User Score

Mixed or average reviews- based on 101 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 52 out of 101
  2. Negative: 40 out of 101

Review this movie

  1. Your Score
    0 out of 10
    Rate this:
    • 10
    • 9
    • 8
    • 7
    • 6
    • 5
    • 4
    • 3
    • 2
    • 1
    • 0
    • 0
  1. Submit
  2. Check Spelling
  1. Nov 7, 2011
    This may be the worst Pacino movie ever. And I am aware of the existence of "simone" and "righteous kill", so I am very abreast of his **** If you want a good movie done in "real time", don't waste YOUR TIME with this P.O.S.
    Check out "Nick of Time", from the mid-nineties, with Johnny Depp and Christopher Walken. It's done in "real time", and with much more success than this warmed-over turd.
  2. Mar 18, 2011
  3. kp
    Jul 19, 2009
    Not a very memorable movie, but not as nearly as bad as all the reviews suggest. It's NOT a 17...that's ridiculous. Yes, below average for the genre, but definitely watchable. Not every movie is going to be Casablanca. If you watch it for what it is...a so so thriller...then you'll give it about a 4 or so out of 10 which is what it is.
  4. JustinP.
    Feb 14, 2009
    This movie is a thriller without any thrills, a thoroughly mediocre, formulaic, predictable, poorly written film which jumps from cliches to bad dialogues to laughably bad writing all the way until its anticlimactic, irrelevant and uninteresting ending. It is pathetic to see Pacino trapped in this B grade yawner. How could he ever have agreed to act in a movie with a script thats just a hodgepodge of every second rate suspense movie ever made? Sometimes Pacino can salvage an otherwise lackluster picture just with his acting and presence (ie Devils Advocate, Any Given Sunday...) but here he is just one more of the film's annoying and implausible characters. Awful. Expand
  5. FilmWatcher
    Jan 17, 2009
    The first scene was so badly acted by the two Asian victims -- I thought this must be a spoof. The second scene wth the bizarrely acted blonde attorney was even worse. Then Al Pacino showed and was BAD in that overblown, bugged eyed and exhausted way he can be . The script is ludicrous and the direction (especially of the actors) is horrendous. Jon Avnet should never be let near another script or camera! What a total mess and embarrassing disaster! Expand
  6. Deanna
    Sep 16, 2008
    This movie was simply terrible. Whether it was the far-fetched plot, or the pathetic acting, this movie was simply impossible to follow and a bore the whole way through.
  7. JayH.
    Sep 6, 2008
    Amazingly far fetched plot riddled with holes and makes the mistake of making the main character so unlikeable you don't care if he dies in 88 minutes or not. To bad the title didn't refer to the length of the movie. Just because Al Pacino is in the film doesn't mean it's good. How quickly Bobby Deerfield, Gigli and Cruising were forgotten.
  8. Fantasy
    Apr 27, 2008
    Thanks for coming we stole your money. That's what the title should be. It's awful. Enough said!
  9. BiggaJ
    Apr 24, 2008
    They should have called the movie "Out of Time" because you need enough time to recover afterwards and that might make your weekend seem short.
  10. ChadS.
    Apr 23, 2008
    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
  11. RaeR.
    Apr 23, 2008
    88 minutes of my life forever lost sitting through this implausible, achingly bad bomb. Insofar as I can tell the only redeeming aspect of this film is that its once superb star will take account of just how low one can slip provided the money's good enough.
  12. Rick
    Apr 19, 2008
    If you want to waste 88 minutes of your life ,go see this movie.
  13. carriel
    Apr 19, 2008
    What a terrible film! And GG DD it says alot about your film taste that you can't even spell "dialogue" let alone care about it.
  14. MovieProphet
    Apr 17, 2008
    a big stinky pile of guano....c'mon al, you and leelee both should know better than to choose this type of horsefeathers.
  15. DonnaH.
    Apr 17, 2008
    How could Pacino, and his hair, be shameless enough to perform as they did in this thing? The word "Overdone" comes to mind. This is shamelessly bad, Pacino's worst--so much so that I just sat there in shock and pain. Was it supposed to be a spoof that everyone was in on but the audience?
  16. JasonS.
    Apr 15, 2008
    There is a reason this movie was shelved for almost a full year even though Al Pacino starred in it. the plot is terrible, the dialog is laughable, and my fiance and i guessed the killer in the first 5 minutes. please do yourself a favor and save 88 minutes of your life by not seeing this movie!

Overwhelming dislike - based on 27 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 0 out of 27
  2. Negative: 25 out of 27
  1. This ridiculous thriller would be hard-pressed to last much longer than its title in theaters before doing time on DVD, as is already the case in many overseas territories.
  2. Reviewed by: Todd McCarthy
  3. 25
    One of the dumbest thrillers to arrive it theaters in a long time.