Metascore
17

Overwhelming dislike - based on 27 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 0 out of 27
  2. Negative: 25 out of 27
  1. If you're like me and think that any Pacino movie is sort of worth seeing, so long as he never says, "Hoo-ha," then 88 Minutes won't be a total disappointment.
  2. 40
    The picture is humorless and witless. The barrage of allegedly important details is supposed to keep us intrigued, but it barely keeps us occupied.
  3. 88 Minutes proves itself to be a maddeningly mediocre, ineptly manipulative "real-time" thriller.
  4. This business of the 88 minutes ticking away is a pale imitation of the old "High Noon" ploy of playing out suspense in real time. After a while, though, I began to take a perverse pleasure in wallowing in the awfulness of it all.
  5. Forget Pacino; it’s all those red herrings that reek.
  6. Although it's often laugh-out-loud laughably bad, 88 Minutes is mostly just a slog.
  7. Not merely Pacino's over-mannered, near-histrionic performance, but the movie itself could be characterized as busy, busy, busy. It's so full of plot twists and revelations and exploding sports cars that its very perkiness comes to seem comic.
  8. 30
    Compare 88 Minutes with "Sea of Love," another murder mystery that Pacino made, in 1989, and you find him sporting the same loud ties, but everything else has leached away: suspense, credibility, wit, and the lost art of flirtation.
  9. Al Pacino chews up so much scenery it's surprising there's any left by the end of this fetid thriller.
  10. 25
    I'm guessing it's the pressure of an idiot script by Gary Scott Thompson and understandably clueless direction from Jon Avnet that forces Pacino to ham it up so vigorously that you want to garnish him with cloves and a slice of pineapple.
  11. The preposterous 88 Minutes is a serial killer movie starring Al Pacino's festival of hair.
  12. 25
    This is easily one of the silliest, most preposterous thrillers ever made, and the only reason it didn't go straight to video has to be that it stars Pacino.
  13. 25
    A preposterous misfire.
  14. Reviewed by: Claudia Puig
    25
    This may be the most preposterous movie of the year. It is certainly the most ridiculous movie starring an Oscar-winning actor.
  15. 25
    I've seen Pacino over the edge. This is not it. He looks pooped and pickled. Maybe being the only thing standing between a megaplex opening and a trip straight to the $4.99 bin at Target wiped him out.
  16. 25
    One of the dumbest thrillers to arrive it theaters in a long time.
  17. Every actor and actress involved seems to have been instructed to act as guilty as possible and, in this at least, they're entirely convincing. Not guilty of murder, perhaps, but of a really unfortunate career choice.
  18. Preposterous, empty-headed and tedious.
  19. This ridiculous thriller would be hard-pressed to last much longer than its title in theaters before doing time on DVD, as is already the case in many overseas territories.
  20. 20
    One small step for bad filmmaking and one giant leap for the increasing insignificance of the former Michael Corleone.
  21. 20
    Attica! Attica! Everyone involved in the creation of this muddled, joyless, and deadly dull serial killer-meets-forensic psychiatrist snoozefest should be forced to spend – at the very least – 88 minutes behind Attica's bars.
  22. 16
    Actually, it's pretty much the definition of absurd.
  23. 12
    88 Minutes holds you in a state of acute suspense, keeping you wondering until the very last minute whether this is the worst Al Pacino movie ever made.
  24. Reviewed by: Todd McCarthy
    10
    Ludicrous in the extreme, the picture easily snatches from "Revolution" the prize as Al Pacino's career worst.
  25. This slimy, slug-minded mystery thriller starts out dead on arrival and then, like three-day-old fish, gets really bad really fast.
  26. A stinker, the more so for the thespian excesses of the accomplished cast.
  27. Reviewed by: Ella Taylor
    0
    We may have to sit through worse films to come this year, but with any luck, there'll be none as guilelessly, idiotically misogynist as this one.
User Score
5.1

Mixed or average reviews- based on 103 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 16 out of 35
  2. Negative: 14 out of 35
  1. GGDD
    Apr 18, 2008
    8
    Good film...ignore the arseholes who think their film experts...Chatting shit about "dialoge" Its no epic, its not just fun.
  2. EadieM.
    Apr 26, 2008
    5
    While far from Pacino's best, this film is entertaining and holds attention, even if some of the plot is implausible (that's nothing new in today's films) and the editing uneven. It deserves more than the 17 critics gave it. If a film holds you till the end it deserves more than 0. Full Review »
  3. Sep 25, 2010
    6
    Critics are being way too harsh on this movie. Sure, it had flaws, but this was a decent suspense thriller. I've seen this movie five times, and I really like it the same every time I see it. An ending that you might have seen coming, but 88 minutes should have been in theaters longer than 88 minutes. Full Review »