88 Minutes

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. Dec 30, 2012
    7
    It was a good movie but not the best. Pacino did a fine job despite having some bad actress(es) in the film with him. It would have been better with more blood, gore and action but thats just my opinion.
  2. Sep 18, 2012
    10
    A really cool, fast-paced, energetic, sometimes original little thriller, an obscure gem, i haven't been hurled deeper into my seat since, oh, v for vendetta, maybe?
  3. Sep 18, 2012
    10
    one of the best films i've seen all year, it astounds me how people don't like this, you guys are really missing out on a fun, intense thriller, but, to each his own, i guess...
  4. Sep 17, 2012
    10
    fast-paced high caliber entertainment
  5. Sep 17, 2012
    10
    critics can be rather unforgiving, i loved this movie, and if that makes me retarded in their eyes, i could not care less, double-middle-finger to you douchebags.
  6. Sep 17, 2012
    10
    A perfect fun time, quite the relaxing break from being a film snob, a really enjoyable time for all.
  7. Sep 17, 2012
    10
    interesting, well acted, and energetic, al pacino may be growing up, but he certainly isn't growing old, all those who like simple, fast-paced thrillers will enjoy.
  8. 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.
  9. Jul 3, 2011
    8
    Wow, I was shocked to see how many people disliked this film. It had its flaws, yes but it was overly entertaining and really provided suspense. I can't see how people rate these type of films lower than, say, Transformers 2.
  10. Apr 1, 2011
    9
    I saw this movie yesterday on TV and I thought it was pretty good! There was an interesting plot, interesting characters, good acting and I was always wondering what was going to happen next. Then I hopped on Metacritic after the movie ended and I was absolutely shocked to see such negative reviews for a good movie. It's a 8.5/10 for me, which rounds up to 9.
  11. Mar 18, 2011
    0
    ridiculous .................................................ridiculousridiculous .................................................ridiculous ridiculousridiculousridiculousridiculousridiculousridiculousridiculousridiculousridiculousridiculousridiculousridiculousridiculousridiculousridiculousridiculousridiculousridiculousridiculousridiculousridiculousridiculousridiculousridiculousridiculousridiculousridiculousridiculousridiculousridiculousridiculousridiculousridiculousridiculousridiculousridiculousridiculousridiculousridiculousridiculousridiculous Expand
  12. 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.
  13. kp
    Jul 19, 2009
    4
    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.
  14. ts
    May 28, 2009
    7
    This was a great action movie and you never see him sweat bravo to the old coot who still has it.
  15. 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
  16. 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
  17. QuinnC.
    Sep 19, 2008
    10
    This was the best movie i ever saw in my whole life. Pacinio is the greatest person ever, he makes me want to pull out my shlong and start jackin it whenever i see him. This is a good movie to get off to!
  18. 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.
  19. JayH.
    Sep 6, 2008
    4
    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.
  20. Fantasy
    Apr 27, 2008
    0
    Thanks for coming we stole your money. That's what the title should be. It's awful. Enough said!
  21. 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.
  22. 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.
  23. 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
  24. 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.
  25. Rick
    Apr 19, 2008
    0
    If you want to waste 88 minutes of your life ,go see this movie.
  26. 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.
  27. Bear
    Apr 19, 2008
    5
    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 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
  28. BJ
    Apr 18, 2008
    7
    Not sure why people are providing such low reviews. The acting was very good, the plot was exciting and suspenseful. While not overly intelligent, it is smart enough to keep a viewer interested.
  29. 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.
  30. 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.
  31. 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?
  32. JonC.
    Apr 16, 2008
    6
    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 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
  33. DennisC.
    Apr 15, 2008
    5
    Yawn.
  34. 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!
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.