88 Minutes


Action / Crime / Drama / Mystery / Thriller

Rotten Tomatoes Critics - Rotten 5%
Rotten Tomatoes Audience - Spilled 44%
IMDb Rating 5.9 10 73213


Uploaded By: OTTO
May 03, 2012 at 07:11 PM



Al Pacino as Jack Gramm
Alicia Witt as Kim Cummings
Ben McKenzie as Mike Stempt
Neal McDonough as Jon Forster
703.60 MB
English 2.0
24.000 fps
1 hr 48 min
P/S 0 / 20

Movie Reviews

Reviewed by Jack Vasen 6 / 10

It's as watchable as most movies these days

In a day when sadism, cruelty, and torture appear on our TV and movie screens on a daily basis, I am surprised that so many people think this movie is awful.

Not to say that I wanted to see the cruel things done in this movie. There were many scenes of partially clad young women being strung upside down and cut. Didn't need that. But these scenes were such that this movie stayed within the bounds of R movies, maybe because those scenes were relatively short.

I agree with most of the bad reviews to the extent that the acting wasn't great. I usually love Alicia Witt, but why did we need her character? It really didn't make sense that she followed him everywhere, even more closely than his office assistant. I think she was meant to be another red herring, but then, it's obvious she couldn't have been responsible for everything that was happening.

The plot was OK, but had many flaws. If Graham was supposed to die after 88 minutes, then why so many attempts before that. The murderer sure got around almost as if the murderer had a teleportation device. If you think in detail about what was done, including planting DNA evidence, the logistics were just about impossible, at least for one person. And the overall purpose, to vindicate Forster, was actually hurt by all the overkill. One body with semen would have been the most convincing, but all the others leave too much chance for error and questioning by the police.

But this movie didn't really require any more suspension of reality that most of the shows and movies we have seen about sadistic serial killers who seem to be almost omnipotent. I can name at least two popular TV shows based on FBI agents that have had multiple plots that were more unbelievable.

Neal McDonough makes a great psychopath, but they are always pretty much the same performance.

Reviewed by zkonedog 3 / 10

Only Pacino Makes It Remotely Watchable (And Even That's A Stretch)

While roaming through my local Blockbuster, I picked this flick out because it seemed to have everything: Al Pacino as a leading man, a good supporting cast, an engaging-sounding plot, and plenty of action/adventure. Sadly, the film failed to deliver on pretty much all accounts.

For a basic plot summary, "88 Minutes" focuses on Prof. Jack Gramm (Pacino), who (after contributing to the death sentence of a supposed serial murderer) is drawn into a cat-and- mouse game with the inmate when, inexplicably, the same type of murders start up again. All the while, Gramm is being threatened by mysterious phone calls as the clock ticks down on him from...88 minutes.

Succinctly speaking, this film is an absolute mess. I have no idea what director John Avnet was thinking. In the first thirty minutes, the plot seems to be developing and the important characters seem to be taking shape. From that point, however, it's as if Avnet puts his finger in the metaphorical batter-bowl and just stirs everything up...without baking. Thus, most of the plot points brought up in the early goings just fizzle out, while the ones that do come to fruition do so with little to no drama. By the final scene, it's a complete and utter mess.

About the only redeeming factor in this movie whatsoever is the acting of Al Pacino. He can still carry a movie with his intense mannerisms and stinging dialogue. Unfortunately, he isn't given nearly enough of those scenes here and seems stifled (perhaps that is what happens when his character is so poorly written). The same is true for the auxiliary cast. I know that Amy Brennamen, Leelee Sobieski, and Alicia Witt are competent actors, but (in this movie) their characters are so uninspiring that it's impossible to inject them with any life.

Overall, I would skip this Pacino effort and never look back. A few of the "intense Al" moments remain, but otherwise "88 Minutes" is an exercise in disorganized chaos.

Reviewed by Dave Thompson 7 / 10

Reviewers make me mad!!! Now it's my turn to do the same to you!!

I really do have to laugh at some people's reviews at times, and over the years, if I totally believe all the bad press that some (if not all) films receive, it would never ever be worth my while visiting a cinema or buying a DVD ever again. If I see a film, like it, and then see all the bad reviews I am sometimes left thinking 'am I the only one that got it?' or 'am I the only one that thought this was good'. In short, reading too many reviews can drive you absolutely insane. OK, so 88 Minutes received largely negative reviews......especially on IMDb. So at the time of writing this, the film has a rating of 5.9, which I class as just above average (5 is average right?). I am more than just a little annoyed that most of those that gave the film an above average rating failed to review it. However, it leaves me with the conclusion that most people are more than happy to complain, rather than go with the flow. After all, I don't think that here are many films for which I haven't read a review from somebody saying that it's the worst film they've ever seen. 88 Minutes, in my opinion is a good, above average, watchable movie. But some of the contradictory comments on people's reviews did my head in. For example:- Al Pacino's performance............Al Pacino is undoubtedly a brilliant actor. His character in this movie is cocky, self assured, calm and in his opinion, always right. Pacino plays this perfectly, so why do people think that he was out of place? Was there any need for him overstate and overact? No there wasn't. Did he look uncomfortable in his role? No he didn't. To me, maybe the reviewers were expecting some powerhouse acting which they didn't receive. The plot.........come on people!!! It wasn't muddled. It was easy to follow. Throwaway yes, but don't we, every now and again enjoy a film that we don't have to think too much about? Yes we do!! It is true to say there is a certain degree of implausibility about things but people should just look at the movie for what it is.......entertainment. I, for one, was entertained, although I did guess who was behind the killings. I mean come on, even true stories have that certain implausibility factor about them in order to make them entertaining...don't they? The acting........it seems that because Pacino's performance was (rightly) understated, everybody else acted badly. It is true that some performances did not bring out the best in the actors (Alicia Witt and Leelee Sobieski), others were excellent, especially William Forsythe and Neal McDonaugh.

I'm done with the film now, but had to laugh at one on the extras on the DVD. The director stated that this was a 'low budget' movie. OK maybe it is in comparison to some.....but calling $30m low budget is an insult to my ears!!

Anyway.......conclusion!! A good, but not brilliant film that a few more of you have actually enjoyed but not openly admitted. Good grief, those of you that have reviewed think it's so bad, I am left thinking that I have just stepped out of the 'bad movie' closet!!

Watch this movie for what it is........entertainment!!!

Read more IMDb reviews


Be the first to leave a comment