Perry Kate Very very predictable, including the post credit scene !!!

SpuffyWeb Sadly Over-hyped

Brightlyme i know i wasted 90 mins of my life.

Hadrina The movie's neither hopeful in contrived ways, nor hopeless in different contrived ways. Somehow it manages to be wonderful

James-kessog This is not pleasant viewing, nor is it particularly clear. After watching Their Finest the previous night which is a magnificent screenplay, this is like it was put together on cards and the author dropped them on the floor and never quite got them together. The violence is senseless and demeaning. I got the sense of the bewilderment by a great lead but the rest is dreadful. Avoid...., really, avoid!

Tss5078 I've always said that previews can be deceiving, because it's the job of the people who make them, to make any film look good, even something as bad as 88. The story itself had promise, featuring a young woman named Gwen (Katharine Isabelle), who wakes up on the side of the road with amnesia and a gun. In those first five minutes, the film looks decent enough, but it's pretty much all downhill from there. The film is centered on Gwen and utilizes flashbacks, to show her life before the amnesia, and what cased the amnesia, but they don't stop there, as they go from the present to flashbacks on just about every character you meet. If that wasn't confusing enough, that's when the flash forwards begin and once that happen, I was completely lost. Every thing in this movie flashes at the speed of light. and it is impossible to know what the hell is going on! The casting for this film also seemed like a bad joke, as you've got a star, who seems to be a reject from the real housewives of the trailer park, being chased by Christopher Lloyd. At nearly 80 years old, the man who brought Doc Brown to life, is one of the bad ass gangsters this girl works for, is afraid of, is in love with, who knows? And that's the point, no one know because no one can follow this movie! 88 is just one bad trip, that's all over the place and features a cast that is way to old to be believable. I don't say it often, but there is absolutely nothing redeeming about this movie and you should most certainly avoid it!

Argemaluco The classic "individual with amnesia reconstructing his/her past" formula can work as a good start to build an unpredictable thriller, where part of the pleasure consists on discovering, at the same time of the main character, the unexpected circumstances which lead to his/her current situation. Unfortunately, the film 88 takes the concept to the point of incoherence with confusing flashbacks, an abundance of characters who arbitrarily enter and leave the story, and contradictory information which is explained with hallucinations associated to the "fugue state" suffered by the main character. Speaking of which, the reason I was interested in watching 88 was its main actress, Katharine Isabelle, whose work I have liked since I saw her in the extraordinary Ginger Snaps. And in 88, Isabelle brings another solid performance, being equally credible as the damsel in distress we meet on the beginning of the film and the femme fatale the flashbacks reveal. In the supporting cast, we find good actors who bring conviction and personality to disposable roles which would have otherwise gone unnoticed; I'm talking about Christopher Lloyd, Michael Ironside, Lynne Griffin and Alan C. Peterson, who, along with Isabelle, are the main reason why this movie is moderately entertaining despite its mediocrity. I lost the thread of the story in various occasions, and I didn't know whether I was watching a scene of the past, the present or a main character's hallucination; however, the dynamic rhythm and competent performances compensate on some way the holes and redundancy of the screenplay. In conclusion, I don't think 88 is a very good film, but I can give a slight recommendation to it, because at least, it didn't bore and it didn't make me feel like I wasted my time.

erik ross I liked this movie better the first time I saw it when it was called Kill Bill. This is why I hate that the movie industry is going after illegal downloaders instead of tackling the real problem that is over priced repetitive garbage. There have maybe been 5 original movies in the last ten years, yet they charge $40 for a Bluray (I'm not even talking about those god awful reboots, Robocop, Total Recall, Karate Kid, Spiderman's (ad nauseam) etc.). Netflix has done a great job of proving that this garbage at a reasonable price is working, but "big Hollywood" wants to put the brakes on it because they aren't milking us for enough money from that system. Yet another great film based on another original premise, good for you.