Iffy for 16+
Serial killer thriller runs out of time, momentum.
What Parents Need to Know
Parents need to know that this dark thriller isn't meant for kids. It focuses on a cat-and-mouse game between a serial killer and the doctor responsible for sending him to death row: The contest is irrational on both sides, leading to aggression and murder. Violent imagery includes women being tortured: The killer likes to leave them hanging upside down in their underwear, blood dripping from deep cuts. Weapons include guns and scalpels. Female characters show lots of skin; at one point, a naked woman appears in in the hero's apartment (nothing explicit is shown). Language includes "f--k" and other profanity. Characters drink, get drunk, and talk about drinking.
- Families can talk about what this movie has in common with other stalker/serial killer movies. What "standards" of the genre does it stick to? What twists does it introduce? Are they believable? Why is Hollywood so fascinated with serial killers? Is there a message in these murderers' madness?
What to watch for
-
Violence: Serial killings in which women are hung upside down from the ceiling and brutalized. Scenes show a victim in her underwear, blood dripping down her neck and splattered on her face; a couple of scenes show a murder in process (scalpel and wheel-cutter are used, and they blood they draw is shown). A couple of audio recordings and one video recording feature women/girls screaming in terror. Classroom discussions of murder and serial killers. Bomb threat at school empties the buildings and creates havoc on campus. A student screams and shows up with bloody nose and scraped face. A car explodes; Gramm is nearly hit by a careening fire truck. Kim and Gramm both carry guns; they're shot at, and Gramm fires back. Gramm shoots his gun near a student's head to scare him. A woman is shot in her chest (bloody), then falls from great height and lands with a thud; blood pools under her head on the ground. Kim describes being "beaten black and blue" by her ex-husband.
-
Sex: Girl shown in bra, panties, and an open robe. Women's corpses wear bras and panties. A naked woman stretches her leg up to her head -- viewers see non-explicit profile from middle distance, emulating Pacino's character's point of view (she's was his one-night stand). Some women briefly show cleavage, including Kim when she tries to seduce Gramm in his apartment. Gramm insists that he doesn't sleep with his students or patients, but the film doesn't confirm this. Shelly, an openly gay character, appears in flashback kissing a woman; no nudity, but the film suggests that she has sex with her. Cops discuss semen in a murder victim's vaginal cavity.
-
Language: Profanity includes "f--k" (once), "damn," "bitch," "s--t," and "hell." A man holds up two fingers at the doctor in anger.
-
Consumerism: Mac laptop, Porsche, Nokia phone, MSNBC.
-
Drinking, drugs and smoking: A couple of bar scenes show people drinking beer and liquor. Gramm has a prominent wine collection.
Fan Reviews provided by
3
"CRYSTAL METH" by mo_butter
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!
1
88 MINUTES OF TRASH by MOVIES REVIEWER
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.
5
Dr. Pacino by joesteph
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.
2
Why did you do it Al? by insuraider
I went to see 88 minutes opening night, as I always do for any Al Pacino film. The movie had been rated a dog in the newspaper, however I went with an open mind.
This movie left me asking why and the heck would Al sign on to such a poorly constructed film. Bad dialogue, bereft of intrigue, overly plain characters to support a plot that went in circles without a purpose.
I would suggest that only huge fans of Pacino rent the film. If you are not in that category, best to move on...
2
Ugh, I cannot say enough bad things about this movie. by who_knew22
This is straight out of my blog, sorry:
I need to tell you, and it may be too late now, but here it goes anyway: Do NOT, under any cir***stance, go see "88 Minutes." Terrible. Terrible movie. It is the worst movie I have seen since "Sweeny Todd." If you like when the director treats you like a child by trying to lead you to a certain conclusion through obvious tactics, then you should see this movie. But if you are an intelligent person, as many of you are, do not see this movie. And I love Al Pacino, so it hurts me to say this. There are actually three actors that I was shocked were in this abomination, because I actually consider them good actors. And I'm sorry but is every director going to tell Al Pacino to act tired and slightly drunk in every movie that he stars in because it happened to work for "Insomniac." Ugh, I cannot say enough bad things about this movie. I was looking forward to it too.
5
88 minutes by maggie44
I rate this movie 5 stars. I love a movie that keeps you guessing evry minute till the very end.
Edge of your seat suspense. Robert is the best no matter what hw does. Loved it and so did my mom.
5
88 Minutes by mdk4dude
This is a great movie. It is full of suspence and keeps you in your seat until the end. I read a professional review and he was full of beans. I dont think he ever saw the movie. Trust me this is a good movie and will keep you in your seat squirming from beginning to the end.
4
88 Minutes by DPrice1019
This movie kept me guessing through the whole thing. It is amazing how I kept looking at everyone and I never saw who was actually behind everything until it was too late. Great suspense and now I feeling stupid for missing the clues.
1
Seriously? by leena27
I groan and sighed practically throughout the whole movie. In one word it SUCKED! I was just shocked at how truly bad it was. I was simply speechless, but now some words come mind when I think of the time I wasted away watching it!
The acting, the script, all left me open-mouthed thinking, you got to be kidding me! Apprently, they were serious, though.
I guess, I better laugh about it. Another word it for it...Crap!
3
Too Contrived by patalfano88
At times I felt like I was watchingt a soap opera with added drama and too much emphasis on facial expressions. The plot was well developed, but a little too predictable. Al Pacino was great as always, but the lack of support and character development left me a little disappointed. Pacino is the only reason I would go see this movie.