Who Cares About Pacino's Latest Hoo-Ha?
Posted by Michael Musto at 9:56 AM, April 17, 2008
The loud sound you hear coming from Hollywood is that of Paris Hilton sobbing that her chance to be part of an award-winning film has just been shot to hell. Yes, The Hottie and the Nottie will surely be bested by Al Pacino's new starring vehicle, 88 Minutes, come Golden Razzie time. The reviews for this alleged thriller--in which Pacino's been told he only has 88 minutes left to overact--have been astoundingly bad, confirming my suspicion that sitting down to watch the guy in his spiky hair plugs and mumbly/screamy mode would be time ripped out of my life that I'd rather spend torturing cockroaches. "Inept on every level," points out one review, which also marvels at the fact that 88 Minutes actually takes 106 minutes. Says Slant, "Inanity and incompetence form an imposing tag team in 88 Minutes, the current favorite for 2008's dumbest movie." Most damningly of all, Variety calls the film a "gape-inducing fiasco" and says it snatches the honor of "Pacino's career worst" away from Revolution. (You know, the Annie Lennox-costarring epic in which Pacino's Bronx accent was a little out of place in 1776.) Sounds like a real dog day afternoon for Oscar-winner Pacino. I'm just pissed that someone might think Revolution is actually worse than Bobby Deerfield.
Update: Stop everything! There's a shocking new development! The NY Observer just weighed in with a positive review of 88 Minutes! Paris, you've still got a shot!
rss feed
