Phonearl Good start, but then it gets ruined

Invaderbank The film creates a perfect balance between action and depth of basic needs, in the midst of an infertile atmosphere.

Humbersi The first must-see film of the year.

Patience Watson One of those movie experiences that is so good it makes you realize you've been grading everything else on a curve.

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!

Allan McGowan 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.

CelluloidDog Actual rating 3.3/10 mainly due to the ability of cast: Katherine Isabelle, Christopher Lloyd, Michael Ironsides and a special mention to director April Mullen.First, the movie is a cliché of the Hollywood (Canadawood) B cinema of girl goes gun crazy for revenge. Exploitation films usually run it after a rape or family violence but in this case it's boyfriend revenge. At least so we think. So it draws comparison with the superior Kill Bill. But it lacks the style and coordination of Kill Bill. In many ways, it tries to be Memento, also another superior film, but it is far more disjointed with too many cuts, parallel time(?!) and flashbacks which only makes the film confusing and nonsensical. It's also disjointed in its treatment of its own title 88. The first 20-30 minutes it does build on it. So there's some interest. And someone pointed out 88 has a significance with Christopher Nolan's Back to the Future. Which adds to the interest. But somewhere in the middle, the film is confused and forgets about its own title. So why 88? It actually means very little after a bit of number play in the first 20 minutes.It's like if you ever meet someone or have a friend who's had a drug or mental issue. Someone who experiments on drugs. They never make sense. And the experiment goes bad. I'm not sure how other reviewers give it a higher rating (or how did it get a 4.5/10 here, which tells you, it definitely can't be a good film). But keep in mind, often lesser films on IMDb get high ratings due to the limited reviewers being probably connected to the film (e.g, friends, employees) or strong fans. After a few hundred reviews or with time and loss of enthusiasm, it often goes down in ratings. (So why do I review it? I like reviewing both good and bad films. No real reason in particular but if I have time and the film strikes me in a way, in this case, Isabelle, Nolan and how they can be in a poor film).Our heroine Katherine Isabelle plays Gwen, Gwenny or Flamingo. That is, yes, she doesn't have a clear identity or fugue state as the movie opens. One thing is for the main character to have a fugue state but the whole film is a fugue state. A woman who kills several people accidentally or intentionally? Are we supposed to sympathize with our character? Trying to draw into the character and making the film imitate the character doesn't accomplish much. Imagine The Hobbit being a short film on a small screen because the main characters are dwarfs and hobbits. And the men in this movie either get killed, kill themselves or die trying to protect her. It seems she had a violent past int he end but she never showed on police records although her associates (e.g, Cyrus) did. I'm not sure why what's so special about her, that people try to protect her. Basically the film is trash like the sets as someone inquired where was this film so badly shot? It's like trash like its trashy characters. I almost never say that for any film but it's a rare film, maybe a 1 in 40 or 50 films. Yes, that bad but not the worst. 90% of my films I rate are 4/10 and above on IMDb. Nothing special about directing (rather poor), screenplay, cinematography, all substandard.Just hardly worth watching, except for the somewhat good, curious casting: Christopher Nolan emerges from his Back to the Future to play a aged hood, Michael Ironsides always plays the cliché cop (or villain), and Katharine Isabelle gives a very good performance. She was terrific in American Mary, which is an underrated film on IMDb at 6.3. I would give it more a 7.0/10 if you can stand the gore and appreciate the originality. 88 tries to emulate that originality of character but falls very short. Special mention to April Mullen who plays Lemmy, a far more interesting character than as the director of this movie. It's a short cameo role as the gun dealer Lemmy who has a bizarre but funny flip sign in her abode/store. Probably the best moment of the film.Without the cast, it would be a 2 or 2.5/10 or bottom 1 out of every 200-300 films. Just really, really bad without the main characters. But you may want to tolerate this film if you have nothing else to do but see what Katherine Isabelle or Christopher Nolan can do. But I think they themselves would rather not see this film on their own resume. It is that forgettable and straight to netflix.

dfsdsdfas ..you know when someone tries to play a psychopathic stonecold killer and everything looks like pretending? nothing to worry about here. the poster gives it no justice, not cheap, not corny. it's stylish and dirty - nice to look at but not staged. the psychotic breaks are beleavable and the flashbacks interesting, not confusing. wasn't sure if she would pull it of, cause from my first impression the storyline, the poster.. it didn't really give me much - but there were no bad parts for me in it, every character fit to the story.a lot of dead bodies, no shortcoming of blood..but not too much gore. in some episodes of hannibal i was very drawn to the character she played, and i recognized her from American mary - which had a lot more gore (to say the least)..sooo..well rounded action-flick with plot-twist and love-driven psychotic avenging angel.