questions and semi-spoilers...

I don't get how "clever" it was for the killer to force TWO innocent people to confess to being the guilty party at two different points in the movie. If you're going to pin the crime on someone else (or even if you're just using a trusted friend to lure Pacino into his death trap), wouldn't it have been better to stop at just one forced confession? Also, the confrontation scene itself at the end, with all the contraptions, etc, was so mind-numbingly bad, I have to keep watching it whenever I come across it on cable, much like the proverbial traffic accident you can't look away from! I had to laugh in total agreement at several posters comments, such as the bad acting of the female lawyer, of Leelee Sobieski, and of basically almost anyone else in the film! Pacino (even as a shell of his thespian past) is still good in the film, because it seems as if he's cruising on an improvised charisma, and Amy Brenneman goes through it pretty much unscathed as well. If somebody had just hired Pacino and Brenneman, and surrounded them with a better script writer, director, and better cast (the way she spoke in the film, I was hoping that wasn't Leelee Sobieski at all, but rather some wretched unknown Canadian actress who happened to look like her), the film might have been decent! Instead, at the point when the killer taunts "you have 48 minutes to live", all I could think was "My God! The movie is gonna go on for another 48 minutes!"