MovieChat Forums > 88 Minutes (2008) Discussion > Honest question - Does anyone actually l...

Honest question - Does anyone actually like this?

posted 15 years ago by klawrencio
12 replies | jump to latest

Honestly, I'd rather be kicked in the balls by giant farm animals for two hours than endure this awful piece of drek another time. The script, the acting (Leilei Sobieski should never be allowed near a film set ever again, she stands out, which is impressive considering how bad everyone else is), the completely ham-handed big "a ha!" moment at the end, the people making this movie should have cut their losses after the first few read-throughs.

Since this movie is so terrible (and trust me, it is), does anyone actually find it entertaining? Suspenseful? (Gasp).....well-acted?

Really just wondering, not looking to start fights.

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] bad4300 15 years ago

it was average. It wasn't horrible but wasn't great. I'm a huge Pacino fan but I still enjoyed the film. He was the only thing that held the move up and the hot red head as well. The killer was obvious though from less than halfway through the movie.

[–] surf_dude 15 years ago

I actually like this movie but I wouldn't give it a ten. Still as others have said, Al Pacino turns in a good performance although very few other people do. Alicia Witt did okay (and looked nice) but Ms Sobieski (who also looked nice) was way out of her acting range for that ending.
The writing has a lot of gaps and ludicrous lines. At the beginning of the movie, we see the video of Dale Morris being brutally tortured, saying Jon Forster is innocent, and FBI Agent Guber asks "Dr Gramm why is she saying that?" Wow that sure is a mystery to me too but maybe because she is being brutally tortured?

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] pacscistaff 15 years ago

Some people like to read/watch reviews of movies from film critics in the media but who would be stupid enough to pay attention to any anonymous yahoo on a message board?

BTW, no movie is bad enough to act like an *beep* over, not even this one.

"It's Only A Movie."-Wes Craven.

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Montmartre1 15 years ago

I understand and to a great extent agree, it should have been better.
Having said that, I still found it worth watching.
It had suspenseful moments I thought. But I am a HUGE Pacino fan, so really I love watching him in most things anyway.
As someone once said there are certain actors who can read the telephone book out loud and they'd have an audience!
I agree with that and I'd choose: Al Pacino, Tommy Lee Jones, Harrison Ford, John Cusak--among others!
But you are right basically, I'm honest enough to agree there.

[–] tce_killa 15 years ago

I enjoyed the movie.

I always watch movies with an open mind, it could have been better but I did get into it and enjoyed it. A film I would buy? No chance, a film I would watch again? Nope. But watching it for free and only once, I liked it.

[–] Montmartre1 15 years ago

yes, i agree really.
It's just I would have liked the same film with most of the cast and ESPECIALLY Pacino to have been directed by a different director and others. i guess it wouldn't have been the same then!
I watched it on Sky so I agree it was like watching it for free.
thanks.
just could have been a classic really.

[–] streetlegal 15 years ago

I thought it was a fair bit better than moost of the reviews. Far from good but watchable. Have no idea what attracted Pacino to the film or why after this one had the same guy direct Righteous Kill but Al is the only good thing about this film, without him it would be absolutely atrocious,with him it's bad but not quite the disaster I was expecting.

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]