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).

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.