Watch 88 For Free

Excellent, Without a doubt!!

Yo, there's no way for me to review this film without saying, take your *insert ethnicity + "ass" here* to see this film,like now. You have to see it in order to know what you're really messing with.

At first rather annoying in its heavy emphasis on reenactments, this movie ultimately proves fascinating, simply because the complicated, highly dramatic tale it tells still almost defies belief.

Although I seem to have had higher expectations than I thought, the movie is super entertaining.

Hated it - just because I really didWell, no, not really. The lead is quite believable, but I have to give it 1 star just to offset the incredible amount of people who think this is a 10. It's more like a 4-5 movie, straight-to-video I would imagine.The only reason I am writing this is because I forced myself to finishing watching until 2 in the morning and it just wasn't that good. Yay! Katharine Isabelle! - Nice job, crappy movie.Action was decent, but laughable. This may be a great movie for law enforcement. I'm not in law enforcement, and I don't own any firearms, but I'm fairly certain that if I did I wouldn't be in a fire-fight in any manner of how these individuals acted with a gun in their hand. Totally laughable!Story line was convoluted at best. Some flashbacks, dark scenes, it seemed like there were two or three timeless, but they were not effective in anyway except to account for lack of plot.Speaking of a lack of plot, there were too many songs which were supposed to bridge over lulls in the plot. (Always a bad thing in any movie, music can enhance, songs are used in lieu of a plot). (It can be done, it's just very difficult)So, after all that, I changed my mind 3/10, but still 1/10 to add balance to the rating.oh, one more thing; I have no idea what Christopher Lloyd was saying most of the time (bad sound or he just mumbled a lot, I'm not sure).

If you like Guy Ritchie films and you're fan of Luc Besson, you'll enjoy this saucy little revenge filled rampage.It's terrific fun to watch Katharine Isabelle's brilliant performance as both a clueless and terrified victim, and a cold blooded killer sociopath, as you follow her around on her violently hilarious adventures.The film has very fresh and lively quality. Christopher Lloyd as a villain and Michael Ironside as a sheriff, with commendable direction by April Mullen, it feels like you're watching yourself being punched in the face with a candy-apple: it's all crunchy and sticky and shiny with squishy bits. And you can laugh at the playful delight and violent absurdity of just having watched yourself take a candy-apple to the face.88 is a special treat.

-88 (2015) movie review: -88, which is already on Netflix?, is an action thriller about a girl who's former mob-ish boss kills her fiancé, so she goes nuts and tries to kill him. Only problem is that after the incident, she develops a sort-of new, mild personality that does not remember anything; an event that happens after traumatic events occasionally.-I feel like 88 had the proper amount of cheesy and lame elements in it for me to hate on it, but then it threw in just enough good elements for me to say 'Eh' about it. So here is an 'eh' review: -The story feels new, but every element of the way they did the story, from the Reservoir Dogs past-to-present cuts, to the quick flashback cuts from EVERY MOVIE EVER, so literally the same ending as Rage. Okay, not the same, but similar. In fact, this film is 2015's Rage.-The pace is good, but the flashbacks are even out of order, making some of them feel unnecessary, and making the film feel a little too long. For an 88 minute film.-The acting. So Katharine Isabelle did a fine job. She was believable, but not great. She really tried hard. Christopher Lloyd did a fine job. He was believable and good, but he did not really have to try, and it shows. Tim Doiron is pretty bad. And Michael Ironside showed up in it, hurting my opinion of the film even more with his generic acting.-The characters are all generic and cliché. Like I said, this film offers little-to-nothing new.-The music was weird and almost Tarantino weird. Almost.-A few of the scenes I thought were good and well done, and others I thought were student-film quality. Like 'Oh my gosh. I can't believe they are not dead.' I will give mega props to the ending. Although I totally should have known how it would end, I thought the ending helped pull the film out of the 'eh' for me. Like Rage from 2014….-88 is also Rated-R for language, a somewhat strong amount of underwear, and bad blood effects everywhere.-Anyway, 88 had a few redeeming features like the actual story or the ending, but I don't think they quite make up for bad fights, lame characters (and actors), and cliché everythings. As good as the ending was, 88 is not really worth the time.

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.