SideFX (2004) Poster

(2004)

User Reviews

Review this title
9 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
2/10
Ecstasy drug, but no ecstasy to be found
Gislef7 May 2008
Warning: Spoilers
This is an okay movie if you find yourself in awe of the local high school drama productions. Otherwise this movie is one you probably want to give a pass. Despite the promise of an ecstasy type drug (Ace), there's very little nudity or sex. Which is one of the plot holes of the movie: the drug seems to give about 30 seconds of sexual bliss, and then people start drinking other people's blood. So you have 30 seconds of great sex and then start killing people: who would take this drug? There's a toss away line about how the drug affects different people differently, but still, it hardly seems worth it.

The only decent sex-type scene is with Amanda Phillips solo. She manages to be more erotic with her clothes on (although how erotic can the drug be if you keep your clothes on after taking it?), then the other actresses who go topless. However, she doesn't seem to be hopelessly addicted. Phillips has some talent throughout, doing an amusing Renfield impersonation at some points, and conveying the paranoia of the drug in others. Hopefully she'll move on to bigger and better things.

The other actors are execrable. Todd Swift is the worst example, coming across as a poor man's Jake Busey. His character Matt has no redeeming social value whatsoever: moving in with his "friend" Tuesday (how that comes about is never explained), slipping her a drug, leaving her with the tab for delivery pizza, and casually blowing off the deaths of two of his friends. However, nobody else is any better, Ms. Phillips excepted. Swift just gets more screen time.

Plot holes abound. Tuesday apparently kills two of her friends, somehow tracking them several miles as they're driving in a car and passing over hundreds of other potential prey. As noted, the sex drug only seems to cause ecstasy for about 30 seconds. The zombie- victims go from bouts of insanity to perfect lucidity. Some of the zombie-vampires wear masks, which prevent them from actually biting people.

The movie also provides a near-perfect example of Chekhov's smoking gun maxim: the guys find a functional gun in an abandoned house for no particular reason, and you know they're going to end up using it later.

And despite their relatively short run time, the movie is hopelessly padded with scenes of people walking... and walking... and walking... and staring off into the dark trying to see something. And then more walking.

Production values are non-existent, and the flashback historical sequences seem to have been mounted by dropouts from the local SCA group.

Really not much to recommend for this one other then Scene 6, but you can watch for the unintentional camp value.
4 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
Not Good
rstef129 March 2007
Somewhere in this junk there is a good concept for a horror movie. A group of teens take a new drug that gives them an overpowering thirst for blood. A good script with a decent budget could spin this into something really frightening and effective.

Sadly, this is not that film. Among the myriad of problems encountered are: Terrible acting by most of the cast, including the lead "actress"; poor lighting in many, many scenes that leaves you unable to see what is going on (was this lit by candlelight?); badly mixed sound that renders a lot of the dialogue inaudible and occasionally provides a loud squawk of sound effects that grates on the nerves rather than shocking; and a poorly written script that meanders around, taking a break for a couple scenes of stupid teens doing stupid things and getting attacked by their stupid friends.

The final party scene is so badly shot that it is impossible to tell what the hell is transpiring. I'm guessing that it had to be shot in this slipshod manner because of budget constraints that show that only about eight people are at this "major" rave. The same nonsense happened in the even worse movie House of the Dead. Note to editor: no one is being fooled. It reeks of low budget badness.

The director seems competent, adding an occasional touch that works, but it's hard to tell if he really is any good with all the other problems. Avoid.
6 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
Another dog attack.
nogodnomasters3 November 2017
Warning: Spoilers
A drug makes people black out and crave blood. Matt (Todd Swift) is planing a party where he plans to distribute the drug.

The film was low budget so the party was no rave. The limit budget made the party small with no decent music whereas a larger budget would of had 100 people in costume, Billy Idol or NIN playing and tons of people attacking each other. Instead it was a whimper. The background information could have been presented a bit more interesting.

This was Amber Heard's first major motion picture for the large screen long before Johnny Depp used her as a punching bag.

Guide: F-word, sex, nudity. Available on a multi-pack if you don't want any extras other than other bad films.
3 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
i laughed all the way through this movie
angelycan25 January 2006
to summarize: i've seen better student films. terrible sound editing & dubbing (can we say 'onboard mic'?). cheesy editing, dialog, effects. shallow characters, major plot holes, continuity issues. bad compression flaws. was this shot w/ mini-dv? on the pro - the lead actress is pretty good. despite the horrendous quality of the movie, her skills come across pretty strongly. also - the 4 of us that watched it together laughed all the way through it. so as a comedy, i'd rate it an 11. and if you're looking for the mandatory gratuitous breasts shots & random lesbian moments (ie female objectification) of your classic senseless horror flick, this is the film for you.
11 out of 17 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Dracula Film ?
whpratt127 June 2006
Warning: Spoilers
This film starts off telling the audience about drug percentages in this country and explains about some university people who created a drug that makes people do way out things. The effects of this drug seem to stimulate the desire for red hot sex which leads to getting thirsty and not for a glass of water, but for something more colorful. In the first scene of the film you see a guy putting a few drops of liquid into a young blonde's cocktail glass and not too long after she takes off her bra and he and she do their thing together. Gals and guys get over heated through out the picture and there is a very stupid explanation as to why this is all happening, it is a date rape drunk that makes you want to do many more things than make love. If this type of film interests you, you had better view a good Christopher Lee film about Vampires, you will enjoy the film and certainly not this ONE !
6 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
A Good Try
alrightguy172831 January 2006
Once again at the local Block Buster's previously viewed section. I saw this film. It sounded like a clever vampire story so I gave it a shot. What's there to lose right? ($7.99) thats what.

The movies story was alright. The actor's and crew really seemed to try on this one.

The movies story wasn't too bad. I think most of the problem came from the budget. The effect's weren't very good but again budget! It looked like everyone's first film and for that I think they did a good job. It was very far from scary but had some nudity. The acting was far from great but again I think it was a lot of people's first film. The only thing that made this movie anything was one actress. She played the lead. She made the movie the best it could be. Her acting was easily the best in the film. Her level of hottness and acting forced me to give this film a 5. If you are bored and in the mood for something a little different then check this one out. All and all I think they did a good job with what they had. Plus there's a hotty in it.
7 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Bad student flick
siderite24 July 2006
As a film student attempt, it was OK, but as a movie, it sucked big time. The basic plot is that a drug that can be traced back to medieval times makes some of the people taking it to want to drink blood. So it's like a vampirism inducing drug without the super powers, teeth and fear of sun and garlic. Where does that leave you? To lots of bad actors with blood pills.

The lead was OK, the rest were just awful and so was the quality of the film itself, starting from sound, editing, camera movements, etc and ending with the dialogue and basic script. The major flaw of the movie, though, is that it's not scary. Some people found it amusing, I guess if one would be watching it together with intoxicated friends one could find it so :)
3 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
A good variation on zombie movies.
ChuckStraub18 March 2006
A good way to describe the plot of Side FX is to say it's a variation of a zombie movie. A new drug that's supposed to be 10 time better than ecstasy has a little side effect. It makes the user lose their normal state of mind and crave blood. By craving blood, I mean bite chunks out of other people's neck, arms, whatever, as a means of getting it, like the zombie films. The difference is that they can be killed just like you could kill a normal human being, but if you wait long enough the drug wears off. It's a nice variation on the living dead theme. This film was very well done for an Independent film company on a low budget. The special effects were good. The acting was OK and in the case of the main character "Tuesday" played by Amanda Phillips I thought it was pretty good. The special effects were effective. The music was good. All around I found it a very enjoyable movie. The second half of the movie definitely has the most action but there's plenty of blood throughout the film to keep the viewer on edge. It's a real blood bath. For horror fans, it's worth a viewing.
11 out of 15 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Only Two Great Things About This Movie: "Don't Do Drugs" and Amber Heard
dani_fz17 August 2022
Warning: Spoilers
I went into this movie for two reasons. The first was Amber Heard and the second was my familiarity with another one of Johnson's movies, Crushed (2009). I stumbled on Crushed more than a decade ago and I loved it more than I thought I would. In fact, I loved it to the extent that I recently re-watched it and still found that my love for it was not lost. So, when I went into this one, I had relatively high expectations - perhaps higher than most people's. And it's perhaps because of this that I found it to be quite a disappointment.

I mean, even while Crushed is not a masterpiece by any means and does have several issues that one has to gloss over if they're to enjoy it, its number and extent of problems do not by any means come close to those in this movie. Among the myriad of problems - mainly attributable to Johnshon as the director and writer - facing this movie are its poor editing, poor sound quality, sketchy dialogues, continuity problems, poor lighting, and poor casting choices (with the exceptions of Amber Heard, Eryn Brooke, and Marta Cross). One may, nevertheless, chalk these problems up to Johnson's having had less experience as a director at that time. Indeed, Crushed reflects a more mature and polished work from him suggestive of his having learned a bit from his past mistakes. Contrarily, some may attribute Crushed's appeal entirely to Natalie Dickinson's magnificent performance as Tara and maintain that Johnson's poor direction is simply just un-salvageable. Whatever the case, what I found to be impressive in both Crushed and this movie were the horror makeup and special effects which, to me, went above the poor quality of such effects that is the usual in B-rated horror flicks.

That said, even with the poor direction of the movie, several of its aspects (besides special effects) are praiseworthy. The first is Amber Heard's performance. She plays Shay, the best friend to the protagonist Tuesday (Amanda Phillips). Shay is a concerned and cautious friend that tries to act as the "voice of reason" for Tuesday by repeatedly begging her, without success, to avoid poor choices and the path towards horror that she's intent on taking. While Shay's presence is too minimal in her first appearance during the movie to make much of Heard's performance of her, her later appearances make clear the outstanding nature of this performance of her by Heard. For instance, in the scene where Tuesday decides to go to Sunset Park (the setting for the final showdown) to search for the creator of the drug (ACE) that's at the center of the movie's plot, Heard succeeds - and it shows despite the extremely poor editing in that scene - to be convincing in her concerns and and pleas to Tuesday not to go. This contrasts sharply with. Amanda Phillip's shallow performance in that scene.

Later on, Heard's authentic and emotional portrayal of Shay becomes increasingly apparent and captivating and she also succeeds in pulling off a "Scream Queen" scene in a manner un-comparable to the other actresses in the movie. But perhaps no other scene is as clear in evidencing Heard's distinction from nearly all of the other cast members than is the scene in which Shay is killed. In that scene - presumably under the influence of ACE - Shay tries to kiss and subsequently bite Tuesday but Tuesday gets spooked and defends herself by killing her. Indeed, in what may have been an early filmic hint to Heard's bisexuality, she impressively manages to pull in the viewer into believing that her comforting hug, strokes, and forehead kisses of Tuesday in this scene represent a romantic connection that is only then being revealed, before Tuesday's reaction promptly and shockingly disabuses the viewer of this notion. Thus, it is only through Heard's development of Shay's connection to Tuesday throughout the movie before this scene and her performance in the scene that the act of Tuesday killing Shay comes off as especially horrific and shocking to the viewer.

To summarize my views of Heard's performance in the movie, I'd say that if Johnson's casting choices were better, he should have reversed the roles of Heard and Phillips in the movie. The movie would have fared much better with Heard's talent representing Turesday than it did with Phillips' (no offense to Phillips). Anyone that disagrees with me here is free to look at the career trajectories of all the other performers in the movie in the years following it as compared to Heard's and they'll note that none of theirs compares to the upward trajectory that Heard's career took. The only other performers that I found to have performed at Heard's level were Marta Cross (as Monica) and Eryn Brooke (as Ashley) and, again, it's no surprise that at least Marta's career trajectory has been impressive as compared to the rest's.

Besides Amber Heard's performance, the other plus for the movie is its main message: avoid drugs, especially unknown ones. Johnson makes this message clear in the opening lines to the movie and in several dialogues in it such that it would be self-defeating for anyone to try to argue that it's absent. At a time when the USA was (and still is) plagued with a drug culture that essentially had been a public health problem for decades, I welcome such movies as this one for not just not having promoted it, but also having criticized and discouraged it.

I also have to commend the gender representation in this movie even though it does have its share of sexist stereotypes that go with Johnson's apparent attempts at catering to male (femme fatales) fantasies and sexual desires. For all the faults that one may level against Johnson's movies nevertheless, one that I think it would be unfair to level against most of them would be poor gender representation because women take leading roles, as well sizable numbers in the overall cast, in most of these movies.

In conclusion, while this movie fails in many filmic respects, its inclusion of Amber Heard, it communication of a positive health and social message, its above average special effects, and its commendable gender representation lead me to give award it a rating of 7 instead of one of a 4.
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews


Recently Viewed