Mission 88

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.

While very slow, this is a intricate and subtle look at isolation and depression. Both charters are payed well but while interesting, the investment one puts into finishing the film is not rewarded. While similar to Interstellar this film has more in common with Moon where a isolated human being wrestles with their own daemons on a shoestring budget.

Many reviews claim it's boring or dull, I can only assume these people have never read a book. Mission 88 is as slow as Rendezvous With Rama by Arthur C Clarke, bizarre like Feersum Endjinn by Iain M Banks and as poignant as Misspent Youth by Peter F Hamilton.

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.

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).

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.