I know star power isn’t what it used to be, but doesn’t it seem like we still give Al Pacino more credit than he’s worth? Despite his receiving an Oscar fifteen years ago, the guy hasn’t been a completely dependable actor in more than two decades. And yet a lot of people write about his upcoming movies as if they could maybe, possibly, hopefully be on par with the actor’s ’70s work. I’m not denying that he’s excellent in a few films of even the past ten years (particularly The Insider), but let’s not forget he was also in Gigli, so it isn’t like he’s making the same smart choices he was making as a younger man.
And now here’s 88 Minutes, another movie that attempts to give us a thrilling plot in real time, a la 24. But despite such a gimmick working with old films like High Noon and 12 Angry Men, when it’s presented as a gimmick, and clearly as the only reason a movie is made (as in the cases of Nick of Time, Timecode and Phone Booth), it always comes off as forced and (obviously) gimmicky. But at least Pacino is in it, right? Eh, maybe if American moviegoers still gave a damn about marquee names. Maybe that’s why 88 Minutes was released to many foreign markets six months to a year ago; star power is still marketable in many places outside the U.S. Meanwhile, Sony is finally dropping the thing here on April 18.
I can’t say that I would never see a movie just because Pacino is in it (I can’t wait to see him as Salvador Dali in Dali & I: The Surreal Story, only because the idea is half-genius, half-ludicrous), but even my nostalgia for a seemingly real time movie like Dog Day Afternoon (it’s not in real time, but it feels like it) can’t get me to see 88 Minutes just for him. And there doesn’t appear to be much else that’s appealing about the generic frame-job film either.
Originally posted on:
SpoutBlog