ISRA 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!

"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.

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).

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.

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.