|
Showing reviews from 1 to 50 (total: 89)
|
|
 |
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
| | | | |
[ATTENTION: This review reveals content of the movie.]
A non-stop whirlwind of confusion, paranoia, lunacy and red herrings. 88 Minutes is a flimsily plotted and dreadfully cast thriller that is mildly entertaining all the way through, but lacking in any intellectual depth. Pacino is terrific as usual, but the actors around him frustratingly all deliver performances that range from unbelievable to downright silly. How any casting director could possibly believe that Leelee Sobieski could be an unhinged murderer is beyond me. She is a big reason why the big reveal at the end is so anticlimactic, and why the whole explanation for all the happenings in the film is ludicrous. Not a disappointing movie really, it was hard to have high expectations for something that looked so generic, but l did get to see Al Pacino give wide eyed stares and yell every now and again, which is all I really wanted from it going in.
4/10
6.7.2008 -
brendan,prost@ - age: 18-25
I can't believe they wasted everybodies time making this...
2/10
6.6.2008 -
cgerrywhelan@ - age: 18-25
Love Al Pacino but this was his worst performance EVErrr! The storyline was so bad that reflected on his acting (maybe he thought it was crap too and acted like he didn't care) Like some other reviewers I was laughing out loud in the theatre as well. Didn't know about this movie until I saw the trailer while waiting to watch a different flick. Should have known!
3/10
6.6.2008 -
etowngal@ - age: 26-35
It was alright... I was waiting for an amazing ending (the illusionist), but I got what I had suspected anyways, with a small twist. Not all that action packed or anything..., more dramatic. If you're looking for a good, psychological thriller, don't see this.
6/10
5.17.2008 -
proud,bluenoser@ - age: 1-12
Bad... boring... 88 minutes too long... typical scenes of several half naked females being mutilated... Pacino gravely disappoints. Was expecting so much more.
3/10
5.15.2008 -
musicalair@ - age: 36-49
It was alright. Not great, but still worth seeing.
7/10
5.14.2008 -
shadowhacker@ - age: 18-25
Meh its an ok movie.. I wouldnt spend 10 bucks for it but still.. You see it's one of these movies where the scenario just isn't that good.. when you see movies with wellknown actors, you get to expect a lot, and thouse when the movie isn't THAT spectacular you get to be displeased. Well I went on watching this movie only because I was bored so I wasn't that displeased. The actors did their job. The scenario isn't on the same level as the actors so it gets pretty predictable all along, but hey it's still worth watching Al Pacino with a gun lol. Just kidding.
7/10
5.13.2008 -
xploratio@ - age: 18-25
|
