on the true villain earlier then I would have liked and spent the rest of the movie waiting for Jack to catch up.
Which brings me to the main problem with the film; it was predictable. And for a thriller, that's never a good thing. And it didn't help that the previews gave away way too much.
And I can't forget the slow start. Yes, we needed the information. But it could have been given to us once the story got started. As it was, I was almost bored before the prologue ended and the action began.
Additionally, the characters were rather flat. We're talking one dimensional at best. Heck, I never even connected with Jack. The only reason he got my sympathy was because I was afraid I'd jump during those tense scenes.
As a side note, do that that R rating seriously. The images of the murders are rather graphic. I had to look away a few times.
Despite all the negatives, this thriller is mildly entertaining. See it if you must. But you'd be better off renting or waiting until it hits TV first.
Movie Review: Riveting but flawed!
Summary: 3 Stars
Unlike most other reviewers, I actually enjoyed "88 minutes," despite obvious flaws. The film provides thrills, fast pace, a mystery to solve, and great suspense.
The usual story emerges: Serial killer goes to jail, copy cat murders begin again nine years later just in time to cause doubt in his guilt and reason for a stay of execution. We've all seen movies with copy cat murders when the guilty one is imprisoned. How is that possible? Answer: the usual--outside help. This is not a plot giveaway, but an oft used plot technique.
The onus is against Jack Gramm, whose testimony as an FBI forensic psychiatrist, sealed the murderer's fate. Now nine years later someone intends to kill Gramm 88 minutes from the time he receives the death threat. There is a reason for the 88 minutes.
That's as much plot as I can safely reveal. The story is worth watching if you can overlook the flaws. Here in no certain order are those flaws:
1. Jack Gramm as the object of desire of college students. Wha? He's 60+ years old. It's not the age--it's how he looks!
2. Jack Gramm's absurd hair style--huge and puffy!
3. Jack Gramm running and running here, there, and everywhere! Wha? Maybe Matt Damon. Maybe Tom Cruise. But not a 60+ year-old-man!
4. Even worse, this 60+ year-old-man can do all that running and not break a sweat or appear winded. Wha?
5. Those silly red herrings. Can't say anything more here.
6. The pulley system discussed in other reviews.
7. The odd disappearance of the red-haired assistant.
(Note: As a 60+ year-old myself, I am not making fun of what they can do or can't do. I simply expect realism.)
Here's a summary of the movie with no spoilers involved: When one psychopath meets another, all mayhem ensues.... Tick tock. Tick tock.
Movie Review: A So So Film That Treads No New Ground
Summary: 3 Stars
It's obviously not a good enough film for the big Pacino fans, as you can see by reading the reviews. However, it's not an awful film. It's not good, either, but it's not awful. It's a predictable, cookie-cutter police procedural with better acting stretched into a feature length film. If you've seen one, you've seen them all.
The crime aspect of this crime drama is fairly interesting. Pacino's character, Dr. Jack Gramm, has been told he has 88 minutes to live. This comes in the wake of a serial murder, whose guild Gramm proved, being sentenced to death. Gramm is only sympathetic because of his past, because without the overly-sentimental flashbacks to his obligatory murdered young sister, he would just be a regular detective/professor who comes off as kind of patronizing to students, his staff, and murder victims alike. However, characterization and iffy script writing aside, this movie follows convention enough to prevent itself from truly being awful. It treads no new ground or takes any risks, which grates on the nerves itself, but it did at least maintain my interest. Even though it was quite easy to guess who was behind the harassment of Gramm, the confrontation between Gramm and the villain was also pretty interesting.
I've overcome by how middle-ground this film is. Again, the cast is good enough and there isn't enough actual bad material to consider this a crappy film, but there is also nothing new or interesting here. It's like watching any crime-drama or any mediocre police procedural on television. It'll keep your interest, it's highly forgettable, and it's nothing you haven't seen before.
5/10
Movie Review: 88 Minutes of Stephen Moyer would have been good
Summary: 3 Stars
Jack Gramm (Al Pacino) has 88 Minutes to live in this 2008 film. Why? It's complicated. Gramm is a forensic psychologist whose expert testimony has helped convict Jon Forster, a vicious serial killer. Even as Forster sits on death row, though, the murders continue. It's possible Gramm's forensic re-creation of the crime was wrong, and that Forster is the wrong man. It's also possible, as Gramm believes, that there is copycat killer on the loose.
I'm not a huge Al Pacino fan, but I did like him in this. He's working with a largely female cast, and he portrays none of the cocky arrogance around his female co-stars in some of his other films. (Satan in Devil's Advocate, I'm looking at you.) He comes across as sensitive and likable.
What I really like about this movie, though, is the small role played by English actor Stephen Moyer. He's best known for playing Southern vampire Bill Compton on True Blood, and for his engagement to co-star Anna Paquin. In 88 Minutes, he's Guy LaForge, a leather-clad, motorcycle-riding English rocker with a nasty temper. Sure, he doesn't do much but look sexy and brooding, but that's what he was put on earth to do. He's Stephen Moyer. If you enjoyed Restraint, you'll probably like this one, too.