He has 88 minutes to solve a murder. His own.
In Seattle, the successful forensic psychiatrist and college professor Jack Gramm is in evidence since he was responsible for the condemnation of the serial killer Jon Forster, influencing the jury to sentence him to the death row. Jon accuses Jack of manipulation, inducing one witness and sister of one of his victims to testify against him. On the eve of Jon's execution, Jack receives a phone call telling him that he has only eighty-eight minutes of life, while a killer is copycatting Jon, killing women with the same "modus-operandi" and is investigated by Seattle Slayer Task Force. With the support of associate Shelly Barnes, an FBI agent, his friend Frank Parks, and his assistant Kim Cummings, Jack investigates some weird and problematic students, a security guard of the campus and the woman with whom he had one night stand.
Genre(s): Drama, Mystery, Thriller
Runtime: 108 minutes
Rating: 5.9/10 (26,568 votes)
Release Date: 14 February 2007
Country: Germany, USA, Canada
Languages: English
Company: TriStar Pictures
Sound: Dolby Digital, DTS, SDDS
MPAA: Rated R for disturbing violent content, brief nudity and language.
Director(s): Jon Avnet
Related Videos for 88 Minutes (2007)
Thinking of watching this movie? Then click on the like button!
Producer(s):
Jon Avnet - producer
John Baldecchi - executive producer
Lawrence Bender - executive producer
Boaz Davidson - executive producer
Danny Dimbort - executive producer
Randall Emmett - producer
Michael P. Flannigan - co-producer (as Michael Flannigan)
George Furla - executive producer
Todd Gilbert - associate producer
Samuel Hadida - co-producer
Manfred D. Heid - co-producer (as Manfred Heid)
Jochen Kamlah - co-producer
Gerd Koechlin - co-producer
Josef Lautenschlager - executive producer
Avi Lerner - producer
Marsha Oglesby - co-producer
Trevor Short - executive producer
Andreas Thiesmeyer - executive producer
Gary Scott Thompson - producer
John Thompson - co-producer
Shawn Williamson - line producer
Writer(s):
Gary Scott Thompson - (written by)
Cast:
Al Pacino - Jack Gramm
Alicia Witt - Kim Cummings
Leelee Sobieski - Lauren Douglas
Amy Brenneman - Shelly Barnes
William Forsythe - Frank Parks
Deborah Kara Unger - Carol Lynn Johnson
Ben McKenzie - Mike Stempt (as Benjamin McKenzie)
Neal McDonough - Jon Forster
Leah Cairns - Sara Pollard
Stephen Moyer - Guy LaForge
Music: Ed Shearmur
Jon Avnet - producer
John Baldecchi - executive producer
Lawrence Bender - executive producer
Boaz Davidson - executive producer
Danny Dimbort - executive producer
Randall Emmett - producer
Michael P. Flannigan - co-producer (as Michael Flannigan)
George Furla - executive producer
Todd Gilbert - associate producer
Samuel Hadida - co-producer
Manfred D. Heid - co-producer (as Manfred Heid)
Jochen Kamlah - co-producer
Gerd Koechlin - co-producer
Josef Lautenschlager - executive producer
Avi Lerner - producer
Marsha Oglesby - co-producer
Trevor Short - executive producer
Andreas Thiesmeyer - executive producer
Gary Scott Thompson - producer
John Thompson - co-producer
Shawn Williamson - line producer
Writer(s):
Gary Scott Thompson - (written by)
Cast:
Al Pacino - Jack Gramm
Alicia Witt - Kim Cummings
Leelee Sobieski - Lauren Douglas
Amy Brenneman - Shelly Barnes
William Forsythe - Frank Parks
Deborah Kara Unger - Carol Lynn Johnson
Ben McKenzie - Mike Stempt (as Benjamin McKenzie)
Neal McDonough - Jon Forster
Leah Cairns - Sara Pollard
Stephen Moyer - Guy LaForge
Music: Ed Shearmur
Posted on: April 19, 2008
April 1st, 2009
It's hard for a movie to go wrong when you have Al Pacino as your leadcharacter – but it happens. This movie is a case in point. Differentpeople will probably point to different things that failed … for me,it was the believability of the events. When one implausible thinghappened after another – I couldn't "respect" the story anymore.
On the surface, it sounds like it could be good: A famous courtpsychologist and professor (Pacino) gives testimony that dooms asuspected serial murderer to death. As the execution approaches, theprofessor receives mysterious, threatening calls – telling him that hehas 88 minutes (and counting down) to live. Can he figure out who isbehind this in time?
If you have room for yet another crime-solver movie, the setup soundspromising. However, things get goofy when the "enemy" element is ableto achieve a little too much. When a cell phone call is "interrupted"with a call from "the enemy" … that's not an easy feat (for even thecell company itself) to pull off. When you add to that a string ofother improbable events (like a perfectly timed written messages,explosions, thievery, etc.) – well, OK – as long as the foe is asupernatural being. Anything less is a bit nuts.
I'm not sure why Pacino agreed to do this movie – maybe he didn't catchsome of the crazy stuff and reconcile it with the end of the movie. Inany case, don't be fooled by the presence of Al Pacino – this is stilla rotten movie. Have you ever liked a movie that had a criticalapproval rating of 5% (Rotten Tomatoes)?
April 3rd, 2009
I've read some comments from people who couldn't understand this movie.That's predictable from the 'video game generation' of movie viewerswhose idea of a deep plot is a high body count from automatic weapons.LOL
If you're a true fan of the mystery thriller, however, this moviedelivers in spades. I had at least four theories of what was reallygoing on during the course of this movie, and while one of them was ona parallel track to the real root of the action, I didn't quite get itright. That's unusual. I've watched enough mysteries and enoughthrillers over the last few decades that I almost ALWAYS have itfigured out well before the end. Here, I didn't. I was completely tornbetween wondering if Pacino's character was being threatened ormanipulated by the bad guy(s), or if he himself was the bad guy andthose around him were working to make him slip up and reveal himself.
Don't put too much credence in the opinion of the bubble head crowd. Ifyou have a brain in your head, you'll enjoy this movie.
April 8th, 2009
The Story of the movie is so great, the debate is truly amazing, theacting is very good, it's really a good issue to raise, true andjustice crossway, gives you a motive to think it over and over and haveyour own opinion. I think that's one of the best Al Pacino movie's. theother actors did well too. I don't understand why a lot of commentshave criticized the movie so hard that the reader will think it'sreally bad, but it's exactly the opposite: it's great, it's worthwatching, more than once. I've seen a lot of Al Pacino's movies, andthis one of the best I've ever seen, I did hard work to have time towatch this movie, and I think it was worth all the hard work.
April 18th, 2009
Poor Al Pacino he only got 88 minutes to live in this one.. this moviehas a lot to offer the viewer, it's got action,, lot's of funny lines,hot women , things blowing up,, gunfire,, and a good mystery as well. Aderanged psycho from prison orchestrates poor Al's demise giving him 88minutes to live and figure out his own would be murder,, there are alot of suspects , since the accused is in prison and can't tecnnicallydo anything to poor old Al. he teaches class so plenty of suspectsthere,, the students, fellow teachers,, even the girl he slept with thenight before,, the secretary,, this movie has quite a few twists init,, and the bad guy in prison has a copycat killer out on the loosedoing the new killings for him, to make it look like he was innocent inthe first place,, now folks i ask you how brilliant is that.
April 22nd, 2009
Al Pacino or not, This is a great film. i don't know why but every filmthat gets a pounding by the critics, IO really enjoy!. Are peopletrying to be too clever, too arty, too moody? This film was Great, ithas tense moments, fast paced moments, a couple of twists…. itseverything a decent thriller should be. there have been plenty more"thrillers" that have had better reviews than this that have been sopainfully boring – 16 blocks for example. People will be drawn to thisfilm because of the Pacino factor, Pacino makes this movie, because heplays an awesome part as he always does, however if this part wasplayed by someone else it would still be worth a watch. The only downside to this movie was some of the female members of the cast, one inparticular, while she played a good part, she always seems to play thesame part in every movie she is in, without adding spoilers, there is alink to another good recent movie "Night Train" its a slightlydifferent twist on a similar theme. Still Enjoyable though. All in all,these wannabe critics need to relax and watch a movie for what itis….. how it makes you feel and NOT how clever, arty or "poMO" itis…. damnit this is supposed to be created for "our"Entertainment…. Remember!?!
April 24th, 2009
Good thriller- good acting as usual from al pacino…. I thought it wasfast and kept the viewer thinking i wonder if … Unfortunately it hadthe terrible acting of leelee sobieski in some important scenes…butoverall a very good thriller with some good twists.. Not one of pacinosbest but enjoyable… I really don't understand the amount of badreviews I've seen for this movie.. Its energetic thought provoking andexciting stuff … Fans of pacino will love it and fans of a goodthriller with plenty of twists will too… I thought the twist at theend of the movie was clever -unfortunetly the only negative thing aboutthis movie is that lelee sobieski plays the role of the killer…shessuch a terrible actress -every movie i have seen her in have been poorperformances -movies like the glass house -joyride etc…has she everperformed in a good movie??? so thats the only fault with this moviethat i see is her been casted into an important role…Other than thatit was one of my favourite movies of last year…
May 10th, 2009
This is a high-octane thriller directed by Jon Avnet, who really knowshow to make 'em. As a thriller, it has excitement, and everything goesso fast that one does not have time to notice any weak points in theplot, which become especially evident at the end however. As a film,this one contains grisly and horrible aspects which make the filmwholly unsuitable for sensitive souls or young people. In Britain, thefilm was classified for people over 15, but I think it should have been18. However, these days social decadence has progressed so far that itseems no longer to be doubted that 15 year-olds should routinely seegirls being tortured, with blood streaming down their faces, while theyare suspended in the air with their legs wide apart, screaming as theyslowly die (one of them took 88 minutes to die, hence the title) at thehands of a psychotic sex killer. Yes, psychotic sex killers are 'a dimea dozen' these days, yawn, yawn, and every 15 year-old must be sofamiliar with upside-down screaming girls with their legs wide apartand blood pouring down their faces, that a 15 classification arousesnot a moment's hesitation on the part of whatever idiots decide on suchclassifications. So, as I said, this is an exciting thriller, but it isbased on screaming girls being murdered by a maniac, if that is yourthing, as we are implicitly assured that it must be every 15 year-old'sthing. Al Pacino is marvellous, as usual, commanding the screen withhis polished presence, with the exception of his alarminglyover-coiffured hairstyle which defies gravity and all other scientificexplanation. No, he is not the sex killer, thank goodness, he is thepsychiatrist who is always being threatened by the sex killers whom hehelps to convict with his court testimony as an expert witness.Therefore we like Al Pacino, he is a good guy on the run to stophimself being murdered by a maniac. But who is the maniac? The mainsuspect is still in prison, so what is going on? This is all verygripping. But I come back to the screaming girls, who are easilyforgotten in the rush for thrills. They are the victims of a serial sexkiller. Now, as we all know, ordinary everyday sex killers are boring,and the only exciting ones these days are the serial ones, and eventhey are becoming tiresome. Time for a new thrill? We have had serialkillers who follow the signs of the Zodiac, and all sorts of variationswhich the ingenuity of script writers can devise, trying to 'sex up'the sex killers. As we move along from sex killer movie to sex killermovie, we have to keep getting our hype from increasingly ingenious'patterns of serial sex crime'. Yes, ever-changing patterns, that's theanswer. If we are lucky we can still go on inventing variations of sexcrime for some years yet, to avoid the tedium and boredom of 'ordinary'sex crime which no longer sufficiently holds our interest. Does anyoneperceive that this is terminal social decadence? Or am I shouting intothe wind about this?