88 Minutes poster & wallpaper
Get movie widget Recommend it Add to Favorites

Al Pacino, Alicia Witt, Leelee Sobieski, Amy Brenneman, William Forsythe ... see more see more... , Deborah Kara Unger , Benjamin McKenzie , Neal McDonough , Leah Cairns , Stephen Moyer , Christopher Redman , Brendan Fletcher , Michael Eklund , Tammy Hui , Vicky Huang , Victoria Tennant

Jon Avnet directs Al Pacino in the thriller 88 Minutes. Pacino plays university professor Jack Gramm, who occasionally assists the FBI in matters of forensic psychiatry. His recent testimony against a... read more read more... freshly convicted criminal seems to be the reason he has gotten a scary phone call informing him he will die in 88 minutes. As with the like-minded thriller D.O.A. (both the original and the remake), the protagonist must use his skills in order to track down who has hatched this evil plot and hopefully prevent his own demise. Alicia Witt and Leelee Sobieski co-star as the professor's star students. ~ Perry Seibert, Rovi

Flixster Users

50% liked it

101,984 ratings

Critics

5% liked it

122 critics

R, 1 hr. 47 min.

Directed by: Jon Avnet

Release Date: April 18, 2008

Invite friends to see

DVD Release Date: September 16, 2008

Get It:

Stats: 6,360 reviews

report incorrect info

Photos

Al Pacino Al Pacino Al Pacino Al Pacino Al Pacino Al Pacino Alicia Witt Al Pacino Alicia Witt Al Pacino Al Pacino Al Pacino Al Pacino Leelee Sobieski Al Pacino Al Pacino Al Pacino Neal McDonough
Upload a Photo | View All 88 Minutes Photos

Your Rating


clear rating

Flixster Reviews (6,360)

  • danperry17
    January 7, 2011
    danperry17
    Pacino made me stick with it, and supporting players Alicia Witt and Neil McDonough weren't entirely awful. As for the rest of it... ugh. Terrible direction, and "Seattle" was so obviously Vancouver (with Canada Post trucks, Roots and Shoppers Drug Mart storefronts on the skyline... read more and newsboxes for 24 Hours and Dose cropping up) that it hurt. Lazy location scouts, to say the least.

    The film had enough action and a still-got-it Pacino at its core, but it undercut every exciting scene with lengthy explanations of what was going on, which repeatedly killed the flick's momentum. What would also be interesting would a culprit with a motive, or an actor with more talent than Leelee Sobieski (that would be an actor with any talent whatsoever). The worst part of the film was the purported climax, and unfortunately, it overwhelmed the few bright spots the film had shown so far. Beyond Pacino, this one's a dud.
  • TheDudeLebowski65
    July 15, 2010
    TheDudeLebowski65
    88 Minutes is the worst film of 2008. The film considering who was involved (Al Pacino) such a cinematic legend might of been good. Unfortunately, it wasn't this film is one of the worst films I have ever seen. The film also proves that even the greatest actors can make beyond aw... read moreeful films. 88 Minutes relies on every crime cliche in crime thrillers, but unfortunately, this is a predictable piece of trash, because after all, we've seen it all before. Overused cliche as in the person youleast expect is the killer and so on. This is a pile of shit that should've never been made.
  • MrMarakai
    June 19, 2010
    MrMarakai
    Director Jon Avnet released this film with Al Pacino just before "Righteous Kill" where he reteamed Al with Bob. If you have seen the disaster that was that film then you pretty much get the idea where this one is headed. In fact, if I were Bob DeNiro I'd be pretty peeved that Al... read more never mentioned a word about working with Avnet, a director of such stinking magnitude.
    In brief, Pacino plays Dr. Jack Gramm a professor of criminal psychology who has also helped the police with the conviction of a serial killer who is soon to be executed. It transpires though, that the good Doctor Pacino may have got things wrong in his findings and it's also at this time that he recieves an anonymous phone call informing him that he has 88 minutes to live. Some feeble attempts at tension and plotting then ensue, with Al probably spending more than 88 minutes to blow-dry his ever increasing hairstyle.
    I can't believe I am wasting my time even writing about this film as it has already stolen more than enough from me. I do this as a warning to all. This is unequivocally the worst Pacino film ever and his worst performance. He spends a lot of the film on the phone and on second thoughts, he could have probably phoned in a better performance rather than wasting his (and our) time turning up. Never mind minutes, 88 Seconds is too long for this piece of trash.
  • JonathanHutchings
    April 8, 2010
    JonathanHutchings
    Oh, Al Pacino, what happened? Once you were one of our most acclaimed thespians; now you star in crap like this "thriller," whose implausible storyline and ridiculous characters pale next to a performance in which you seem to be either half-asleep or yelling. And the worst part? ... read moreThe movie's 108 -- not 88 -- painful minutes long, which makes it both literally and figuratively the longest "88 Minutes" of our lives.

    Just as the passage of time teaches us that our parents aren't infallible and the government isn't populated by our best and brightest, so too does it ravage our greatest actors, turning them from quixotic artistes into by-the-numbers paycheck whores. Time replaces the edgy Robert De Niro of Taxi Driver and Raging Bull with the family friendly Analyze This version, while venerated talents such as Jack Nicholson and Gene Hackman stop making films like The Last Detail and The Conversation in favor of lowest common denominator bilge like The Bucket List and Runaway Jury.

    And then there's Pacino, whose knack for accepting almost every role offered him has obviously served as an example for contemporaries like Hilary Swank.

    So it shouldn't really surprise anyone to hear that 88 Minutes is one small step for bad filmmaking and one giant leap for the increasing insignificance of the former Michael Corleone. Here, Pacino plays Jack Gramm, a Seattle psychology professor whose side gig is playing forensics expert for the FBI (though judging by his impressive fake bake, he might also be moonlighting for Hollywood Tan). Nine years ago, his testimony was instrumental in sending Jon Forster (Neal McDonough) to death row for the rape and murder of a young Seattle woman. Now Forster is mere days from execution, when another murder committed in eerily similar style casts doubt not only on the prisoner's guilt (though to be fair, could anybody as creepy looking as McDonough be innocent?), but on Gramm's credibility as well.

    Oh, and somebody with a voice modulator just called Gramm to tell him he has 88 minutes to live. This film goes off the rails so early and so often it's hard to target specific areas for ridicule. From each preposterous twist to each increasingly absurd action sequence, 88 Minutes is as dumb a movie as you're likely to see this year, and may go down as Pacino's worst ever. And while we're at it, what is up with that hair? I'm not a guy who generally notices continuity errors, but when even I can see the main character's hair (or toupee, or whatever the hell that is on his head) changing styles, parts, and frizz from scene to scene, it must be pretty blatant. Unfortunately, it wouldn't matter if Pacino was as bald as John Travolta, 88 Minutes is pure, unadulterated crap.
  • blacksheepboy
    January 5, 2010
    blacksheepboy
    The script doesn't offer many good surprises and Avnet's direction is only by the book, but the greatest problem is the unconvincing poor ending.
  • aliceinpunderland
    June 5, 2009
    aliceinpunderland
    Who has time to crimp her hair in the middle of a murder plot? Terrible dialogue, mawkish personal stories, and extremely simplistic discoveries.
  • 76Majikat
    May 31, 2009
    76Majikat
    Well, there are good parts and bad parts to this film. I felt the basis of the storyline was good and this could have turned out to be a pretty good Thriller, but the film somehow felt way too corny to have Al Pacino star in it.

    Pacino himself played an ok role (in comparis... read moreon to his many outstanding roles in other films), but the acting elsewhere lead this film to look like a very average slasher film.

    The biggest problem I feel, was it?s lack of suspense and the use of other known Actors, this gave the game away from the very beginning, it?s pretty obvious that if they are in it, they are going to be in the film throughout. This type of film always benefits from new unknown Actors, that way it keeps you guessing.

    The (not so) grand finale opens with options of who the killer may be and so much more could have been made of the build up toward this, giving it rather an anti-climax feel.

    On a more positive note, despite all the faults mentioned, it was watchable, disappointingly though it really gives nothing original to the offering.
  • FiLmCrAzY
    April 24, 2009
    FiLmCrAzY
    not a bad movie it was pretty good and a surprising ending really worth a watch
  • roygutteridge
    March 1, 2009
    roygutteridge
    Good Sunday afternoon entertainment but it won?t hang around for long.
  • MidnightMadwoman
    January 22, 2009
    MidnightMadwoman
    Want to know what I learned from this movie? Serial killers have magical powers, and editors sometimes have great senses of humour. Watch the first scene again: the editing is comedy gold.

    The only reason this film gets a star at all is because I thought that the climax was a ... read morereally good scene. Apart from that, this film was a mess. It was like a red herring hatchery. For half the film's running time, Al Pacino is on the phone with his assistant demanding background checks and information on every character he meets throughout the film. Seriously. Jack Gramm investigates every single character he encounters ragardless of motive, including a campus security guard he bumps into and decides he doesn't like. Okay Jack, why on Earth would your student's ex-husband decide to spend months planning your downfall and murder? This film is such a fiasco.

View All 88 Minutes Reviews

Critic Reviews

Jonathan F. Richards
April 25, 2008
Jonathan F. Richards, Film.com

If you like your women half-naked, strung upside-down from pulleys, and sliced like deli meat, this is the movie for you. Whether the victims are more tortured than the plot is a serious question. Full Review

Anthony Lane
April 21, 2008
Anthony Lane, New Yorker

Nothing would give me keener pleasure than to reveal the identity of the killer, but a day after seeing the film I have genuinely forgotten. Full Review

Richard Roeper
April 21, 2008
Richard Roeper, Ebert & Roeper

It's quite possibly the worst movie of 2008 so far.

David Edelstein
April 21, 2008
David Edelstein, New York Magazine

The galumphing serial-killer picture 88 Minutes is dumb enough to be straight out of the parodies in Forgetting Sarah Marshall. Full Review

Michael Phillips
April 18, 2008
Michael Phillips, Chicago Tribune

The preposterous "88 Minutes" is a serial killer movie starring Al Pacino's festival of hair. Full Review

Peter Howell
April 18, 2008
Peter Howell, Toronto Star

This movie is Battlefield Earth bad. It's 10,000 B.C. bad. It's bad with a side of fries and a cherry cola. Full Review

Stephen Hunter
April 18, 2008
Stephen Hunter, Washington Post

Not merely Pacino's over-mannered, near-histrionic performance, but the movie itself could be characterized as busy, busy, busy. It's so full of plot twists and revelations and exploding sports cars t... Full Review

Claudia Puig
April 18, 2008
Claudia Puig, USA Today

An inane thriller whose major fear factor hinges on a menacing phone call, the film also relies on a silly phrase intended to fill the viewer with unspeakable terror: 'Tick tock, Doc.' Full Review

Mick LaSalle
April 18, 2008
Mick LaSalle, San Francisco Chronicle

Too bad the sober tone only makes for a movie that pretends at seriousness but that can't really be taken seriously. Full Review

Manohla Dargis
April 18, 2008
Manohla Dargis, New York Times

Although it's often laugh-out-loud laughably bad, 88 Minutes is mostly just a slog. Full Review

Critic ratings and reviews powered by RottenTomatoes.com

Fresh (60% or more critics rated the movie positively)

Rotten (59% or fewer critics rated the movie positively)

Cast

More Like This

Click a thumb to vote on that suggestion, or add your own suggestions.

  • Cellular
    Cellular (75%)
  • Eagle Eye
    Eagle Eye (62%)
  • Training Day
    Training Day (56%)
  • Phone Booth
    Phone Booth (86%)

More Movies like 88 Minutes

Facts

No facts approved yet. Be the first

88 Minutes : Watch Free on TV

88 Minutes Trivia

  • which actress played a roll in all these movies: - 88 Minutes - In a Dark Place - Eyes Wide Shut - Never Been Kissed  Answer »
  • He played a professor who had 88 minutes to solve a murder, a retired Lieutenant who was blind and very fond of women, an aging football coach who worked for Cameron Diaz, and trained Colin Farrell to help find a mole in the CIA.  Answer »
  • WHO PLAY THE ROLE OF DR JACK GRAMM IN THE MOVIE 88 MINUTES? HINT:HE WAS A MOBSTER,A DEVIL AND FOOTBALL COACH  Answer »
  • '88 Minutes' is a Leelee Sobieski movie.  Answer »
More 88 Minutes Trivia

Movie Quizzes

Create a Quiz |

All Quizzes

Video Clips

Upload a Video |

All 88 Minutes Videos

Meet Other Fans

Add 88 Minutes to favorites

Recent News

Submit a Story |

View 88 Minutes News

Recent Lists

Make a List |

View All Lists

Most Popular Skin

No skins yet. Interested in creating one?