|
| 88 Minutes | 
 enlarge | Director: Jon Avnet
Actors: Al Pacino, Alicia Witt, Benjamin Mckenzie, Leelee Sobieski, Amy Brenneman
Studio: Sony Pictures
Category: DVD
List Price: $28.96
Buy Used: $4.55
You Save: $24.41 (84%)
New (53) Used (61) Collectible (1) from $4.55
Avg. Customer Rating:  44 reviews
Sales Rank: 2105
Format: Ac-3, Color, Dolby, Dubbed, Dvd-video, Subtitled, Widescreen, Ntsc
Languages: English (Original Language), English (Subtitled), French (Subtitled), French (Dubbed)
Rating: R (Restricted)
Number Of Items: 1
Running Time: 108
Aspect Ratio: 2.35:1
Shipping Weight (lbs): 0.2
Dimensions (in): 7.5 x 5.4 x 0.7
MPN: COLD23578D
UPC: 043396235786
EAN: 0043396235786
ASIN: B001C5LLLY
Theatrical Release Date: 2007
Release Date: September 16, 2008
Availability: Usually ships in 1-2 business days
|
| Similar Items:
|
| Editorial Reviews:
Product Description
A riveting thriller about a forensic psychologist racing to prevent his own murder. Studio: Sony Pictures Home Ent Release Date: 09/16/2008 Starring: Al Pacino Leelee Sobieski Run time: 107 minutes Rating: R
Amazon.com
Al Pacino looks startled through much of 88 Minutes, as though taken by surprise at being cast in a thriller that must've first passed across the desks of Clint Eastwood and Harrison Ford. Still, Pacino brings his usual oomph to the role of a Seattle forensic psychiatrist, whose testimony secured the death sentence for a crazy serial killer (Neal McDonough). Wouldn't you know it, the very day the killer is sentenced to die, a copycat "Seattle Slayer" is on the loose, and Pacino starts getting ominous phone calls telling him the exact time of his own death. Tick tock: it's 88 minutes away. The film then serves up more red herrings than a Stalingrad fish fry, as possible culprits pop up every five minutes or so (among them an attractive group of med-school students played by Alicia Witt, Leelee Sobieski, and Benjamin McKenzie). Lapses in logic abound, but if you hunker down and zone in on Pacino's weary-eyed, poufy-haired professionalism, you can enjoy the goings-on. (They even make him run up flights of stairs, which one would have thought beyond him now.) Seattle's frequent stunt double, Vancouver, B.C., stands in as a location, and Jon Avnet supplies the slick direction. The cast is talented (including Amy Brenneman), leading you to guess that a lot of people will do anything just to work with Al Pacino. And you've got to admire Pacino's chutzpah at sharing the screen with statuesque actresses such as Brenneman and Sobieski; they tower over him, but he still holds his own. --Robert Horton
Stills from 88 Minutes (click for larger image)
|
| Customer Reviews: Read 39 more reviews...
 If only it would have lasted just 88 minutes. November 23, 2008
That was 88+ minutes that I will never get back. Very disappointing from Al Pacino. Will he accept just any role now? The idea and premis were good but the execution was horrible.
Yes, it is that bad November 22, 2008
You've heard it's bad. The movie critics said it, people who saw it said it, Amazon reviewers said it. But it's Al Pacino and Jon Avnet, so you wonder, how bad can it be? You buy it or rent it, and sit through one of the most tedious and pathetic movies ever made. The plot is ridiculous; the writing, atrocious, and not even the most talented actor and director on the planet could save this ridiculous film. The only interesting question regarding this movie is, how did it get made? Why did Avnet and Pacino agree to work with one of the worst screenplay ever written? I'd really like to know.
Wow, I can't believe that some people actually liked this movie... November 10, 2008
1 out of 1 found this review helpful
This movie was just bad. It doesn't even deserve the one star I was forced to give it. The only good think in it was Pacino, and even he was sub-par.
The story was simply a rehash of every other "out of time" movie. Nothing new happened, there were too many characters. So many that there was no way for each of them to contribute to the film in a meaningful way.
The acting was bad and the script poorly written. Some lines were just so unbelievable that I wanted to turn the movie off.
The biggest problem is that the characters were so badly written that you are never able to connect with any of them. You simply don't care when any of them dies, or gets hurt, or anything.
The best part of this movie was the credits... That's about it.
Looks to me like it's time Pacino either retired, or raised his standards a whole lot.
Don't waste your time or money on this movie.
 Riveting but flawed! November 10, 2008
4 out of 10 found this review helpful
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.
 88 Minutes that you'll never get back. November 3, 2008
1 out of 1 found this review helpful
It's not that this film is actually bad, but rather it is just disappointing considering the very talented cast and it's potential to be a riveting thriller that is lukewarm at best.
Taking a page from the TV series 24 Al Pacino has the last 88 real time minutes of this 1:40 minute film to figure out who his potential killer is before his time is up. He's a forensic psychologist with a long list of enemies as he's put many in jail with his expert testimony alone. There are some good twists now and then in this story and, as many have already pointed out, lots of red herring too.
The direction is brisk and unobtrusive, but the script lacks the punch to support the director's attempt to make things exciting. This is also one of those films in which the supporting cast is better than the main cast. Pacino seems to be bored with this film and literally looks like he's acting panic-stricken. I mean, I can open my eyes wide too, but that doesn't mean I really look scared, does it? This is what critics call a "phoned in performance" that is often done by top actors to keep themselves busy until their next terrific film. It's treated like a part-time or temporary job. Now, the presence of the decent looking and okay acting talent of Alicia Witt, the stunning and very talented Helen Hunt lookalike, Leelee Sobieski, and TV's Judging Amy who makes 40+ look like a fantastic age to be, Amy Brenneman, are all far more interesting to watch than Pacino is in this film.
This isn't a bad movie and will make a decent rental, but don't expect a whole lot from this film as you might because of Al Pacino's presence. He's way off his game here and his supporting cast really outshine him, even though that doesn't take much with his performance in this film.
FYI: While the film made a tidy profit having cost 30 million to make, although that is hard to believe, it made about 70 million here in the states, it still got yanked from theaters after only a few weeks. It couldn't even break double digits on it's opening weekend where it made just under 7 million. Apparently, the producers where not very optimistic about the film before it's release as its release date was continuously delayed. The movie was actually filmed in October of 2005 on a tight 45 day shooting schedule and finally released in April of 2008.
|
|
|
 Powered by Associate-O-Matic
| |
