ISRA 88 (2016) User Reviews

In space, no one can hear you snore

[DavidBarak · 4/10 · 26 January 2021]

The good news: You don't have to pause the film for restroom breaks. The bad news: For the first 90 minutes you'll be praying for a weak bladder. The really bad news: Too much repetition.

The good news: The art direction. It's apparent that either a lot of attention was paid to make things look realistic as far as aerospace and science equipment. The bad news: The plot. Is there one? The really bad news: Too much repetition.

The good news: The cinematography. The bad news: Watching characters ponder things isn't very entertaining. The really bad news: Too much repetition.

The good news: The acting is good. The bad news: There isn't much acting. The really bad news: Too much repetition.

The good news: In one scene Casper Van Dien plays against type, 180 degrees out, and he nails it. The bad news: That was the only entertaining part of the film. The really bad news: Too much repetition.

The good news: It's only two hours long. The bad news: The ending. HUH? The ending was a bit abrupt and The really bad news: Too much repetition.

The good news: The movie ended. The bad news: The movie started. The really bad news: Too much repetition.

So much talent was wasted.

Original, with huge flaws.

[mgl-92037 · 3/10 · 27 November 2016]

I am a big fan of science fiction movies and television shows. This is unfortunate because almost all fare these days is completely devoid of any ideas, with none of the striving towards the new and strange which should be the hallmark of a science fiction production. I include virtually every big budget science fiction film, especially the new Star Trek, the Marvel films, and the NU Doctor Who. Huge amounts of money are spent to make complete drivel which is not even marked by interesting use of CGI.

In this desert of science fiction film-making, one finds an occasional excellent, original, well-produced movie. ISRA88 is not that movie. The acting is bad, the sets are bad, the science doesn't make sense---and yet.. ISRA88 has the germ of an original idea involving the multiverse, and incorporates a theoretical concept for propulsion which actually has been written about by scientists. I am referring to the "black hole drive". Someone on the team for ISRA88 had an interesting idea centered on scientific speculation, which is more than I can say for the entire team of Star Trek writers or Doctor Who writers. For this reason I rate the film at 3 stars. There is some merit. I would watch this film 5 times before I watch another Star Trek or Marvel atrocity.(I don't recommend that you try this, however).

In Space You Can Get Bored

[lentulus · 5/10 · 26 September 2016]

The slow pacing towards the beginning had me warming towards Mission 88, as the UK DVD issue is titled. The story concerns a mission to find "the end of the universe", a 13 year space journey by two astronauts, played by Casper Van Dien and Sean Maher, and the strange things that occur on the journey, and the tensions between the two men. Initially I thought, how refreshing,a science fiction film set in space that's not a mind-numbing, set your brain to auto blockbuster, and one that conveys perfectly the tedium and isolation of a long journey into space. Ever since reading Michael Moorcock's "The Black Corridor" when I was still at school, that simple theme has appealed to me. The atmosphere created even suggested that SF classic, Silent Running. Sadly, this film is no classic, and suffers from expecting too much from its audience, and is far too ambitious both in narrative structure and basic plot. Whether the plot revolved around multiple universes overlapping with each other, or a cataclysm caused by the ship reaching its "end of universe" destination, I am not sure, and towards the end I ceased to care. A great shame, as on the way there was much to hold the interest, some suspense and even humour. The Honeymooners spoof sequence in black & white was a pleasant surprise initially, but it led nowhere and did nothing. I couldn't work out whether the sets were low-tech on account of budget, or an integral part of the film's intended ambiance, though I suspect the latter, with songs like "16 Tons" and "The Letter" on the soundtrack. I can't rate a film highly that leaves so much interpretation to guesswork. 2001 A Space Odyssey, despite many reviews when it came out that were basically "What was that all about?", made perfect sense and was carefully plotted by a science fiction master. Plaudits here for a rare attempt by US film-makers to create something out of the ordinary, but writers and directors should run these things past somebody before time, money and effort is so wasted. Or was the film, like 2001 on first release, a little ahead of its time? I don't think so.

Dull

[laymonite-2 · 2/10 · 9 September 2016]

I thought the plot of this film sounded intriguing and was looking forward to a cerebral sci-fi. Unfortunately, it was incredibly dull and slow.

2 men are tasked with flying a spaceship to the 'edge of the universe'. There is no explanation of how this is possible, and forget explaining the trivialities like how they have gravity on the small rather dated looking vehicle with 'egg-box' walls, levers, green screen text terminals and flashing light boxes...

The film left me feeling like I missed the point, if there was one.

Watch the TV series Red Dwarf for a pair of similar characters in space as you'll get a lot of humour and actually far more interesting sci-fi.

Slow, boring and nonsensical

[scott_dunning · 2/10 · 15 September 2016]

This movie is incredibly slow with long drawn out sequences where nothing happens. The plot sounded interesting enough and I was happy to see Sean Maher (Firefly/Serenity) and Casper Vqan Dien (Starship Troopers) both of whom I like but the movie just fell short of being anything other than a waste of 2 hours. Ever the optimist I watched it right through waiting (praying) for something to happen but it never came. Chronologically the movie was all over the place and the ending, I hate being left thinking "is that it?". The sets had a '2001 A Space Odyssey' feel about them but even thinking that just kind of annoys me associating a cult classic which was ahead of it's time with this movie. I definitely would not recommend this movie. Cheers

The pits

[Leofwine_draca · 2/10 · 9 August 2018]

MISSION 88 is an incredibly slow and drawn out science fiction thriller that forgot to add in the thrills. It's a slow-moving enterprise about a couple of guys on a mission to the very edge of space, and possibly beyond. What this involves is merely a single location drama heavy on dialogue and short on action. Poor old Casper Van Dien, of STARSHIP TROOPERS fame, is one of the main players and does his best with the material, but he's as boring as the rest of the film. Adrienne Barbeau has a one-scene cameo which is pointless too. With no FX, no action, no suspense and nothing else to recommend it, this really is the pits.

One of the most stupid movies ever made

[Snootz · 1/10 · 23 March 2019]

This movie is somewhat interesting all the way through... right to the end of the totally senseless "ending"-- at which point the viewer realizes s/he has just totally wasted two hours of limited lifespan. What is expected to have a climax, an explanation, a reason for all the disjointed / out of sequence scenes winds up being nothing more than a plotless story flushed down the toilet.

Okay we get it. End of universe. Parallel universes. Space/time warp (maybe). There is a difference between concept and having a decent plot and story line. This movie is basically a few cliche concepts thrown together in an extremely slow, dull and lifeless manner. The lack of actual story structure is the dearth of this film.

Feel free to ignore the 10-star "Best picture ever" reviews as pure narcissistic "I understand it and you don't" tripe. There is nothing to "understand" in this film. It is two or three science fiction concepts thrown together in a total void of actual plot.

I hate to mention 2001: A Space Odyssey in the same review as this, because despite 2001's major flaws (totally incomprehensible unless one read the book first)... at least that movie had some extremely interesting elements. This movie is a yawner from scene one... with music to match. So bad that even the campy moments and mildly-sophisticated humor didn't pull this one out of the dumpster.

Some have compared this with Dark Star. Dark Star was a work of genius. This is... the exact opposite.

One star because zero isn't available.

BORING

[Seb-Neg · 1/10 · 2 February 2022]

That is 2 hours I will never get back. Looks like he crashed into a blank universe and got stuck in a time loop, not very original, the ending will leave you in a WTF moment.. Honestly, skip this one.

A confusing, pointless movie with bad acting and a bad script.

[harrythorpe · 1/10 · 16 September 2016]

I will not repeat the items others pointed out about this movie. I will add some points of my own.

Spoiler alert! If you continue reading, you will be presented with key elements of the movie.

I think the majority of the current scientific community would agree that our universe is finite yet unbounded; there is no end point. But let's assume there is. That point would be at least 13.5 billion light years from us. The ship would have to be traveling at a trans warp speed, yet the two guys are talking to a man on Earth in real time. Really? And there are absolutely no relativistic issues to deal with. They even have an odd looking observation area where they can watch objects zoom past them.

We had some background 'science' given to us, but it was lacking, to say the least. There was talk of equations that had numbers that were 'theoretical', beyond even imaginary numbers. There were lots of equations that daughter of Maude adjusted from time to time. She works best when just dancing to 'The Hustle'. Anyway, no one ever told us the why of it all.

It was a curious thing that there were two experiments, one with bees and the other with an electric eel. The objective was to study the effects of a weightless environment. Trouble is, the guys seemed to be working in an environment with standard Earth gravity. Odd that no one thought of the why here.

The hardware in the ship was very strange. The monitor for watching old sitcoms was something from 1958, and used a wired remote control. Most people reading this have probably never even seen a wired remote. We are led to believe that the command center was just there for the pilot to play with, and did not really do anything. There was nothing on the ship that looked remotely modern; it looked more like left over pieces of hardware from 'Lost in Space'.

The plot? Well, I did not notice one. I really gave this movie every chance. Boring, boring, boring. Long, very long scenes where nothing of any importance happened. I wonder that the director ever asked 'how does this scene move the story along?' Things happened with absolutely no explanation. The characters changed their basic personalities, and the end made me angry. No one could think of something interesting to happen, or at least make the audience think? Really?

I walked away from this movie wondering why anyone bothered to create it, much less why anyone would bother to watch it. Two words of advice: run screaming.

That's two hours of my life wasted.

[blondJasper · 1/10 · 2 October 2016]

I saw this movie on the DVD rack at my local supermarket, and as I like space/sci-fi adventures, and it had a picture of the Space Shuttle on the cover,I spent £7 to buy it.Worst decision of the year by a long way!The vast majority of the running time consists of two astronauts wandering aimlessly around a set that looks like it was left over from a school play, and that's about it. Perhaps I missed something (I certainly didn't see the Space Shuttle at any time during the film) but as far as I could tell there is no plot other than a vague 'attempt to reach the edge of the universe' wherever,or whatever, that might be. I suspect the people responsible for this mess were trying to make some profound point about space, time, mankind, or some other deep concept but they have failed and the film is dull, pointless and totally without merit. If that hasn't put you off, I've got a second-hand DVD going cheap...

Mind warping

[paulbaylis-78979 · 8/10 · 3 June 2019]

Although a "sci-fi" movie, I'd call this more of a psychological thriller within a science setting. It is very well acted. Empirical science takes somewhat of a back seat to inner, psychological aspects of what is happening to, and within, these two men as they zip through space at 5 million miles per second.

The movie gets you thinking, and keeps you thinking the whole way through. If you like your movies all laid out on a plate, this isn't for you. You have to earn your satisfaction with this movie. But there are various points of the movie that give you a break with some humour interspersed. And the top notch.acting is a enjoyment on its own.

My young children were captivated by the movie and stayed with it to the end, offering their comments and thoughts about what exactly was happening. which doesn't say much for those complaining that ts was boring and/or slow-moving.

The ending was curious and you'll be thinking about it while you're dozing off to sleep, and probably the next morning.

Not really a space film - not for everyone

[Khymaeri · 6/10 · 3 November 2016]

This is a weird film. It would probably make a better play. The space mission depicted is entirely unrealistic and the story told is revealed in a non-linear, disjointed way. So if you get past that description, and you aren't looking for something along the lines of 'Gravity' or 'Sunshine' it's not so bad.

But. It's kinda slow. It takes a while to work out what really is going on and what the film is interested in. The space aspect of it really is incidental, the film 'Moon' might be a reasonable comparison (another film that would probably work well as a play...) The final scenes are devastating if you've stuck with it. It's well-acted, I thought, with a peculiar retro-future feel that some people may find appealing. I nearly gave up on it about twenty minutes in but ultimately I'm glad I didn't.

This film is extremely disappointing

[balthesaur · 1/10 · 4 June 2022]

"Isra 88" is about Lt. Col. Harold Richards (Casper Van Dien) and Dr. Abe Anderson (Sean Maher), who are sent into space on a mission to reach the edge of the universe. In their ship, that looks like a soup bowl, they hurtle through the black until there are no more stars to see.

This film was a huge let down. I had hopes that having Rico from 'Starship Troopers' and Simon Tamm from 'Firefly' would make for a decent watch, but this is a very long, very slow build to a unsatisfying ending. There are periods in the film that attempt to be humorous, but its pained and only adds to the surreal confusion of why the script is written like this. There is also a terrible CGI element with honeybees throughout that makes it even more ridiculous.

I played this at 1.5x speed and still thought it was too long. Avoid at all costs.

What a premise...

[Catracho0227 · 1/10 · 24 July 2021]

...and what a flop! What space agency sent these two morons into space? A cowboy and a pot head. At one point I thought his name was A. Moron but later I saw it was Anderson. I couldn't even find a spoiler in this film. What a waste of time. DON'T WATCH IT!! It's a shame, it was a good premise but a horribly written story. "Dr Abe Anderson" ends up being a married junkie.

(Not-surprisingly) underestimated

[Dusan_Indjic-Luigi · 5/10 · 21 September 2016]

Had to write the personal view on this one, primarily to point out the level of the movie-subject underestimation. Firstly I would like to put aside typical movie-quality scales, like story-line (dramatization, scenario), length, acting, effects, so on. Its abstract subject is the one and only, but truly deep, thing that one should build opinion on. And from the beginning I didn't expect anything, but the artistic (maybe even post-modern) conceptualism. The exotic subject type explored before several times in the theatrical pearls like: "2001: A Space Odyssey" (it is slow too, simply to let us "imagine"/"trip-on" on many allegories in the movie), "Dark Star" (parody to the aforementioned), Tarkovsky's "Solaris", maybe even "Event Horizon". All mentioned are now spread over a half of century of movie making... Says enough about artistic freedom of such movies. And just to make it clear: I'm not comparing, except in artistic (and scientific) non-conclusiveness. Not a small bite for the makers only looking through that prism. The subject of the end of the universe itself is scientifically in the theoretical edge of modern cosmology and (even) some cognitive sciences to the measure of hard core artistic approach. And the one we have here bravely joins in - abstract and non-understandable. The boundary of space-time ends where it begins, could also be a holographic projection of Big Bang omega point or n-dimensional Klein-bottle perpetual knot.... Who knows? Trust me: not even Hawking nor any other cosmologist today. But, oh, what a great way to let our imagination construct (often wicked and far-out) narration! From time to time, we need to "brain-out" on this subject. So, let's not be harsh nor judge on this one neither!

WOW!! Does this movie make you think!!

[burntmattr · 1/10 · 7 April 2019]

I couldn't help but think. Why on Earth did I waste 2 hours on this Crap... I'm ashamed to admit that I made it to the ending.

Garbage: noun; /gahr-bij /anything that is contemptibly worthless, inferior, or vile.

[derek-a-charette100 · 1/10 · 15 April 2021]

This is what happens when people who can't grasp the concept and laws of quantum physics / quantum theory attempt to make an ''intellectual'' movie that is specifically focused on quantum mechanics. This is just like making a war movie when you know NOTHING about war or military; or like the fools who invest their life savings in a restaurant with zero experience, al because a few people told them they make a decent pizza, then visited by the fairy of good ideas, telling them, ''Open a restaurant.'', only to go bankrupt in 8 months, and can't seem to understand why they failed.

This movie takes basic ideas from movies that were successful, and attempts to make a coherent, relatable and incapsulating movie, but instead they just present an idea salad with no purpose.

DON'T BOTHER!

Its slow but somewhat interesting

[tombyrne-71182 · 5/10 · 7 July 2017]

Its not like 2001 its more like the Truman Show or Groundhog day. Not as funny but interesting and more twilight zone like. You do start at the end with an interesting in reverse mixed with alternate reality voyage. I found it interesting and sort of got what they were going for.

It does boil down to time and two personalities plus events chronology . I liked the music the foreshadows. The repetitive nature of each day was kind of interesting. I fell asleep and had to finish it next day. So there is that, its a thinking movie if you like those. It got you thinking about how weird it would be to know when and how someone dies and interacting with them ahead of time...Its OK

Boring, stupid, useless.

[steve3803 · 1/10 · 21 September 2016]

I really don't know why I finished this movie. The only thing it has going for it is the cover art. I kept hoping it would get better, but when it was over I was relieved to be done with the P.O.S. Just look at the cover art and dream up your own movie for 5 or 10 min, then go do something useful. Or go re watch a good sci-fi movie you haven't seen in a while. You would have more fun stepping in dog do with new shoes than watching this movie. There are practically no special effect and very little action. There is much repetition. I bet it didn't cost more than 50000 to produce this. If I could give it a a negative rating, I would.

Pointless movie without a real plot

[The_Swedish_Reviewer · 1/10 · 16 October 2016]

I was looking forward to see this movie and Casper Van Dien is a great actor for the most part. But seriously this was a total waste of time. I can't imagine why someone wants to make a film like this one. I kind of liked the low tech feeling from 70-80's but the few things that actually happened were so weird and really made no sense so I lost my interest after a few minutes. It reminds me a little of "400 days" which also was a nice creative attempt without a good ending, although ISRA 88 is far more weird. The budget was obviously low and the effects and CGI very poor. That's not necessarily a bad thing, many movies today are bloated by all CGI. However in this case it only underlines the low quality. This movie left a bad taste of confusion and amateurism in my mouth.

An intellectual masterpiece

[darkphase · 10/10 · 17 June 2017]

If you don't have a background in science or psychology I can see where you might not enjoy this movie. I have a university degree in physics and found it brilliant from beginning to end. Not all the physics works, but that shouldn't be a deal breaker because filmed entertainment never gets all the physics right. And I'm not a big fan of the Many Worlds hypothesis, which others have postulated this movie tends toward (read up on the theory of Eternal Inflation if you want to know what's really out there).

So, spoilers ahead: What's depicted in this movie is what takes place between two people who agree do to something no one should ever be asked to do. In a universe different from our own, in an era where the rest of their technology is approximately equivalent to where ours was in the 1970s, the scientists have figured out a way to travel through space at a billion light years per year. When the astronauts achieve their goal (breaking through the edge of their universe), multiple universes (and times) begin to merge into their own. But by then, having spent 13 years in space together, the astronauts' mental health and ability to interact has eroded to zero. As other reviewers have noted, the movie begins at the end and (for the most part) moves backward in time, showing with riveting effectiveness how the astronauts descend into their own, and their interpersonal, mental collapses.

Other reviewers have posted a big "what the hell" about the ending; final major spoiler: The movie ends in a universe where the the scientist (Dr. Abe Anderson) is not selected for the mission. The reason being that in his universe his wife has not left him, therefore he fails the mission planner's criteria: a pilot who only cares about flying and a scientist with pretty much nothing left to live for.

This is way underrated for a saturday tv sci-fi film

[fortionat1 · 6/10 · 20 April 2019]

I actually thought this film was well done and quite entertaining and kept me interested long enough to watch to the end. Obviously has flaws but why it has such a low rating on IMdB is beyond me.. I guess if you paid for this at the theater I could see being let down some. But seriously it was well acted and had some excellent scenes as the hero Dr. Abe Anderson (played by Sean Maher quite well) went through mental gymnastics from reality to hallucinations and imaginations back to reality. I watched this on a rainy Saturday afternoon on tv and I am glad I did not read any think on this web site before I watched it. It was good.. it was entertaining and the story actually moved along nicely. 6 out of 10

dull

[crayvenrayven · 1/10 · 15 September 2016]

slow boring with no point.the movie went no where i kept waiting on something to happen.

finally just speed up the movie to x2 speed just to get it over with in hope that it will make some point or that anything would happen to make sense.

i would have to say this is by far the worst movie that i have watched in 2016 bouncing a ball against the wall is more entertaining.

i never have posted a review before but i felt compelled to try to save others from the pain of this boring headache inducing crap movie. this movie is so terrible that it has made my list of 10 worst movies of the decade. there should be a warning attached to the title warning people that it may cause drowsiness headaches and nausea

No man's sky: The Movie

[herbie-93614 · 1/10 · 16 September 2016]

It's not sci-fi. It's the exact contrary.

If you regard it as fantasy, it might become a little less unwatcheable.

And "the end of the universe". What does that even mean?

First I was baffled because the performances were so awful that I had to cry, but I am pretty sure they did their very best and never really stood a chance.

I couldn't even start to think of any meaning in the movie, as it lacked the cerebral stimulation that a movie without a point needs (like 2001: A Space Odyssey). The physics were so over-bend, that it destroyed any kind of illusion for me.

Apart from the poorly done CG, this flick has nothing to show. Bot does exactly that for nearly two hours.

Unforgettably forgotten.

p.s. The promised spoiler: It even has an attempted suicide scene (or ASS, for short).

Edge of the universe

[TheLittleSongbird · 3/10 · 7 August 2018]

Like a lot of sci-fi films, there are many genre landmarks that won't be named in order to be fair to 'Mission 8', although the genre has seen its fair share of stinkers, especially the low-budget ones. Have no bias towards films with low budgets, actually there are good ones out there that manage to intrigue and entertain regardless of flaws. The concept was a good one.

'Mission 8' is not among the worst films of the genre, SyFy and The Asylum's efforts will never be topped in terms of badness, and nowhere near among the worst films ever. There are a few alright points, though nothing comes off brilliantly. 'Mission 8' is still not a good film though at all, or at least to me, for the reasons described previously here. The problems are many and they override what 'Mission 8' succeeds (a little) in. It is not a case of watching the film with the intent to hate it, far from the truth. Actually wanted it to be halfway decent.

The acting could have been much worse than it actually was (though there is still not anything exceptional or awards worthy), with Casper Van Dien and Adrienne Barbeau trying their best and hardly being charisma free. Some of the music appeals and doesn't feel discordant or too much of a dirge (at the same time it's somewhat unmemorable and parts are intrusive).

In terms of the story, on the most part that is one of 'Mission 8's' biggest problems but it does pick up a little towards the end when it gets more eventful and intriguing.

However, the story takes far too long to get off the ground. Much of the film is very dull and has very little story to sustain the relatively short running time, no matter how much extraneous padding there was. There is nothing tense or suspenseful in 'Mission 8' and it is too ridiculous to get any fun and too muddled and cheesy to take it seriously.

Similarly, too much of it gets rather vague so the film fails to make sense frequently. The ending in particular is one of the biggest head-scratchers for any of my recent film viewings. There were a few nice ideas here in 'Mission 8', explored nowhere near enough. There is nobody to endear to, let alone root for, with such flimsy character development and so many irritating and barely logical decision making. The production values are drab and rushed-looking with afterthought-like effects.

Overall, not unwatchable but messy. 3/10 Bethany Cox