Cinemascope

“Do you think he’s dead?”
“It doesn’t look good”
Sample dialog from “88 Minutes”

You may have heard that “88 Minutes” is a bad movie. That is correct. However, as bad movies go, this one’s pretty good. In an awful kind of way. The major disappointment from “88 Minutes” has to do with Al Pacino’s involvement with the flic. We’ve grown accustomed to seeing Pacino play his roles with integrity, intensity and at the very least superb craftsmanship. Seeing him sleepwalking his way in a movie, phoning it in, doing the job of the lowest class hack, is quite shocking. You can see the level of disrespect he has for the role by the way his hair is groomed. Hair is like a mask for actors, a tool they use to build the character physically. There’s no way a real man - who is rich, powerful, seductive and a pro in his field - will be so awfully coiffed. But Pacino must’ve insisted: this is his way to hide himself in the movie, distance himself from the character.

Hence the dire disappointment from “88 Minutes”. Digitally alter Pacino and replace him with either Rob Lowe or James Spader and you’ve got yourself an OK, bottom shelf straight to cable thriller, that’s done with some old-fashioned style and seriousness, but alas by folks who are tragically out-of-touch with modern film tastes and techniques. This one plays like a cheesy eighties sex-and-violence noir - think of “Saw” by way of “Bad Influence” - that’s lazily written and flaccidly directed. It’s got an OK story line, but the recipe is stale.

Over on my Hebrew blog I often bitch about how long it sometimes takes for a high-profile American movie to cross the Atlantic and reach screens over here. Sometimes it takes eternity (”Into the Wild” and “The Assassination of Jesse James”, as well as anything starring Will Farrel, were straight-to-DVD releases over here). But with “88 Minutes” roles are reversed: this one was released theatrically about a year ago, and is now already available on DVD. Only now it reaches American screens. Too bad for you guys. (Remeber that Avi Lerner and Danny Dimbort, the film’s producers, are Israeli ex-pats, and that Samuel Hadida, the film’s French co-financier, has a ownership stake at the megaplex owned by the film’s Israeli distributors).

This is an OK film to stare at on Cinemax at midnight, when you drowsily trying to figure out who those people are. Is that a young Julianne Moore? (no, it’s Alicia Witt). When did Helen Hunt grow so tall? (she didn’t, that’s Leelee Sobieski), and who’s that Russel Crowe dude downgraded to a mere extra (that’s that “OC” guy. kissing his career goodbye, learning not to jump for joy when his agent tells him they want him on the new Al Pacino movie). And hey, that’s William Forsythe there alongside Pacino. Quite the “Dick Tracy” reunion, isn’t it? I like Millenium/Nu Image pictures when they are at there sleaziest, making rough policier B-Movies, filled with dead strippers, but whenever they try to go legit (as in “”The Black Dahlia”) it just turns out way too cheesy.

So the true mystery of the movie remains: how did Pacino end up on it. Jeff Wells said on his site it must’ve been for the pay-check. But for the check you go do a Jon Turtletaub movie for Disney (think of Bruce Willis in “The Kid”), not a Jon Avnet movie for Millennium. How big a pay-check could they possibly offer, or how desperate must you be to accept? And these are the guys - producers and director - that are responsible for the upcoming Pacino/De Niro mash-up. It’s just too tragic.