Metascore

Overwhelming dislike - based on 27 Critics What's this?

User Score

Mixed or average reviews- based on 97 Ratings

  • Starring: Al Pacino, Alicia Witt, Ben McKenzie
  • Summary: In 88 Minutes, Dr. Jack Gramm, a college professor who moonlights as a forensic psychiatrist for the FBI. When Gramm receives a death threat claiming he has only 88 minutes to live, he must use all his skills and training to narrow down the possible suspects, who include a disgruntled student, a jilted former lover, and a serial killer who is already on death row, before his time runs out. (TriStar Pictures) Expand
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. 88 Minutes proves itself to be a maddeningly mediocre, ineptly manipulative "real-time" thriller.
  3. 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.
  4. Forget Pacino; it’s all those red herrings that reek.

See all 27 Critic Reviews

Score distribution:
  1. Positive: 16 out of 35
  2. Negative: 14 out of 35
  1. 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. Expand
  2. GGDD
    8
    Good film...ignore the arseholes who think their film experts...Chatting shit about "dialoge" Its no epic, its not just fun.
  3. EadieM.
    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. Collapse
  4. ChadS.
    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 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

See all 35 User Reviews

Trailers