Mission 88

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!

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.

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).

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