88 MINUTES OF TRASH

By MOVIES REVIEWER
Written April 18, 2008
Just saw the press preview of this junk of a movie. Totally UNBELIEVABLE plot. Utterly predictable. Totally BAD acting. Totally complete WASTE OF TIME. Al Pacino at his WORST. Was smoking some really vile 'stuff'? This movie slugs it out with 'IN THE NAME OF THE KING: A DUNGEON SIEGE TALE' for best CHEESY acting award, best WORST movie of the year, best WORST acting ensemble, best MIS-casting, best WASTE OF CELLULOID, etc. See it at your peril. And you have my complete and full sympathies if you actually paid to see this CR@P. Final Verdict: This death knell DOES NOT even merit to be rented on DVD. AVOID at all costs!!! I should have thrown away my invite and done something more entertaining for the evening. Instead, I am now contemplating a lobotomy to remove this HORRIBLE movie from my memory.
35 out of 55 found this helpful. Did you?

Bad acting with a lot of cheese

By H3OIndra
Written April 17, 2008
I was surprised to see that 88 was releasing this week. I assumed it was a cheesy old movie when I saw it last September while traveling in Guatemala with subtitles en espanol. Now I have no idea how the little restaurant/bar in a village on lake Atitlan got a copy last year but regardless I wish they hadn't. The only reasons I stayed in my seat for this one were that my legs wouldn't move from climbing a volcano that day, I was able to drink beer during the movie, and frankly there was no where else to go. Unless any of these apply to you, I'd skip it. The acting was horrible, the plot was predictable, and it just dragggged on. Oh hell No!
34 out of 63 found this helpful. Did you?

Dr. Pacino

By joesteph
Written April 19, 2008
The psychologist is wrapped up in a psychological maze, and the way through takes interesting twists and turns. It's straightforward in depicting sadistic murder, so that may not be for everyone to see, but it's true that serial killers are brutal animals, and the one depicted here is as sick as they come. When you find out the reason behind exactly 88 minutes, you see greater cruelty, and Pacino's character's paranoia is credible as the story moves along.
31 out of 47 found this helpful. Did you?

"CRYSTAL METH"

By mo_butter
Written April 19, 2008
Al Pacino is "Hans Solo" in 88 MINUTES...which he hasn't done in a long time. But to enjoy anything about this movie, you truly must be an Al Pacino fan. That means having seen him in more than just "SCARFACE" and the "THE GODFATHER"! Al Pacino is one of my "Top 10" favorite actors, so even his worst movie I can endure. And 88 MINUTES just might be his worst film to date. The first time Al appears on screen in the movie is a shock to me...I've never seen Pacino look this bad. It seems like a combination of old age, having to much work done, and probably smoking ANGEL DUST for taking on this script! The whole cell phone thing has been cooked, burnt, and eaten enough times to start a holiday where anyone caught texting receives a shot to the leg. And an overly predictable plot about a serial killer who targets females hasn't been worth any interest since "SILENCE OF LAMBS". "RIGHTEOUS KILL" comes out soon, where Al & De Niro team up a 3rd time. 2 of my Top 10, 1 film, you decide!
27 out of 38 found this helpful. Did you?

88 Minutes...Wish it was less...

By travinator121611
Written April 17, 2008
I was amped to see the movie when i received free movie passes to see a sneak preview. Right of the bat the acting was horrid... the only decent actors were Al Pacino and William Forsythe. The movie seemed to drag forever and it seemed as though it was a constant cell phone comercial because the phone went of almost every other second through the movie. The ending (without ruining it) brought back a little dignity to teh movie but in the end i was glad i didnt pay to see it.
24 out of 37 found this helpful. Did you?