88 Minutes Movie
| Resolution | Size | Download | ||
|
1920x816 | 8137.15 MiB | 1080p | |
|
1280x544 | 6718.21 MiB | 720p | |
|
572x312 | 700.74 MiB | divx | |
|
320x176 | 312.03 MiB | ipod | |
Storyline
TAGLINES
He has 88 minutes to solve a murder. His own.
Time is running out.
In Seattle, the successful forensic psychiatrist and college professor Jack Gramm is in evidence since he was responsible for the condemnation of the serial killer Jon Forster, influencing the jury to sentence him to the death row. Jon accuses Jack of manipulation, inducing one witness and sister of one of his victims to testify against him. On the eve of Jon's execution, Jack receives a phone call telling him that he has only eighty-eight minutes of life, while a killer is copycatting Jon, killing women with the same "modus-operandi" and is investigated by Seattle Slayer Task Force. With the support of his former wife and associated Shelly Barnes, the FBI agent and his friend Frank Parks and his assistant Kim Cummings, Jack investigate some weird and problematic students, a security guard of the campus and the woman with whom he had one night stand.
| 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 |
| Stephen Moyer | Guy LaForge |
| Michael Eklund | J.T. Ryker |
| Michal Yannai | Leeza Pearson |
| Brendan Fletcher | Johnny d'franco |
| Carrie Genzel | Stephanie Parkman |
| Dexter Bell | Reggie |
| Paul Campbell | Albert |
| Jon Avnet |
6.10 out of 10 (2141 votes)
Visitor Reviews
Al is carrying this one
posted on 30 Aug 2009It's a well-written piece of work but it doesn't feel natural at any time. The characters are very shallow and never appear like human beings. They're simple figures in a game of chess. The plot is constructed and just lacks the sense of cause and effect. The actors do a decent job but fail to give memorable performances which is also due to the stiff and lifeless writing. But there's of course the Pacino charisma that makes up for much of it. Hardly another actor can fill a screen like Al Pacino and he does it here with some routine but he still does it. If it wasn't for him in the main part, the movie would have been released directly on TV probably. With him in the lead, it becomes somewhat enjoyable. No big impact is made but one can watch it anyway. Popcorn in, brains out.
Pacino cant make up for a stale plot and bland cast
posted on 26 Aug 2009The movie will entertain you for a while if you don't care for paying attention to details. As someone who does, the film seemed like it lacked focus, as if they forgot what they were working towards despite the constant reminders. Many crime movie clichés are gone through and several scenes seemed like they were afterthoughts and were done poorly. It seemed to me like they were trying to draw this film out so that it lasted at least 88 minutes. Pacino did put on quite a performance, but he was unfortunately alone. The other characters seemed bland like the actors just wanted to get the whole thing over with and get away from this movie. Unless you're a die-hard fan of this genre, I'd suggest you do the same.
This movie is VERY under rated!
posted on 22 Aug 2009This movie was excellent! Yes some of the actors had weak acting but they managed to pull it off. Al Pacino was as great as ever and managed to play his character extremely well. The movie did everything a suspense was supposed to do. It keeps you guessing during the whole movie as to who is doing all the killings and it keeps you on the edge of your seat throughout the whole thing. As well the turnout is unbelievable. Something you never would have expected. The storyline is great and has actual reasoning after it (there is a reason he has only 88 minutes to live). All the scenes were very well connected and you actually know what's going on throughout the movie. Over all this was a great film that kept me going. 9/10!
It's just now coming out in the US?
posted on 16 Aug 2009The movie was OK, but what gives? I saw this over a year ago, and it's just now hitting the theater? I was wondering why I couldn't pull up much info when I got my hands on this movie. Talk about behind the times. I feel like I live in Alaska all over again! It's strange that it is just now being released over here. Anyway, I guess I'm supposed to drivel on about what I thought about this flick. Decent story line about a professor who has 88 minutes to live. Don't think it was one of Pacino's greatest films, but it wasn't bad. Now, is that enough lines of regurgitation for this comment? Good grief, they are highly critical about what can and can't be posted as a comment? Do they even WANT comments out here?
Save your money and watch the 88-second trailer instead
posted on 14 Aug 2009This film was pretty much a yawner. I'm not a big Pacino fan (I think he's been in great films and he's been in horrible films). Nor am I a great fan of crime thrillers. But this film got decent ratings on IMDb so I decided to check it out.The film is pretty much a cookie-cutter crime thriller. Nothing new or interesting is brought to the table. The characters are flat. They make dumb decisions that normal people probably wouldn't take, but it needed to contribute to the end result. I won't go into details as not to spoil it for those who will actually watch it. the acting was pretty much hit-or-miss. Pacino's character is realized in a manner I've seen in most of his performances. It's OK I guess the first half dozen or so times but then you start to wonder if he has the capacity to leave his range of comfort. Other performances are average to poor. Since many of the characters are played by attractive females, I don't think acting ability was of utmost importance.The movie itself is forgettable. As I said earlier it brings nothing new to its genre. You're likely to forget about it 88 minutes after having watched it. To me it had made-for-TV or direct-to-video written all over it. My recommendation is to save your hard-earned money and wait to see it on USA Network.
A Tedious Time Waster
posted on 12 Aug 2009The only mystery in this film is why Pacino agreed to star in it. Some serious coin must have changed hands on this one. It is a weak TV movie at best.The plot holes big enough to drive a tank through are only one of the problems. There are so many moments where, if you actually think for a second, you say "how the heck did they know that?" or "how very convenient..." There are no dynamic characters that draw you in and make you want to watch them or know or even care about what happens to them. And of course, as usual, several bright, attractive young women have the hots for this aging Lothario who's — what? — in his late '60s now? Very much a formulaic thriller (and I use the term very loosely) without any thrills, or even much mystery. I kept thinking "Who cares?" I really had to force myself to see it through to the end. It got worse as it went along.No redeeming features at all, save Pacino, hence a score of 2 for his performance. I watched this film based solely on his appearance in it. If he's not embarrassed by his serious error in accepting this role I will have to be more careful in my film selection criteria.
little more than a popper execution of its prescribed genre
posted on 06 Aug 200988 Minutes 9-10-08Here we have a film that is little more than a popper execution of its prescribed genre. Which is a nice way of saying its a "mad libs" fill in the blank formula piece. You know the "Mad Lib" formula theory right? The template is there only the filmmakers get to fill in there special pieces to make it "unique" but its not really all that unique...just a cute little variation on something you've already seen countless times. The only fun to be had here is guessing who in fact might be the killer. Well this film even manages to take the fun out of that by causing one to reasonably suspect every major character and most of the minor ones by providing us with ominous shots of each of them. Ultimately it doesn't matter who the killer is as one is just as faux shocking as the other. And like icing on the cake we have what has to be one of the more generic performances of "old" Pacino I've ever witnessed.
Al Pacino... why?
posted on 04 Aug 2009Maybe somewhere in the early stages of the writing of 88 Minutes there was a good concept and some idea of where to take it, how to develop it, how to make a decent thriller out of it. However once finished, the result was not the intended. If this movie didn't have Al Pacino in the lead and somewhat famous actors in the supporting roles, it would be another straight to video release. That's the kind of script we're talking about here. The script entangles itself with silly subplots, underdeveloped characters whose sole use is to be red herrings, and ends in a ridiculous sequence with a weak pay off after having already lost every ounce of credibility along the way. It's unbelievable and worst of all, not entertaining. Al Pacino does what he can but he was horribly miscast. Lets be honest about this. He's too old for the role, he seems tired and he's just bored out of his mind in most of the scenes. The rest of the cast is OK with the exception of Leelee Sobieski who is so bad, its almost funny. Almost. There are better, much better movies in the genre. Don't waste your time. Even if you're a fan of Al Pacino, skip it, because it will only depress you to see such a fine actor, one of the best in history, in such bland material.
The same old "who dun' it" movie you've already seen.
posted on 25 Jul 2009The movie follows Al Pacino's character around after an anonymous call is received from a friend of a murderer, which his testimony put on death row. If this movie did not have Pacino as the lead, I surely would have voted it a zero.I have come to expect a lot from him, and while his performance was good, that was about the only bright spot in this film. After watching it, it is clear why the studio does not want the movie to have a wide release in America, it would likely hurt Pacino's career.It was a serious disappointment, and is the type of film where you are forced to watch one movie cliché after another. I would not recommend this movie, because you've probably already seen it before.
Not (that) bad !
posted on 21 Jul 2009After reading such bad reviews from a lot of well-respected people, at first I hesitated but then I thought "Damn ! At least it's Al Pacino" and again thought it would be a preview for "Righteous Kill" as it has both Jon Avnet and Al Pacino. So I ultimately went to see it. Guess what ?! I didn't hate it ! More surprisingly I can say that I liked it. This movie has a pace that starts right from the beginning and takes you into it as you wonder "Who ?". And yeah, sure it has some sucking parts too but it wasn't "horrible" as some critics said. Of course it wasn't a 10 or Al Pacino's best neither but I'll still give it a good 6 ...
This films saving grace is Al Pacino
posted on 19 Jul 2009This films saving grace is Al Pacino. Pacino's screen charisma alone may be worth your time in watching this movie. However be aware that 88 minutes is rather cheap and manipulative.I really get sick of movies where directors feel they need to con you into watching there films with cleverness and eye candy and using great actors to prop up lame ideas.Its disappointing that great actors like Pacino, De Niro and the like cant seem to get leading roles in great movies being made today. Instead they are forced to be involved in films that use their fame to draw people like me who the feel afterwards used and abused.Oh and being a Cab Driver I can tell you that there is no way a Cabbie would give up his Taxi for a lousy 100 bucks plus tip. - PCL
How did Pacino get involved in this?
posted on 19 Jul 2009Al Pacino, is without a doubt, one of the greatest actors to come and step foot in Hollywood. His older movies like the Godfather and Scarface will forever be classics. In a recent string of events he has managed to pull himself on film with a few "halfway decent" titles, but 88 Minutes is the bottom of the barrel.This has to be one of the most fake movies I've seen in recent years. I can accept movies like Lord of the Rings and Spiderman because they aren't actually supposed to take place in real-time. This whole flick takes itself too seriously, and the ridiculous car chases and explosions make it to show that this couldn't possibly happen in real life. Whoever wrote this needs to go back to school and learn some real engaging material, something that is more real and sophisticated. It's just very unreal.The scripting was just awful. Terrible one-liners, and the supporting actors all act as if they were on steroids and running rampant as the movie wears on. The female actresses couldn't act to save their lives. And boy, did you ever notice how similar this was compared to other thriller type movies in this era? I mean cm-on it's as if people can't think of something original anymore. Then you come to the ending which is really just a nail in the coffin. Unbelievable and just plain stupid.I don't know how the same person who played a terrific performance in Scarface can be cast a role in a "mediocre to bad" action-type film. I guess actors/actresses adapt and change over time, but if I knew a movie was going to be this bad, I wouldn't star in it to damage my reputation. Al Pacino, we've seen the better of you.Avoid watching this. Whether you're planning to see this in theaters or later buying it on DVD, prepare to cower yourself in disgust.1 out of 10.
Not Pacino's worst film...
posted on 13 Jul 2009That award still goes to Two Bits. Pacino should stay away from films with numbers in their title.(Godfather 2 is the exception). He has a film being release later this year called Righteous Kill where a lot of talk on that board is about how Pacino and DeNiro are too old to play their washed up detective roles. I disagree with that sentiment entirely, but those who felt that way have to get a load of 88 minutes. Grandpa Al has 20 year olds throwing themselves at him like he is a rock star. Being 53, I sure wish there was a smidgen of believability in that concept, but alas it is absurd. The entire film is absurd, the dialog awful, and everyone seems almost embarrassed in their roles. Pacino despite all this is still entertaining enough that the film scores a 4 in my book just because he could elevate a reading of the phone book to a 2.
A movie Pacino could've gotten away with a decade ago
posted on 09 Jul 2009"88 Minutes" seems to have a lot going for it; a great leading man (Al Pacino), an interesting premise (Pacino as a man whose targeted and given 88 Minutes to live in connection to a man he's put on Death Row who stands to be executed), and a competent supporting cast (Alicia Witt, Leelee Sobieski, William Forsythe, and the underrated Neal McDonnough.) So what went wrong? First off, at this stage of his career, Pacino's a little long in the tooth to be playing the womanizing professor. He also seems a little sluggish, not delivering the spark he's delivered previously. It would've been interesting to see him in this role around the same time he made "Sea of Love," a thriller that turned out much better than this.The other major flaw is the final act. After building suspense (even though they telegraphed the eventual "mastermind", IMO) the film's last 10 minutes are a train wreck, with the carefully though out and interesting characters reduced to one-note caricatures, especially McDonnough, who is turned from a cunning manipulator to a Snidely Whiplash style stock villain at the film's conclusion.But the acting is competent, if not great (William Forsythe delivers the goods in his limited time,) and the journey of the story might be worth the substandard final destination to you.
Al Pacino certainly is still good.
posted on 07 Jul 2009I am surprised many people are panning this film. I actually think its a good thriller. While not the bloodiest film you will ever see in your life, it can keep you glued to the screen at times to see what happens.Pacino plays a Criminology Professor at a local university. But he begins to start getting strange phone calls about how long he has to live. And that is when parts of his past, especially about his sister, come to light. Many mysteries are solved near the end. And I did like the ending.Its not the flashiest movie in terms of star power, but Pacino still seems to pack a punch. He just can't have a mobster kill you anymore. "A-"
88 minutes is legit.. why is everyone hating it?
posted on 03 Jul 2009I thought the movie was tight. Pacino was like arrogant and tight in this movie, i thought his role was perfect for his age. I don't know why the critics hate it so much, i was entertained the whole movie. Great Plot, and if its the the amazing Northwest of America, its always got great scenes. (Seattle & Portland)I liked Pacino's role and the movie!I just voted 10 by the way because i wanted to bump it up.More like an 8. Its just weird to me that not many people liked it.Anyways, yeah fun and entertaining movie!
the music in the club at the beginning of the film
posted on 29 Jun 2009i want to know the music from the club at the beginning of the film, when A.Pacino is dancing. i'm searching this song for two weeks without results. i appreciate your help. thanks. By the way, is a nice movie.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...( read more read more... ) suspects, he frantically seeks to communicate with a problem student, an ex-girlfriend, and a serial killer on death row. I'll give it a 8. Nice actors and nice action. I was wondering if it really was 88 minutes from the moment he got the phonecall because it felt longer than that
Please with the serial killers
posted on 23 Jun 2009A terrible waste of 88 minutes of my life if you ask me. The plot is silly, acting is poor, the ending weak, etc. They throw in a free little lecture on capital punishment as well, and wrap it up with some crap on Pacino's character's past to make us understand his personal motivation etc.If only they had spent 88 minutes contemplating whether this movie should have been produced at all. Why is it that the big studios continue to produce these average stories that seem to follow standard formulas on how to bring us a thriller involving murder and the anatomy of the criminal mind? originality is not the same thing as coming up with new, rather silly "modi operandi" of the mysterious serial killer, like tying people upside down. We are being bombarded with CSI-like crime scenes, and all thought seems to go into what crazy killer we can come up with next. The storytelling has become second to the story if you ask me. Go forth and sin no more, movie-producers.
Pacinno is not enough
posted on 23 Jun 2009Un fortunately, from the very start of the film I was asking myself what is wrong with this film. Then I realized this is Paccino. He was there not saving a film. Not very likely. But it happens sometimes. About the film. Since I am a philosopher, film is based on a philosophy based scenario, or guilt, justice and truth.. etc. All of those happens in such a discontinuity that I did not believe. About the director. Yes, you can try some new thing in an amazing movie. With an amazing scenario, but he is so amateur in camera that I did not believe. The last words sorry to tell is, no Paccino no. Do not do this to me, admired your tirades in Devil'S Advocate.
A load of Rubbish
posted on 30 Aug 2009Stangly this film is 88 minutes long. The makers of this film have STOLEN 88 minutes of my life. The only good thing about this film is that, giants of acting such as Al Pacino can also be utterly useless awful at times, which makes them a bit more human.... Take my word for it and don't waste your time watching this 'Big Mac' of a movie. P.S. Can someone explain the 'guideline' of minimum of 10 lines per comment. Firstly, guideline means what it says, GUIDELINE; not RULE. So, why does your software doesn't allow a shorter comment to be posted. Secondly, it is not about the number of words, it is about the meaning of your message. Sometimes, extra words can spoil the message, e.g the script of 88 minutes.