User reviews

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.

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 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.

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.

"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 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...

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.

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.

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.

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!

...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.

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!

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.

There are several reviews here that suggest a meaning but don't state it. If you know what this movie meant, please explain. Without an explanation, this is a tedious, irritating movie. With an explanation, I've go no idea.