88

Well you know how you hear about this story, about this girl, that will revive an old movie plot in modern times...well this is definitely what you won't like about it.

Constant flashbacks, make you fell like a moron for not understanding the storyline.

Cops are terrible shooters in this movie, it took them three tries to shoot a guy. They finally manage to do that when he was shooting in the police precinct.

A lot of clichés from the cinema world are in this movie.

This movie gets this high of a rating, just because the main character was played right. She was sexy, hot - when angry persona, and confused, scared when normal herself - still a cliché, but the actress did a good job.

OK, so this is maybe a 6, but I saw it at Glasgow Frightfest, and that makes an impact in itself, maybe I'll downgrade it to a 6, but maybe it is a 7! Who knows? I should, right? Anyway!

Going to try not to spoil anything here, and I will be brief.

I liked Katharine Isabelle in this one. She is cool, weird and not to shabby-looking either. Hard to put this in one genre, it's rather violent, got some drama, some action, some humor, and a little mystery to it too. But I liked it. It was entertaining, and again Katharine Isabelle is the real star here. She is fun to watch. She may slightly overdo her "I'm-so-incredibly-cool"-thing a little at times, or it might just be me. And if it's not me, I think it's the director and/or screenwriters fault.

Anyhow, entertaining little flick.

Gwen (Katharine Isabelle) suddenly notices that she's at a diner in a fugue state. She has flashes of memories and troubling signs. She finds a gun in her bag and accidentally shoots the waitress. She escapes from the cops and continues her crime spree.

This is a mess. The bigger question is if it's a fitting mess. The premise is that Gwen is confused but the movie ends up confusing me. This is definitely ambitious and I can applaud that. It's just not done well. I do like the actors. I expected Isabelle to do two completely differing characterization for before in her flashbacks and after the diner. That should be the better path.

88 starts with our main character lost and confused in a diner, and through multiple story threads we find out how she got there and where she is going. That's all I want to say about the story, because the less you know the more I think you'll enjoy the movie.

I thought 88 had a very "Memento-ish" feel to it, in that by design the viewer is very disoriented and along the way you gather information along with the main character until the inevitable "aha" moment and climax. I thought the pacing was great, the actors did a terrific job, and while I have no idea what the budget was for 88 it felt like a major feature film.

Speaking of the actors, Katherine Isabelle OWNS this movie. I want to go back and re-watch, but if I'm not mistaken she is in essentially every scene in the movie. Plain and simple, 88 doesn't work if she doesn't nail her role(s), and she plays it to perfection.

Bottom line, 88 isn't The Godfather or Apocalypse Now, it's not going to win any Oscars or make billions of dollars. But if you're looking for an exciting movie with several WTF moments and a great performance from an under-appreciated star I strongly recommend it.

Short Review: This writer wrote a very positive review of American Mary (here on the IMDb) noting that it was not only a superbly produced and directed little indie, but that it finally gave Isabelle room to shine, and she was brilliant in it. The implication was that casting directors would take note and her next film would be a step up .... well, that did not exactly happen....

Longer Review: To understand this film you need to understand two things initially:

(a) The films made and distributed in the 1970s were a reaction by film-makers to industrial-quality and soul-less films produced in the 60s, possibly the last decade where the big studios from the 1930s still held sway. The films of the 70s -- now almost a "lost decade" to reviewers -- deliberately broke all the rules of editing, pacing, cinematography, continuity ... to be different, to make a point. As such, they succeeded, but they still were not especially good films, nor did audiences get much joy from them.

(b) what the Canadian and Austalian film industry have in common is that both are creatures of government fiscal policy, not responses to viewer demand. In other words, both were artificially created by bureaucrats. In the case of Canada, the industry lucked out when American producers, fed up with high costs and tough unions, saw a chance to reduce top-line costs by shooting in the North. While the Canadian industry is financially successful, and has spawned some excellent product, it still remains the easiest venue in which to produce knock-offs, bad sequels, and B-movies where the main goal is a successful financing and not necessarily a satisfied audience.

SO...

With these two concepts firmly in mind, I would opine that Isabelle's much-awaited followup to American Mary is, disappointingly, a weird and vacuous homage to the 70s style of film-making, featuring an incomprehensible plot, erratic direction and editing, and massive stretches with no dialog at all because -- frankly -- that saves even more top-line money for the production. That it was produced in Canada only serves to emphasize how this was at its core a financial exercise, not an artistic one. And to those reviewers who dare suggest that the presence of Christopher Lloyd and Michael Ironside somehow raises this to an A-class production, all I can say PA-LEEZE, the former is at a point in his career where any work is good work; and the latter has of late mainly become a voice actor for animation. (The fact that Ironside himself is Canadian and started his career by making Canadian films in the 70s only adds a new and un-needed sheen of irony to any discussion of "88").