|
Showing reviews from 1 to 50 (total: 90)
|
|
 |
This was ultimately a good thriller which had you guessing the entire time what was going to happen next until the very end. It was a movie you had to pay very close attention to, though it was exciting to see along with the mounting suspense. I will admit however, that it was very slow in parts, but this did not take away from the pleasure of seeing this picture, at least it didn't for me. The storyline was very interesting and flowed well, and had a clever plot. Al Pacino was great as always and still proves to be one of the most influential actors out there. However, if you're looking for another Scarface or Godfather type movie, this isn't it. Here, we see him in quite a different role, a person with good morals and good sense other than the usual notorious characters he's always played. I bought into his performance immediately, and I was very impressed. Also, there was great acting from the supporting cast, but Al Pacino literally stole the show. Overall, this is one movie that really sends you in so many directions that it's hard to think who the killer could be. Just when you think you know who it is, you start to doubt yourself again. If you look hard enough then you will figure it out. A definite must see for those who like mystery and guessing flicks.
8/10
7.8.2008 -
crisperguy33@ - age: 36-49
| | | | |
Go and see it now!! I love the parts when its scary man what a great movie! (-3 love it.
10/10
6.25.2008 -
puppy-luv05@ - age: 13-17
One of the worst movies I have ever seen. Guessed the villain early on and the ending was no surprise. Movie seemed to consist of Al Pacino constantly talking on his cellphone and running around. Leelee Sobieski and Alicia Witt, while nice on the eyes, were horrible. Not even worth a rental. Spend your life doing something better, I wish I had.
1/10
6.25.2008 -
parker2@ - age: 36-49
| | | | |
The premise in this film is that a guy convicted on circumstantial evidence is still guilty of serious killings. Flies in the face of current re-evaluations of numerous death row cases being tossed out after DNA testing exonerates many convicts in the USA. Al Pacino is in great form in this film however. Kind of a drag to see popular cinema being used to reinforce outmoded modes of thinking re no DNA evidence, is 'not a problem'. It is in real life. I give it a three for a poor premise, but Al Pacino is, as usual, a nine out of ten, as an actor.
3/10
6.25.2008 -
knownspace@ - age: 26-35
Very bad movie. I was not happy with any part of it. Ending really sucked eggs. Pacino really let me down on this one. I thought it would be good with him in it--but it didn't make any difference. They (the actors) were all bad.
2/10
6.24.2008 -
joeljustleft@ - age: 26-35
This is a painfully bad movie. I have nothing good to say about it. Ran too long, story is mediocre. Pacino is not that good either. Kind of disappointed all the way 'round.
2/10
6.24.2008 -
essies999@ - age: 50+
This is not Pacino's best work, not even close. I liked the story but they could have made this much better. The ending falls apart and thus makes it the anti-climax instead of being the thrilling bit of suspense it could have been with better acting and direction. Stay way from this dribble. Go re-watch "Scent of a Woman." WHO-AAH, WHO-AAH!
5/10
6.23.2008 -
jilljustleft@ - age: 18-25
I think people are a little too hard on this movie, because it certainly wasn't the worst movie I've seen. It keep my attention, although I thought parts were very hokey, especially the red-haired girls acting... yikes! The constant talking on the cell phones got to me as well. However, although it's not Al Pacino's best performance by any means, it still had an all right plot and a little twist at the end. If you have nothing better to watch, then watch 88 Minutes.
7/10
6.11.2008 -
sarahsaddy@ - age: 26-35
|
