User Score
5.0

Mixed or average reviews- based on 108 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 54 out of 108
  2. Negative: 43 out of 108
Watch On

Review this movie

  1. Your Score
    0 out of 10
    Rate this:
    • 10
    • 9
    • 8
    • 7
    • 6
    • 5
    • 4
    • 3
    • 2
    • 1
    • 0
    • 0
  1. Submit
  2. Check Spelling
  1. ChadS.
    Apr 23, 2008
    3
    Al Pacino turns 68 in late-April. He's a geezer. But there goes the legendary actor of stage and screen, throwing a girl-more-than-half-his-age, down onto the ground, when his character Dr. Jack Gramm intuits that a bomb is about to go off. Tic-toc, tic-toc. Gobble, gobble. Tic-toc, tic-toc. Gobble, gobble. Probably not since Martin Brest's "Gigli" has a major studio film Al Pacino turns 68 in late-April. He's a geezer. But there goes the legendary actor of stage and screen, throwing a girl-more-than-half-his-age, down onto the ground, when his character Dr. Jack Gramm intuits that a bomb is about to go off. Tic-toc, tic-toc. Gobble, gobble. Tic-toc, tic-toc. Gobble, gobble. Probably not since Martin Brest's "Gigli" has a major studio film received such savage reviews by the print media. This time, however, there's some merit to the bad publicity. For starters, "88 Minutes" discards its own premise. Dr. Gramm has eighty-eight minutes to live, according to his caller, but numerous attempts are made on his life, well before the eighty-eight minutes are up. If Jack dies, how will Jon Forster(Neal McDonough) get off death row? The convicted murderer needs Jack's confession, right?But to get back where I started from for a moment; it's Kim(Alicia Witt) whom Jack throws to the ground during one of those attempts on his life. Pacino is 68, maaaan. It should be the other way around. Jack is the one who needs protecting. He's a senior citizen. After Kim is accused twice(!) by her mentor of being an accomplice to his impending murder, the TA defies common sense and hangs around. Why? So Jack would have a sympathetic ear handy as he tells the origin story of the prescribed time that he has left to live. All the women in "88 Minutes" are either trollops, or idiots. Expand
  2. Deanna
    Sep 16, 2008
    2
    This movie was simply terrible. Whether it was the far-fetched plot, or the pathetic acting, this movie was simply impossible to follow and a bore the whole way through.
  3. DonnaH.
    Apr 17, 2008
    2
    How could Pacino, and his hair, be shameless enough to perform as they did in this thing? The word "Overdone" comes to mind. This is shamelessly bad, Pacino's worst--so much so that I just sat there in shock and pain. Was it supposed to be a spoof that everyone was in on but the audience?
  4. JustinP.
    Feb 14, 2009
    1
    This movie is a thriller without any thrills, a thoroughly mediocre, formulaic, predictable, poorly written film which jumps from cliches to bad dialogues to laughably bad writing all the way until its anticlimactic, irrelevant and uninteresting ending. It is pathetic to see Pacino trapped in this B grade yawner. How could he ever have agreed to act in a movie with a script thats just a This movie is a thriller without any thrills, a thoroughly mediocre, formulaic, predictable, poorly written film which jumps from cliches to bad dialogues to laughably bad writing all the way until its anticlimactic, irrelevant and uninteresting ending. It is pathetic to see Pacino trapped in this B grade yawner. How could he ever have agreed to act in a movie with a script thats just a hodgepodge of every second rate suspense movie ever made? Sometimes Pacino can salvage an otherwise lackluster picture just with his acting and presence (ie Devils Advocate, Any Given Sunday...) but here he is just one more of the film's annoying and implausible characters. Awful. Expand
  5. Nov 7, 2011
    1
    This may be the worst Pacino movie ever. And I am aware of the existence of "simone" and "righteous kill", so I am very abreast of his **** If you want a good movie done in "real time", don't waste YOUR TIME with this P.O.S.
    Check out "Nick of Time", from the mid-nineties, with Johnny Depp and Christopher Walken. It's done in "real time", and with much more success than this warmed-over turd.
  6. carriel
    Apr 19, 2008
    0
    What a terrible film! And GG DD it says alot about your film taste that you can't even spell "dialogue" let alone care about it.
  7. FilmWatcher
    Jan 17, 2009
    0
    The first scene was so badly acted by the two Asian victims -- I thought this must be a spoof. The second scene wth the bizarrely acted blonde attorney was even worse. Then Al Pacino showed and was BAD in that overblown, bugged eyed and exhausted way he can be . The script is ludicrous and the direction (especially of the actors) is horrendous. Jon Avnet should never be let near another The first scene was so badly acted by the two Asian victims -- I thought this must be a spoof. The second scene wth the bizarrely acted blonde attorney was even worse. Then Al Pacino showed and was BAD in that overblown, bugged eyed and exhausted way he can be . The script is ludicrous and the direction (especially of the actors) is horrendous. Jon Avnet should never be let near another script or camera! What a total mess and embarrassing disaster! Expand
  8. JasonS.
    Apr 15, 2008
    0
    There is a reason this movie was shelved for almost a full year even though Al Pacino starred in it. the plot is terrible, the dialog is laughable, and my fiance and i guessed the killer in the first 5 minutes. please do yourself a favor and save 88 minutes of your life by not seeing this movie!
  9. RaeR.
    Apr 23, 2008
    0
    88 minutes of my life forever lost sitting through this implausible, achingly bad bomb. Insofar as I can tell the only redeeming aspect of this film is that its once superb star will take account of just how low one can slip provided the money's good enough.
  10. BiggaJ
    Apr 24, 2008
    0
    They should have called the movie "Out of Time" because you need enough time to recover afterwards and that might make your weekend seem short.
  11. Fantasy
    Apr 27, 2008
    0
    Thanks for coming we stole your money. That's what the title should be. It's awful. Enough said!
  12. MovieProphet
    Apr 17, 2008
    0
    a big stinky pile of guano....c'mon al, you and leelee both should know better than to choose this type of horsefeathers.
  13. Rick
    Apr 19, 2008
    0
    If you want to waste 88 minutes of your life ,go see this movie.
  14. Mar 18, 2011
    0
    ridiculous .................................................ridiculousridiculous .................................................ridiculous ridiculousridiculousridiculousridiculousridiculousridiculousridiculousridiculousridiculousridiculousridiculousridiculousridiculousridiculousridiculousridiculousridiculousridiculousridiculousridiculousridiculousridiculousridiculousridiculousridiculousridiculousridiculousridiculousridiculousridiculousridiculousridiculousridiculousridiculousridiculousridiculousridiculousridiculousridiculousridiculousridiculous Expand
Metascore
17

Overwhelming dislike - based on 27 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 0 out of 27
  2. Negative: 25 out of 27
  1. 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.
  2. Reviewed by: Todd McCarthy
    10
    Ludicrous in the extreme, the picture easily snatches from "Revolution" the prize as Al Pacino's career worst.
  3. 25
    One of the dumbest thrillers to arrive it theaters in a long time.