• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

88 Minutes - Discussion and Review ; SPOILERS likely

Grade "88 Minutes"

  • A

    Votes: 1 50.0%
  • B

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • C

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • D

    Votes: 1 50.0%
  • F

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    2
  • Poll closed .

Captain Craig

Vice Admiral
Admiral
I saw this at a sneak last night here in Nashville and for those who like opinions(as we all do) here is a non spoilery review I posted elsewhere.

88 minutes starring Al Pacino opens Friday April 18.
Trailer

This movie has all the makings of a hit. The pacing of the movie is great. You don't want to leave your seat for popcorn or potty cause you will miss something. The movie does feel like its moving in "real time", aka the 88 minutes. Thus every few minutes your getting a new clue to figure out. The movie has about a 15 minute or so introduction window and then the "88" minutes kicks in but don't miss those 15 minutes either.

Kudos to Al Pacino for a great performance and the rest of the cast. I just about had it figured out before the big reveal and was only wrong on 1 person and another I'm still confused on but that doesn't ruin it for me. That character may have been an intentional red herring anyway. Despite this I can't think of any plot holes of significance if there are any.

Before the movie I wondered "Why 88 minutes, why not 45 or 96 minutes?"
They do explain this if your curious about that.

I really was trying to figure out why its rated R. Granted you see the fully nude woman for that 2 seconds in the very beginning but you only fully see her butt, nothing else. In a flashback you see the same womans side breast for all of .5 seconds. I've seen as much flesh in many a PG-13 movie. Language wasn't harsh at all. I don't recall the F-word but maybe it was there and I was so engrossed in the movie details I blocked out non-important verbiage. Even the murder scenes are tame. Just blood, nothing more. No decapitated heads or burned flesh. A few cuts and its no doubt a PG-13, even though I think it easily should be as it exists.

I give the movie a solid A and two thumbs up! Well worth your $10 at the cinema.
 
Last edited:
Wow, I couldn't disagree more. I found the acting outrageously bad -- and from such a good cast. The script was very amateurish, hitting you over the head with each -- well, I don't want to spoil it yet.

The usually reliable Alicia Witt was turned into a slack-jawed ninny, LeeLee Sobieski was just a step above reading off cue cards, William Forsthye's character did ridiculous emotional flip-flops. The best I can say is it was like a bad game of Clue.

Pacino did his best with really obvious and ridiculously over-the-top paranoic material, but from the very first scene of the movie with those two ridiculous sisters (not a spoiler), I realize I've seen better acting in the spoof genre lately. And I don't know what other movies this screenwriter's had produced, but if this is indicative of his work, I hope he enjoys his premiere this Friday.

All in all how bad it was was a total surprise to me. Only once did I feel any real sense of tension. Two minutes out of 88 (actually 105). Not a good buy.

You want a great "beat the clock" "real-time" thriller, just rent Nick of Time with Johnny Depp.


--Ted
 
Last edited:
Why is this movie opening now? I obtained a copy a year ago!
So has this been sitting in the studios hands for that long? I wonder why the delay?

Wow, I couldn't disagree more. I found the acting outrageously bad -- and from such a good cast. The script was very amateurish, hitting you over the head with each -- well, I don't want to spoil it yet.
It got quite a bit of applause actually in the 400+ crowded theater. Thanks for not going into full blown spoiler yet. I liked Alicia Witt and found her character to have a cliche or two but I liked her handling of it.
The characters have a few cliches but I only think of that in hindsight. During the movie I was more focused on Pacino so maybe that helps.
Benjamin MacKenzie's character was my least favorite.
 
Millennium Films doesn't have a particularly good track record with movies. They've made a lot of the straight-to-video flicks starring Van Damme and Seagal, and have movies with known leads end up going straight-to-video like The Contract (Morgan Freeman, John Cuscak) and Edison Force (Morgan Freeman, Kevin Spacey, Justin Timberlake, LL Cool J, Cary Elwes, Dylan McDermott). And, of course, one of Nicolas Cage's worst movies in The Wicker Man.
 
Millennium Films doesn't have a particularly good track record with movies. They've made a lot of the straight-to-video flicks starring Van Damme and Seagal, and have movies with known leads end up going straight-to-video like The Contract (Morgan Freeman, John Cuscak) and Edison Force (Morgan Freeman, Kevin Spacey, Justin Timberlake, LL Cool J, Cary Elwes, Dylan McDermott). And, of course, one of Nicolas Cage's worst movies in The Wicker Man.

Millennium Films did RAMBO and that gets high marks from me. Besides Wicker Man I'm not familiar with the rest of that list.

I wonder if revenue from Rambo helped them finally push this film out into distribution?
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top