88 Minutes

I feel fairly confident in stating that veteran actor Al Pacino (“The Godfather” trilogy, “Any Given Sunday”, “Serpico”) is easily one of the greatest actors ever to appear on the silver screen. With that being said, is it just me or is anyone else scratching their head over one of Al’s recent releases, the supposed thriller “88 Minutes”, which has become the worst reviewed movie of Pacino’s illustrious career. If you haven’t seen the movie yet, once you do I’m sure you’ll join me and many others in wondering, “Why does a man as successful as Al Pacino debase himself by starring in this piece of cinematic garbage?”

“88 Minutes” follows one extremely stressful day in the life of forensic psychologist Jack Gramm (Al Pacino) as he receives a threatening phone call claiming that he only has 88 minutes to live (hence the name). To make things worse, a killer is leaving a trail of bodies that just so happen to be friends/colleagues or students of Gramm’s. Now, suspicions are on the rise that Jack may have snapped; all the while time is ticking away for Jack to discover who is committing these murders, which of his colleagues and/or students may be killed next, and most important of all, how he can survive the following 88 minutes of his day.

So, after viewing this less than thrilling thriller, which for some reason lasted nearly 20 minutes past the 88 minutes of story the movie actually has in store, I find myself pondering the question I posed a few moments ago, regarding Al’s questionable decision to star in such an obviously bad film that is nothing more than a pale imitation of a sub-par episode of any “CSI” or “Law and Order” series. Surely, the script read as poorly on paper as it sounded in the context of the movie. Well Al, can you answer my question or are you just as dumbfounded as the rest of us? That’s what I thought, you’re as dumbfounded by your decision to star in this garbage as we are (I felt like giving him the benefit of the doubt based on his numerous years of cinematic greatness that he has given us).

The story for “88 Minutes” holds promise early on, but by approximately 20 to 30 minutes into the film one quickly realizes that things are beginning to go awry and soon after that the material completely spirals out of control amidst a mess of more red herrings than an entire season of Scooby-Doo, a cornucopia of continuity errors, and impossible coincidences that are too obvious to ignore. Writer Gary Scott Thompson (TV’s “Las Vegas”) is not exactly a stranger to compelling drama, but for some reason he wasn’t able to squeeze any out of his script for this movie. I think the concept for the movie sounded good on paper, but when trying to flesh out the script Thompson most likely realized that the concept wouldn’t be able to hold up without relying on absurd coincidences. I believe Thompson, in an attempt to somewhat disguise the over-reliance on coincidences that are completely improbable, chose to introduce as many red herrings as he possibly could, to the point that as a viewer you eventually lose track of which ones you’ve eliminated as possible suspects and you just take a shot in the dark regarding who the guilty party may be. Whatever the case may actually be, one thing is for certain, the movie’s story is far too contrived and jumbled for any person to actually enjoy sitting through it from start to finish.

The continuity errors sprinkled all throughout “88 Minutes” could be attributed some to the writing, but in the end the director, Jon Avnet (“Righteous Kill”), does have control over what ones will be visible in the final product. This for me became a major distraction over the course of the movie; for instance, in one scene a car is shown vandalized, yet five to ten minutes later that very same vehicle is shown in completely pristine condition and the vandalism disappearing is never touched upon as being fixed and due to the 88 minute plot device, there was never any time for the car to be repaired, hence one major error that should have been caught on the set or in the script and wasn’t. One other example would be Al Pacino’s crazy hairstyle in this movie. I don’t normally pay too close of attention to an actor or actresses hair in a movie, but his was so odd and varying from moment to moment that it was hard to miss, and the hair seemed like it was almost alive and taking on a life all its own at times. Granted the former is a much bigger problem than the latter in terms of complaints about the movie; yet both serve as prime examples for a couple of instances where continuity was obviously ignored, and the problem permeated into almost every scene of the film.

Speaking of Al Pacino I normally enjoy his performances even in movies that aren’t always the greatest, he at least provides some semblance of entertainment. In this movie, Al seems hardly invested in the role, as if he’s just going through the motions to collect a paycheck that I hardly believe he was in such desperate need of to sign on to such a ridiculous project. Generally, in every Pacino movie there is a moment or two where Al kind of goes over-the-top, not to the point of bad acting, it’s just something you come to expect from him through his intense portrayal of his various roles, and in a way you kind of look forward to it; yet in this movie he maybe does it once, and not to the extent that any real intensity is conveyed. That lack of intensity gave me a clear indication of how little Al actually cared for the material he was being given to work with here.

Supporting Al’s uninspired performance were some fairly recognizable faces ranging from the always reliable character actor William Forsythe (“Gotti”), to former TV stars Amy Brenneman (“Judging Amy”) and Neil McDonough (“Boomtown”), to some of Hollywood’s obscure young talents Leelee Sobieski (“Joy Ride”) and Alicia Witt (“Urban Legend”). Most of the supporting cast was decent in their various roles, although Leelee Sobieski seemed a little forced in her performance, not feeling all that natural in her role as a student to Jack Gramm. Perhaps this was due to the fact that maybe she was aware of how ridiculous this movie actually was, I do not know, but whatever the reason, she just didn’t seem comfortable in her role from the moment her character was introduced.

What it all boils down to is this, “88 Minutes” is one of the worst movies, if not the worst movie of 2008, and by far is the worst movie in Al Pacino’s highly successful career. A poor story full of contrived plot points, inconsistencies, and a running time that doesn’t end soon enough, “88 Minutes” will have you bored and looking for the stop button long before the credits will begin to roll.

“88 Minutes” is rated R for violence and language.

Catwoman

If you have read some of my reviews for the recent crop of superhero movies, then you’ve figured out by now that I am a comic book fan. I have many different series’ that I read consistently month-to-month, so of course anytime a comic book adaptation is released as a feature film, I do my best to lend my support by either watching it in theaters or at least on DVD, that way if one of these films tank I can at least say that I gave my support. Nine times out of ten I enjoy the comic book movie that I go to see, there have been a couple of stinkers from the recent crop, the most notable horrible comic book adaptations, in my opinion, are Frank Miller and Robert Rodriguez’s disjointed comic book adaptation “Sin City” and the lackluster, utter crap-fest adaptation of DC Comics’ “Catwoman” starring Halle Berry as the title character.

“Catwoman” is the story of graphic artist Patience Phillips (Halle Berry) who works for a cosmetic firm that is secretly making cosmetics that cause people to deteriorate and therefore, require more makeup from the same company. Patience discovers this plot and is ultimately killed for her discovery, only to be resurrected by cats. Her resurrection hasn’t come without some side effects though, as she now finds that she has an affinity for kitty litter, sleeping outside, increased agility, and an aversion to all things dog. Now tired of feeling beaten down, Patience will use some of her newfound attributes to strike back at not only those who have wronged her, but also take a few nice things from jewelry stores and such on the side. Quite the hero indeed (please note sarcasm).

Where to start, where to start? “Catwoman” is simply horrible, there is nothing in this movie that makes it worth watching, not even Halle Berry. The story is so completely simple and too stupid that it’s shocking that it ever made it into any kind of film. The characters are paper-thin, and the portion of the movie where Patience gains cat-like attributes is full of just really stupid stuff that the director and writer probably thought would be cool in the movie but comes off laughable, not to mention that the CGI effects work is the worst I have seen in quite some time. I watched the movie all the way through, hoping it would at some point become interesting, but it never does. For those not in the know, “Catwoman” is based on the popular character from DC Comics; she is a cat burglar with an obsession for all things feline (hence the name). She is commonly used as a villain for Batman and at the same time a lover of sorts for Batman. This movie pretty much ignores every connection to Batman, and Catwoman’s origins from the comics, which tells me that Warner Brothers knew that this movie had stinker written all over it and didn’t want to possibly taint their chances of reviving their once popular ‘Batman’ franchise in the years to come (which the WB succeeded in with the smash hit “Batman Begins”). To further convince me that this was in fact the case with “Catwoman”, there is not one single reference in this movie to Batman or any of his films, other than a barely seen picture of Michelle Pfieffer (she portrayed Catwoman in “Batman Returns”) in one scene.

As I said earlier the acting is horrible in this movie, which somewhat surprises me since the cast was comprised of rather talented actors and actresses from Academy Award winner Halle Berry (“X-Men”) to Benjamin Bratt (“Miss Congeniality”) to Sharon Stone (“Basic Instinct”). Maybe it was the fault of the director for why the performances are so overdone, of course the writer didn’t help, it’s obvious that the script didn’t give much to work with for any of the characters included in the movie, but still a little effort from the cast would have been nice. The biggest surprise to me, and I know to most critics and moviegoers, is that Halle Berry chose this film to follow up her Oscar winning performance in “Monster’s Ball”. Now some of you may try the excuse for Halle that she acted so poorly and basically hammed it up because it was a comic book movie, well I’d buy that if it wasn’t for the fact that she had already done three superior superhero films in the popular ‘X-Men’ trilogy, so there’s just no excusing her in this film.

Without a doubt the saddest thing about this entire movie is the fact that the best part of the film is when Patience finally settles on her final costume. You know the one I’m talking about, it’s the one that every guy has seen in the commercials or on the posters, and knows very well. It’s the bikini top, with shredded leather pants, and a crappy looking mask. When the big costume reveal is the best part of a superhero movie, and this is because the final version of the costume really shows off Halle’s “assets”, you know you have one of the worst comic book entries ever made and one that should either be scrapped or completely reworked.

When this movie is all over with and the audience is left wishing they could get the last 90 minutes of their lives back that the director has stolen from them, all that is left to say is that “Catwoman” is a terrible movie with a beautiful lead actress that should have known better than to say yes to this picture. I would not recommend watching this movie at all, not even if you do want to make fun of a movie, there are plenty of other bad movies that are still watchable that you can make fun of, this one is just not worth the jokes you could throw at it.

“Catwoman” is rated PG-13 for stylized violence, language, and sexuality.

The Dukes of Hazzard

What possesses a movie studio as powerful and respected as Warner Brothers to make a movie based on a classic, family-friendly TV show into a perverted, slap-stick ridden, raunch-fest of a comedy? What blows my mind is how could anyone at this studio truly believe that this movie would be a good idea? Who knows, but obviously someone thought it was movie-gold and that’s why we are treated with this utter crap-fest starring raunchy comedians Seann William Scott (‘American Pie Trilogy’ and “The Rundown”) and Johnny Knoxville (MTV’s “Jackass” and “Men In Black 2″), along with country legend Willie Nelson, and sexy siren Jessica Simpson, known as “The Dukes of Hazzard”.

“The Dukes of Hazzard” follows the raunchy, dimwitted exploits of cousins Bo (Seann William Scott) and Luke (Johnny Knoxville) Duke. Throughout their escapades, the cousins stumble upon a dastardly plot by the county’s evil commissioner, Boss Hogg (Burt Reynolds), who seeks to level numerous farms in Hazzard County to begin a coal mining operation. Discovering that their family farm is on the chopping block, the Dukes along with Daisy (Jessica Simpson) and Uncle Jesse (Willie Nelson) attempt to thwart this evil from occurring and become the town’s heroes instead of zeroes.

There are so many ways to describe just how bad this movie is, lets take a moment to list some of those ways. Well, it’s a boring, idiotic, utterly perverted, not even that funny, waste of time. After watching this movie I felt like I was dumber from the experience. The humorous elements, what little there was, come not from the two lead actors, but from Jessica Simpson’s Daisy Duke. Out of the entire cast, not only is she the most attractive, but also the funniest, though to be fair I must admit that I’m probably being overly kind to her on account of her sex appeal.

There is very little about this movie that can even be deemed as entertaining. It is evident that the director and the movie studio didn’t set out to do an accurate adaptation of the classic TV show, but instead to make just another raunchy, teen comedy (except they forget to include the comedy). The story is so paper thin that you almost find yourself trying to think of ways that you could have made the movie better than those behind the camera. The only purpose the story in “The Dukes of Hazzard” has is to serve as a vehicle to get from one crude joke or sight gag to the next with minimal fuss, or to give a close up of Jessica Simpson and her “short” shorts (not that I’m complaining about that), or to just show the car from time to time; otherwise, the story didn’t have any purpose whatsoever.

So, in the end, if I was unable to convince you of just how crappy this movie truly is, and you still want to watch it. Then by all means, knock yourself out, and after completing the movie you may want to seek help, because you may need it to clear the experience from your mind, and hopefully gain a few IQ points back.

“The Dukes of Hazzard” is available in rated PG-13 and unrated editions, both contain violence, language, and brief nudity/sexuality.

Perfect Stranger

Every year you’re pretty much guaranteed that Hollywood will release at least 1 or 2 movies that make you wonder, what were they thinking? Sometimes the film has a really good cast and no story, sometimes it’s the other way around, and then there are those times when nothing in the movie works and it really makes one question the logic in releasing the movie. I for one hadn’t seen a movie like that in a little while, that is, until I watched the Halle Berry and Bruce Willis thriller “Perfect Stranger”.

“Perfect Stranger” is essentially a story of deception and lies, and how nothing is ever what it seems. When a high-profile advertising executive (Bruce Willis) has an affair that appears to end in the woman’s murder, her friend Rowena (Halle Berry), who just so happens to conveniently be an investigative reporter, begins looking into the murder. Rowena believes that the ad exec is the most probable perpetrator of the crime, but he keeps himself so well guarded that there’s no easy way to get access to him. So, using her good looks, charm, and investigative skills, Rowena hatches a plan to get close to the exec by any means necessary to bring her friend’s killer to justice.

“Perfect Stranger” is the kind of movie that seemed to hold a decent amount of promise, and I must admit that from the previews I thought that this would actually be a really solid thriller. But sometimes, much like the basic theme of the movie, appearances can be deceiving, because not only was this movie not all that thrilling, but the story was rather blah. It didn’t seem to contain a whole lot of substance, sure there were numerous plot twists that were intended to keep the audience enthralled and guessing as to what would come next, but not much else was going on. As a result, the twists (which were the only parts of the story worth paying attention to) left audiences with a feeling that each one was either a convenient plot device to push things in the right direction, or in the case of the final twist in the movie near the end, just a cheap attempt at surprising the audience with the unexpected, regardless of the fact that it didn’t really fit in with the rest of the movie.

Though the movie’s story was lacking in depth and plausibility, and heavy on coincidence (which isn’t always detrimental to a film’s success, but it was here), it did boast two very good actors with Bruce Willis (‘Die Hard’ series) and Halle Berry (‘X-Men’ trilogy) in the lead roles. Numerous times Bruce Willis has made some not so hot choices in terms of movie roles he’s taken, (“The Fifth Element” is a good example), but he’s been on a fairly decent streak lately with hits such as, “16 Blocks” and “Hostage”, so I can cut him some slack. In the case of Halle Berry, she has also been on a decent hit streak of late with the ‘X-Men’ films and her turn as a Bond girl in “007: Die Another Day”, but this Oscar winner is also the woman who made the stupid decision to star in the movie “Catwoman”, so it’s hard to say what she was thinking when she took this role. I would like to think that both of these two really solid actors were simply picking up a paycheck with this movie, basically wanting to fill some time in their schedule, and not really paying much attention to the story of the film. Because if these two actually thought that the story for “Perfect Stranger” was truly interesting after reading the script, I’ve really got to question their decision making capabilities, but like I said earlier I already do question Halle’s just a little bit for making “Catwoman” (I know, I should let it go).

What it all boils down to is that “Perfect Stranger”, though it looked appealing from the trailers, was nothing more than a letdown of a movie. Featuring numerous convoluted plot twists that were way too convenient and flat-out annoying without adding any interest to the movie, and a rather boring story that failed to take off.

“Perfect Stranger” is rated R for violence, language, and nudity/sexuality.