Forensic psychiatrist/college professor Dr. Jack Gramm's (Al Pacino) testimony helps convict suspected rapist and murder Jon Forster (Neal McDonough) in 1997. But on the night of Forster's execution in 2006, it's Gramm who receives phone calls foretelling his death -- yep, in 88 minutes. The calls also seem to correspond to murders around campus, which could suggest that Forster was wrongly convicted, that Gramm falsified evidence, or that one of Gramm's students (Alicia Witt, Leelee Sobieski, Benjamin McKenzie) is in cahoots with the Death Row inmate.
Big question: If "88 Minutes" is as goofy as its tag line ("He has 88 minutes to solve a murder. His own!"), is it at least dumbly entertaining?
Skip it: At every possible turn "88 Minutes" wears its stupidity with pride, like a kid who's super-excited about stuffing pencils up his nose. Consequently, if any of the absurd plot twists make a lick of sense you won't notice, since you'll be too busy groaning/laughing about everything that came before.
Catch it: If the complete vagueness about Gramm's testimony and evidence against Forster will keep you waiting in suspense for an ethical discussion or just a simple explanation of facts. Well, I hate to disappoint you …
Bottom line: A totally pointless excuse to torture women, "88 Minutes" features so many bad performances that it's like the cast had a contest to see who could do worse. (It's a tie between Pacino and Witt.) Not that the acting matters in a suspense-free movie that can't explain why Gramm doesn't wait out the 88 minutes at the police station.
Bonus: MSNBC grants Forster a live interview as he's sitting on Death Row, waiting to hear if he's going to be executed. And who says TV journalists have no scruples?
What do you think of '88 Minutes'? Email me:
mpais@tribune.com
(4 ratings)
Write a review