88 Minutes (2006)

[Digger]

Directed by
Jon Avnet

Writing credits (WGA)
Gary Scott Thompson (written by)


Al Pacino .... Jack Gramm
Alicia Witt .... Kim Cummings
Amy Brenneman .... Shelly Barnes
Leelee Sobieski .... Lauren Douglas
Benjamin McKenzie .... Mike Stemp
Deborah Kara Unger .... Carol
William Forsythe .... Frank Parks
Neal McDonough .... Jon Forster

A thriller about a college professor who, while moonlighting as a forensic psychiatrist for the FBI, receives a death threat telling him that he has only 88 minutes to live. In narrowing down possible suspects, he frantically seeks to communicate with a problem student, an ex-girlfriend, and a serial killer on death row.

[LoUiS]

88 minutes

One of the best films I've ever seen!!!

[feather]

Re: 88 minutes

Besides Pacino doing what he does best (as a badass), was the movie contrived/cliched because of the real-time thing like 24?

[LoUiS]

Re: 88 minutes

Besides Pacino doing what he does best (as a badass), was the movie contrived/cliched because of the real-time thing like 24?

Can you be more precise?

[ribbario]

Re: 88 Minutes (2006)

Nothing Special ....didn't do too much for me .....

[feather]

Re: 88 minutes

I'm just wondering at the way 88 minutes is done because I read it runs in real-time like 24 the tv show?

[Shpira]

Re: 88 minutes

An average film at best.

[Kamal]

Re: 88 minutes

calling it average would be complimenting it. The movie was boring to the point of a comatose, building mindless "mystery" into the killer's identity by introducing unnecessary "potentials" throughout the plot, which, given that the movie would have been at least an hour and 28 minutes long, clearly meant that the suspect killer introduced at the 15 minute mark was not the one.

Moreover, for the first time, I personally felt Pacino's acting was sub-par (at best). There was not a shred of him being a "shrink" throughout his role. He was being.... Al Pacino.

For me, he was no different in this movie than he was in devil's advocate or any of his recent ones I caught (most of which dont even come to mind). The only other flicks where I felt he actually became a part of his character were "Scarface" and "Scent of a Woman" (these are the ones that spring immediately to mind).

I'd give this a 4.5/10

[33L]

Re: 88 Minutes (2006)

agreed. this movie was lame and completely forgettable in every way. don't watch it unless you are a major pacino fan, and even then, if you are a major pacino fan, you might not want to watch it. i believe this movie was in post-production for a few years, and it should have stayed there, imho.

[Jenks]

Re: 88 Minutes (2006)

28 minutes worse than 60 minutes.

[nick007]

Re: 88 minutes

calling it average would be complimenting it. The movie was boring to the point of a comatose, building mindless "mystery" into the killer's identity by introducing unnecessary "potentials" throughout the plot, which, given that the movie would have been at least an hour and 28 minutes long, clearly meant that the suspect killer introduced at the 15 minute mark was not the one.

Moreover, for the first time, I personally felt Pacino's acting was sub-par (at best). There was not a shred of him being a "shrink" throughout his role. He was being.... Al Pacino.

For me, he was no different in this movie than he was in devil's advocate or any of his recent ones I caught (most of which dont even come to mind). The only other flicks where I felt he actually became a part of his character were "Scarface" and "Scent of a Woman" (these are the ones that spring immediately to mind).

I'd give this a 4.5/10

Don't forget "heat" he was cracker in that one

[Shpira]

Re: 88 minutes

Don't forget "heat" he was cracker in that one

He was great but De Niro was by far better and in fact he IS a better actor IMO
good roles by Pacino are Dog day afternoon, Godfather, Insomnia, Carlito's Way, Scent of a Woman, Scarface, Serpico and The Panic in Needle Park.
Devil's Advocate can be added as well although that role was really made for him.

The only problem with De Niro is that is a fucking psycho and did like 30 more films than Pacino some of which are REALLY REALLY SHIT.

[Digger]

Re: 88 Minutes (2006)

didnt like it....to be honest, neither the history and actors!...

[Homskillet]

Re: 88 Minutes (2006)

Just watched it last night... acting was horrible, wasn't too big on the storyline, VERY CHEEZ... everyone acted like Pacino was "the all mighty" a little too much...

Wasn't big at all on this.

[anathema]

Re: 88 Minutes (2006)

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.