Recently, many remarks have been cracked about running times of movies and the title 88 Minutes. "Is it too much to hope for that 88 Minutes will actually be 88 minutes?" our own James Rocchi asked me not too long ago. 88 minutes is a great running time for a movie, especially for busy critics with lots of movies to see and too many deadlines. You're in an out well before the welcome has worn out. Orson Welles' The Magnificent Ambersons is considered a masterpiece at 88 minutes, even cut down from its original 132. Bill Murray knew the power of 88 minutes when he turned in his final cut of the classic Quick Change (1990). The Woodsman (2004) would have been unbearable at anything longer than 88 minutes. And whatever else you have to say about them, Scary Movie, Sexy Beast, Spy Kids, The Big Bounce, Transporter 2, Wristcutters: A Love Story and Horton Hears a Who! never seemed too long.

But, alas, 88 Minutes runs 108 minutes, and it's too long. Al Pacino (with a poofy, rooster-head haircut) plays high-profile forensic psychologist Jack Gramm, whose testimony was almost solely responsible for the conviction of accused murderer Jon Forster (Neal McDonough). Today, Forster is going to the chair, while maintaining his innocence, and while identical murders are still being committed throughout Seattle. At 10:17 a.m., Gramm gets a call, saying he has 88 minutes left to live. That call comes about a half hour into the movie, and the 88 minutes passes by in an awkward, compressed 70 minutes, give or take, followed by the expected conclusion and credits. Couldn't a cleverer filmmaker have set the movie in real time, and then used flashbacks to do all that boring preliminary stuff? Wouldn't the film have been much better if it just started with a bang, with that phone call?

Nothing fancy this week. I'm tossing darts at the latest trailers and writing up whichever ones I hit. Time now for a random sampling.

Righteous Kill
Robert De Niro and Al Pacino doing a cop movie together? Sounds like a license to print money. The last police drama I saw was the tepid We Own the Night which really soured me on a genre that has already been beaten to death on television, but the star power behind this one sets things at a whole new level (despite some of the uninspired comedies with which De Niro has padded his resume). Our two stars play a pair of world weary police detectives who have no sympathy for the scum who make a mockery of the justice system. Apparently they aren't the only ones who feel this way, because our heroes are soon on the trail of a vigilante killer. As with most teasers it's hard to get a feel for the movie. We get the basic idea of the plot followed by lots of quick cuts set to The Stones' "Sympathy For the Devil." I'm still probably going to see this, but more for who's in the film than what's in the trailer. Here's Monika's take on the trailer.

The Incredible Hulk
The onscreen representation of Marvel Comics' jade giant has come a long way. I first saw him as a crappily animated character who barely moved in the Marvel Superheroes animated series in the 1960s, then as a body builder wearing grease paint and green tights (easier than applying makeup to his shins, I suppose). And let's not forget the 80s animated incarnation whose clothes would magically reappear when he returned to human form. The all CGI version seen in Ang Lee's Hulk made many mistakes, but I think the biggest one was to make his face too sympathetic. The Hulk is not a superhero, people, he's a monster and should look like one. That problem appears to have been addressed in this latest incarnation. This is one badass Hulk, and his foe -- the equally gamma irradiated Abomination -- looks pretty cool too, though his head is tiny. I never thought Eric Bana had much screen presence, and what we see of Edward Norton as the new Bruce Banner has a lot more appeal.

I imagine that the posthumous completion of Destino sent many a studio into a creative flurry. "Salvador Dali! Why didn't we think of it before! Let's get a movie in the works!" Then, of course, the idea spread through a billion little tentacles and we ended up with what Christopher Campbell said last year was 9 projects. Some have petered off, some have stayed around, and one seems to have nabbed its superstar.

The New Zealand Herald says that Johnny Depp is holding auditions to find screenwriters for the Peter Rawley-produced Dali picture. (When CC wrote about it last year, Rawley was trying to woo Depp.) In what I would call the best casting move in eons, Depp will star as Dali, and is scavenging the earth for the right writer. A source told the publication that Depp is "open to working with anyone -- from housewives to pensioners -- if the script is right."

Meanwhile, it also looks like the Al Pacino and Peter O'Toole pics are still in the works. Now, I completely get Depp as Dali, and think that's as good as you can get for the epic artist. I would also bet that O'Toole could pull off something funky, but Pacino? It almost sounds like a joke. Nevertheless, this might just pull me out of my distaste for back-to-back biopics on the same person. Stay tuned!

[via Ace Showbiz]

Pictures can only say so much. Now, finally, we can see the action behind the icons for the upcoming Righteous Kill. You remember the flick, right? Jon Avnet's new crime drama brings together Al Pacino and Robert De Niro as two old, tough, New York City cops who are hunting down a vigilante killer, and the teaser is now online over at Yahoo.

It's not much of a tease -- the trailer pretty much lays out the whole story, rather than taunting us with just a voiceover, or a few vague scene shots. I have to say... It looks decent. I'm not thrilled, but I'm also not disappointed. The teaser starts out as some big-beat 8-Mile intro, and then dips into the ever-classic Sympathy for the Devil. It's rather apt, but really, this whole flick isn't about the story. It's about the players.

They may be weathered cops, Pacino and De Niro are two men that make age look tough. And while they might be the draws, and the reason this flick is getting so much buzz, there's also a solid cast behind them -- Carla Gugino, John Leguizamo, Donnie Wahlberg, Brian Dennehy, 50 Cent, Dan Futterman... And, you might notice in the beginning of the trailer that the freed bad guy is Terry Serpico, that tough guy from Michael Clayton, who is almost a dead ringer for Anthony Michael Hall. Separated at birth? I think so.

Righteous Kill will shoot its way to audiences on September 12.

Wow, so if this rumor is true it could potentially be very good or very bad for the Bond franchise, and, especially, Quantum of Solace. Now take this whole thing with a huge grain of salt because there is no proof or official word, but a scooper wrote into AICN with the name of an actor who might have snagged the chief villain role in the next James Bond film. No, I'm not talking about Mathieu Amalric -- who we already know is playing Bond's main opponent. And Anatole Taubman is apparently playing another baddie. I'm talking about the boss of all bosses -- the guy Bond was after in Casino Royale, and will be after in Quantum of Solace. The dude behind the entire operation -- the man behind the curtains -- the guy who reports to himself. Oh yes. Him. Well word has it Bond will finally meet up with this head boss at the end of the next film, and the actor currently rumored to be playing him is none other than -- drum roll please -- Al Pacino. Hoo-ahh!

Here's part of what the scooper wrote in to AICN: "But the big news that he leaked was that Al Pacino would be taking part in filming. I was a little shocked as the cast has been revealed already, but he said Pacino would play the head of the terrorist group introduced in CASINO ROYALE and QUANTUM OF SOLACE. Al is said to come to Pinewood in April-May to film what is said to be a brief cameo." Hmmm. Pacino? As the big villain in a Bond film? Keep in mind this is only a rumor right now, but if true, what do you think?

I don't mean to be rude or anything, but I have to say that whoever worked on the poster for Al Pacino's new thriller 88 Minutes did one heck of a job on photoshopping the 67-year-old actor -- the man doesn't look a day over 40. The Movie Insider now has the new poster for John Avnet's (Fried Green Tomatoes) film about a man who has the aforementioned 88 minutes to solve his own murder -- a plot that sounds a lot like the noir classic D.O.A, but with just enough differences to avoid a lawsuit.

Pacino plays Jack Gramm, a womanizing forensic psychiatrist and college professor. After testifying against a serial killer and putting him on death row, Gramm receives a phone call from the condemned killer, who tells him that he only has 88 minutes left to live. Gramm is then forced to re-visit the gruesome case in hopes of stopping a copycat and hopefully saving his own skin.

Joining Pacino are Leelee Sobieski, William Forsythe, Deborah Kara Unger, and Alicia Witt -- judging by the sheer number of chicks in the cast, I guess Pacino really is a ladies man in this flick. The script was written by Gary Scott Thompson, who was also the writer for 2 Fast 2 Furious and Hollow Man II. I have to be honest with you; those two credits alone are enough to make me think that this movie might not be up to Pacino's usual standards -- although lately it seems like those have been slipping ever so slightly as well. 88 Minutes hits theaters on April 18th.

Some new images from the film Righteous Kill have popped up over at Collider, and we finally get our first look at Robert De Niro, Al Pacino and the legendary 50 Cent together ... in the same scene! Talk about a cinematic wet dream. And is it just me, or does Fitty look like he's about to drop a smackdown on poor Robbie D? And Pacino is all like, "You ain't no Raging Bull anymore buddy. Step off." And De Niro is like, "Step off? You tell this rapper-turned-wannabee actor to step off. I ain't steppin' off." And then Fitty is like, "I can, and will, tear you in two with my eyes."

Righteous Kill, which arrives in theaters on April 18, stars De Niro and Pacino (in their first on-screen pairing since Heat) as two New York City detectives on the hunt for a killer that may or may not be one of their own. Fitty? Wanna fess up to somethin' here? The flick also stars John Leguizamo, Donnie Wahlberg, Brian Dennehy and the ultra sexy (but not as popular as she should be) Carla Gugino, who you can see snuggling up to a very lucky De Niro in the photo below. I kid, but I actually think this film will turn out pretty good. Even if the plot covers the same old generic serial killer whodunit territory, how can it not be fun to watch this cast interact with one another? I'm definitely "game" (but don't mention that word around Fitty or else you're in for a world of pain).

Earlier this month a bunch of us came up with a list of the movie characters we'd love to have thanksgiving with. Now, here's the opposite. The title is pretty self-explanatory, so I don't need to set it up much. But as usual, we invite you to tell us of your own picks for worst Thanksgiving dinner guest. Please try to make it a movie character, though, because none of us know your annoying aunt, and plus this is a movie site.


Hannibal Lecter from Manhunter, The Silence of the Lambs, Hannibal, Red Dragon and Hannibal Rising

If you were to have Dr. Lecter (Brian Cox; Anthony Hopkins; Gaspard Ulliel) to your Thanksgiving feast, you'd want to prepare and cook all the food yourself. Otherwise, you might end up eating human flesh instead of turkey (or turducken, or whatever non-people-based meal you prefer). Then again, you might actually end up the meal, which is certainly much worse than unknowingly tasting Ray Liotta's brains. So, the best thing is to not even invite the guy.


Graham Young from Young Poisoner's Handbook

Another character who might be an interesting guest, but like with Lecter, you'll need to keep an eye on the food, or at least on the tea. Graham (Hugh O'Conor), aka "the teacup murderer" likes to play with poison, and there's a good chance he's going to spike the dinner or drinks with thallium.

Putting together last week's list of my favorite screenplays of the 2000's was relatively easy. I came up with about ten worthy candidates and narrowed from there. When I started putting together this week's list -- my favorite screenplays of the 1990's -- things got a lot more complicated. I had a much larger list of worthy candidates to choose from. It made me realize that a) the 90's, particularly the late 90's, was a genuinely incredible time for film, and b) I was going to have to split my list into two halves: 1995 -- 1999 and 1990 -- 1994.

So, in support of all the great screenwriters currently on strike, what follows is my favorite screenplays produced between 1995 and 1999. Read that last sentence carefully! If you've got movies you'd add to or subtract from my list, I would love to hear them, but make sure your choice fits the criteria. On my 2000's list, I was getting comments like "How DARE you not include Citizen Kane, you freaking idiot?"

Now then, with all apologies to the scripts it killed me to leave off (Office Space, A Simple Plan, As Good As it Gets, Chasing Amy, Lone Star, Three Kings, Swingers, Jackie Brown, Kingpin, I could go on and on), here is my alphabetical list:

Ocean's Thirteen
George Clooney and pals caught a lot of flack for faltering (somewhat) in the second installment of this crime caper trilogy. Critics berated Hollywood's finest for enjoying themselves off set so pointedly you'd think dead hookers were popping up left and right. Excuse the guy if he needs a break from trying to save Darfur and prepping pensive, top-notch fare like Syriana, Good Night, And Good Luck, Michael Clayton and so on. And for all its faults (I'm looking at you, Julia Roberts cameo), Twelve was still as entertaining as a popcorn movie needs to be. There seemed to be a "you owe us" attitude among some critics, and Thirteen for the most part put the carping to rest. Its biggest strength? It becomes personal for Ocean's crew, once Reuben (Elliott Gould) is royally screwed over (nearly keeling over as a result) by Al Pacino's SOB casino mogul. Not only is our faith fully restored in Ocean et al here, but suddenly we're rooting for them harder than ever. As nice as it is to see Pacino hooting and hollering again (mostly hollering), the real treat in terms of new blood is Ellen Barkin as his empowered assistant/ the "cougar" Linus (Matt Damon) attempts to seduce in the movie's funniest sequence. Who'd think Barkin could be still be so sexy 16 years after Switch?

Shrek the Third
Speaking of critical lashings, Shrek's third outing was a popular target for ire this past summer. Not so much in terms of popular opinion, though. Mylesomaticx, for one, declared it "THE BEST MOVIE EVER MADE" in his/her user review on Moviefone. Whoa there, Mylesomaticx. I'll play the diplomat and say it falls somewhere smack dab in the middle of the critiques of the Rotten Tomatoes majority ("flat and pointless," says one) and the Caps Locked Mylesomaticx. I didn't find Shrek the Third any less enjoyable than Shrek 2 (which got glorious reviews), that's for sure. There are more storylines here (they could've done without those creepy dronkeys) and the humor, seemingly skewed even further for adults, is still funnier and smarter than the vast majority of animated rip-offs we see nowadays. The suddenly ubiquitous actor Justin Timberlake (when in the world does he find time to practice the Moonwalk?) joins the fun as Artie, the rightful heir to the throne of Far Far Away, and is surprisingly adept at voicing a whiny teen. But Mike Myers needs to hurry up and play someone/something else. Is it just me or is he becoming increasingly interchangeable with the character Shrek? Luckily, The Love Guru, his first non-Shrek film in five years, opens next June. JT co-stars.