88 Minutes… a review
You know it’s a bad sign when a movie is called “88 Minutes” and the running time is “108 minutes.”
That’s like going into Kentucky Fried Chicken and finding out that they’ve added nacho cheese and oyster sauce to the eleven herbs and spices.
Sometimes more isn’t necessarily better.
“88 Minutes” is one of those films that I like to call the “crowd killer” genre.
There’s a killer in the crowd and it’s up to you to figure out which one is guilty.
The first axiom of lazy screenwriting is “The more fleeting the screen time, the more likely that he (or she) is the killer”.
Clues? You want clues? You don’t need no stinking clues. The killer could be the dead guy rotting in the middle of the room (thank you “Saw”). This is all about false leads and pointless back stories.
Let’s begin at the beginning (the theme from here on is “state the obvious”).
The movie opens with the killer climbing into an apartment of a woman who is wandering around looking for her pet cat named “kitty”.
Hey, guess what audience? You’re a bunch of idiots. We have to name the cat after a cat so that you won’t get confused.
Ahhhhh, I get it.
Wait a second.
Wasn’t “Kitty” also a prostitute in “Gunsmoke”?
See, now I AM confused.
Do I pay for sex with a rubber mouse?
Should I be feeding my cat flavoured lube? (not unless you want your very own Jackson Pollack painting on the hardwood floor in the morning)
But listen, as long as we’re being obvious, then maybe you should be wandering around the theatre looking for “Refund”.
Back to the moron with the no-name pet. She’s attacked (without screaming) and the killer installs an elaborate pulley system in her apartment so that he can hang her upside down and bleed her out like hog in a smokehouse.
Oh, women’s groups are going to LOVE this film.
They actually spend more time showing us the torture and murder of the woman than they do with the arrest, and conviction of the criminal.
Don’t worry, the cat escapes unharmed.
The controversy with the conviction is that it is based on the dubious eyewitness identification from a victim that was hung upside down while drugged, and psychological profiling by Al Pacino’s character (who is a college professor).
If he was black, all that they would have needed for a conviction was an expired bus transfer.
Fast forward a decade, and the killer is proclaiming his innocence on CNN as the day of his execution rapidly approaches.
Not surprisingly, another spate of identical murders starts to crop up making the public wonder if the doomed man is indeed innocent.
Hey, so far so good right?
Ok, so we already know that the broads are pissed off at the movie because of the gratuitous, bondage, sex, torture, murder scene right?
Let’s crank it up a notch.
Why not have a sixty eight year old man wake up from a post coital embrace to a clock radio blaring hip hop, while his twenty something conquest does naked gymnastics in her living room?
Get it?
The girl is young because she listens to rap.
Al is old because he doesn’t like it.
Again we’re way too stupid to just count the chins flapping around Al’s neck to understand the age difference.
Here Kitty!!
So just to keep tally on the pissed off chicks, that’s one scene of a degrading killing, followed by a nude stretching scene that looks ominously familiar to the way the other babe was murdered.
As long as her ankle is up around her head, she should be ironing his shirt too!!
Anyway, Al (with his jet black hair) starts to get phone calls from reporters who want to know what he thinks about the copy cat murders.
Logically, he insists that the murderer must have had a partner, because that’s the only way that they could mimic the crimes down to the smallest detail.
Except he starts getting phone calls from someone who rented the same voice synthesizer as the serial killer in “Saw”.
“88 minutes Doc. Tick tock. Tick tock.” The voice says.
Me? When I become a serial murderer I’m going to synthesize the voice of “Borat”.
“Wawaweewaa”, now you die Vanilla face!”
In the midst of the killer countdown, we begin to learn a few disturbing facts about Al. It seems that he’s carrying around some latent guilt because his little sister was murdered when he was out of the house.
Why is this important?
It’s not.
It’s yet another ruse to make you waste mental energy trying to piece together the past with the present.
They might as well have had him explaining his first part time job at Safe Way counting Q-Tips in the shipping department.
Each scene introduces us to another one of his students who may or may not be the killer. Or is it his secretary? Maybe it’s the cop who helps him out? It could be Darth Vader for all that matters.
Here’s one guarantee you can take with you. The more suspicious the person acts, the more innocent they are.
The guy with the pulleys, throwing knives, and wood chipper is the guy you could trust your wallet with.
The crippled priest who grows potpourri?
Psycho…
Just pick a character after the first 20 minutes and no matter what happens keep saying “There’s the killer” to your friends. You stand a one in eighteen chance of impressing the hell out of them.
Logic has nothing to do with it, and there’s no way you’d ever be able to re-watch the film and say “How could I have missed the fact that he owns a rope factory?!!”
Here are two theories that we came up with that are much better than the real ending.
Al put the wrong man in jail for killing his little sister, and THAT man’s family is out for revenge by making Al look like a fool (assuming that the back story had a point, which it doesn’t).
Or…
Al Pacino is really the killer and this was some sort of twisted “A Beautiful Mind” split personality angle.
Oh, I like that one.
The real ending looks and sounds like it was written by an unemployed porno cameraman on a Wednesday afternoon.
If you want to unravel a REAL mystery, ask yourself why Al Pacino agreed to star in this piece of crap?
Two Kitties out of Five.
