Columbia Pictures | Release Date: April 18, 2008
4.9
USER SCORE
Mixed or average reviews based on 114 Ratings
USER RATING DISTRIBUTION
Positive:
47
Mixed:
22
Negative:
45
WATCH NOW
Stream On
Stream On
Review this movie
VOTE NOW
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Check box if your review contains spoilers 0 characters (5000 max)
6
mrcriticSep 25, 2010
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 88Critics 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. Expand
2 of 3 users found this helpful21
All this user's reviews
5
WiseMarosisApr 1, 2011
dsfg; uhjoigdfsbjkldsfg; uhjoigdfsbjkldsfg; uhjoigdfsbjkldsfg; uhjoigdfsbjkldsfg; uhjoigdfsbjkldsfg; uhjoigdfsbjkldsfg; uhjoigdfsbjkldsfg; uhjoigdfsbjkldsfg; uhjoigdfsbjkldsfg; uhjoigdfsbjkl
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
4
JayH.Sep 6, 2008
Amazingly far fetched plot riddled with holes and makes the mistake of making the main character so unlikeable you don't care if he dies in 88 minutes or not. To bad the title didn't refer to the length of the movie. Just because Amazingly far fetched plot riddled with holes and makes the mistake of making the main character so unlikeable you don't care if he dies in 88 minutes or not. To bad the title didn't refer to the length of the movie. Just because Al Pacino is in the film doesn't mean it's good. How quickly Bobby Deerfield, Gigli and Cruising were forgotten. Expand
0 of 2 users found this helpful
6
JonC.Apr 16, 2008
You know whats a good movie? This one. I am shocked all the way through. Where are all of these high reviews coming from anyway? This movie rocked hard on acting, action, and script. It may be stereotypical but it has the guts to show off You know whats a good movie? This one. I am shocked all the way through. Where are all of these high reviews coming from anyway? This movie rocked hard on acting, action, and script. It may be stereotypical but it has the guts to show off hard-core confidence. Thats why I love this movie, its not the most entertaining movie of all time but it just was purely awesome. Al Pacino isn't as healthy as he used to be but he does okay. This film is uplifted by its intense and never-a-dull moment plot. It is stupid how he only has 88 minutes, like thats ridiculous. It is a tired and lazily produced film, quite rushed and uninteresting. But just enjoy it while you can. I did, I thought it carried predictability but funness all the way through. It is definitely flawed, and might win a razzie for worst excuse for entertainment and actor Al Pacino but its actually entertaining. Its easily forgettable but its just supreme entertainment. More of the fun comes from criticizing it. i was a bit embarrassed while watching this because the dialogue was a big ripp-off. But who cares, its fun stuff. But no doubt you can see where all of the reviews are coming from. Expand
1 of 3 users found this helpful
5
BearApr 19, 2008
I saw this blind -- just happened to be the next thing playing that didn't have singing toys -- had no idea what it was. I left the theater thinking I'd been entertained; but it's no classic. Pacino is the only actor in it -- I saw this blind -- just happened to be the next thing playing that didn't have singing toys -- had no idea what it was. I left the theater thinking I'd been entertained; but it's no classic. Pacino is the only actor in it -- but even when he phones it in, he gives a pretty good show. There are enough plot twists to keep the brain involved, enough pandering to keep the gonads involved, enough overall nastiness to keep one's cynicism intact. I particularly appreciated the choppy editing, which I took as reflective of Pacino's state of mind. The endiing was not too cute for words and at no time did any toys sing. Expand
0 of 2 users found this helpful
4
kpJul 19, 2009
Not a very memorable movie, but not as nearly as bad as all the reviews suggest. It's NOT a 17...that's ridiculous. Yes, below average for the genre, but definitely watchable. Not every movie is going to be Casablanca. If you watch Not a very memorable movie, but not as nearly as bad as all the reviews suggest. It's NOT a 17...that's ridiculous. Yes, below average for the genre, but definitely watchable. Not every movie is going to be Casablanca. If you watch it for what it is...a so so thriller...then you'll give it about a 4 or so out of 10 which is what it is. Expand
0 of 2 users found this helpful
5
DennisC.Apr 15, 2008
Yawn.
0 of 2 users found this helpful
5
EadieM.Apr 26, 2008
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. 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. Expand
4 of 5 users found this helpful