Just paid 4.99 on pay-per view. This movie was so awful I got up and walked out of my own house.
sharehaha! i haven't seen this movie yet but laughed out loud when i read your comment, so i just wanted to congratulate you on your razor sharp wit.
sharelol. lelee sobalski ruined this movie. Shes just a bad actor, i got nothing against her personally she should just find another career. mark my words, when she hits 35 and loses her looks, you will never see her onscreen again.
shareyeah pretty awful
shareher looks ??!! I would say shes just about average. she does nothing for me. Why do so many people think this film terrible i thought it was good
shareDude hdsjkingtut u just made my day. This movie was the worst. I thought about canceling my Netflix account just because they offered this mess for rental.
shareI think this was a great popcorn movie. I also think the reason your guys are hating on it is because you expect more from Mr.Pacino than a thinly veiled entertaining movie. If this had been made with moderately known actors and marketed better it would have been fairly well received I think. Again only my 2 cents worth.
shareIf this had been made with moderately known actors and marketed better it would have been fairly well received I think.
there is nothing great about this piece of *beep* this movie is over-rated at 5.2. this is a 2 at best. the walking out of my own house comment was hilarious. just as hilariously bad the end of the movie was. don't even get me started on the "tic toc doc" awfully written bull *beep* PACINO is done, the director needs to be shot b/c righteous kill may have ruined deniro's career too. i would only recommend this movie to someone that needed to know how not to make a movie.
shareI'm shocked at how under-rated this film is.
I just watched this the other night with my best mate, my Dad and my younger brother and we were all on the edge of our seat and no-one barely made a whisper. I thought it was an extremely engaging thriller and nothing stuck out as too far fetched or inconsistent.
Afterward we agreed the ending could've been a little better but overall we were very satisfied with our experience watching this and thought that Al Pacino was as usual superb.
I think that's the only thing people have against this movie is that with Al Pacino you're expecting a movie of Godfather proportions and although this movie wasn't outstanding or award winning it was still a solid movie and much more clever than 95% of thrillers made these days.
I've had a good look through people's "reasons" why they think this is a bad film and I can't find any good explinations, just the usual one word descriptions like "crap" "awful" "stupid" and that means nothing to me and holds no merit whatsoever.
Even on this harsh site infested with trolls I still expected a solid thriller like this starring Al Pacino to get no less than 6 but I guess I was wrong.
I give this movie a solid 8/10, best thriller I've seen this year by far.
you must be like 10 years old or just the dumbest mofo in the world
you thought al pacino's performance was superb have you seen the last five movies he was in he acts EXACTLY THE SAME you know why becuase 1. he is washed up 2. There all garbage movies he's taking for the paycheck. 3. About the only thing he is capable of in any movies now is a raspy voice and useing it to act like he has some kind of wisdom in is a weathered veteran.
you know why peoples reasons for why this movie sucked consisted of one answer because to summon up the effort to explain how awful this movie is exhausting I was only able to accomplish this task by telling myself I am doing gods work. and 4. your an idiot never post on a movie again go watch Lion King something your little mind can understand
I actually thought this was quite good. I was expecting at least a 6.0 rating. Fair enough, the ending was poor but it was a suspensful, entertaining film. And I only paid £3 for it.
I may be being quite generous by overrating it but you have to take into account that the last film I watched was Prey and that was garbage.
I thought this movie was hideous, it's just down right terrible and annoyed me that someone as great an actor as Al Pacino is to be in this P.O.S movie
shareI just watched this last night with my wife hoping for a nice thriller.
Damn what a flippen mess. Every scene had so many things wrong with it....
the fire truck that almost runs over the crowd,
"Show me your hands!",
Pacino's hair,
the 40-50 potential suspects...every scene has 2 or 3,
No less than 3 motorcycle riders/suspects,
The black FBI guy that seemed to be important, then disappears,
that defense lawyer in the opening scene (act much?),
The actual suspect who seems to be in 10 places at once and manages to get A LOT done in 88 minutes,
Pacino's hair,
"Tic Toc Doc",
So many women and victims popping i could not keep up, and then, didn't bother,
Seattle must be 6 square blocks total,
the girl brushing her teeth while doing the leg split,
the dean of an apparently huge university running into Pacino's class of 12 people to personally warn him of a bomb threat,
that i would consider watching this thing again just to add to my list, or to watch it again when we are in the mood for a comedy,
Pacino's hair,
Pacino's career (RIP).
Okay...i've vented
thank you for your time.
I'm regretting not reading this post first, I would've saved $4.50. What a mess!
sharebornskeptic: I complete agree @ "So many women and victims popping i could not keep up, and then, didn't bother," - LOL.
share
It's pretty bad, sure. Leelee was awful. Ditto Witt. Pacino chews the scenery. The whole series of coincidences and the like just don't ring true. This is one time where they really, REALLY needed a re-write. No wonder they delayed it's release for 2 years.
Well I guess "88 Minutes" is worthy of reviving an old joke:
I was on a plane, "88 Minutes" was the inflight movie and it was so bad, people were walking out in the middle of it.
I am glad the IMdb reviewers have saved me the two euros it would have cost me to buy the 88 Minutes DVD that comes with the local Sunday newspaper to-morrow.
The thing about Al Pacino is that when he is good he is very good but when he is bad he is much worse than worse. I think he accepts too many parts that do not fit him. In the last few years he has played various roles, mostly unsuitable for his talent,in a lot of badly scripted and highly forgettable movies, which is a pity as I’m sure he doesn’t need the money that badly.
He is a relatively small dark featured very Mediterranean chap and is good in parts where he fits such roles. I think he has matured well as an actor. I particularly liked him as a Puerto Rican in Carlito’s Way and as the Shakesperean Jew -Shylock the money lender- in the brilliant movie version of The Merchant of Venice. He was also good in underworld roles such a Michael Corleone and as Donnie Brasco.
However, and I may be lynched for writing it,I thought the much applauded lead role in Scarface as a criminal immigrant Cuban did not fit him at all in an awful film even though it was a Latin role. When playing Wasp Americans he usually projects an unconvincing parody of one as in City Hall or Justice for All.It’s the same as if an Afro-American played the lead in Rommel the Desert Fox. The notable exception is when he excellently played the blind Colonel Slade in the movie Scent of a Woman. However, the director of that film might have considered giving his character an Italian,Jewish,Romanian,Greek or Hispanic name. He also was very good as the Devil in the Devil’s Advocate. Both Pacino and Robert de Niro have been ideal in Lucifer roles.
Nobody could have made the movie any better....Al did his best in my opinion and even if you had put in the ideal actor according to you in his peak,I doubt he would have given a better performance or made the movie a classic....The guy who directed it and the one who wrote the script should be taking the blame...
Honestly though I watched this with very low expectations and I was satisfied that I got what I expected...
Who on Earth could that be ?
[deleted]
[deleted]