IMDb > SideFX (2004) > Reviews & Ratings - IMDb
Top Links
trailers and videosfull cast and crewtriviaofficial sitesmemorable quotes
main detailscombined detailsfull cast and crewcompany credits
Awards & Reviews
user reviewsexternal reviewsawardsuser ratingsparents guidemessage board
Plot & Quotes
plot summarysynopsisplot keywordsmemorable quotes
Did You Know?
triviagoofssoundtrack listingcrazy creditsalternate versionsmovie connectionsFAQ
Other Info
box office/businessrelease datesfilming locationstechnical specsliterature listingsNewsDesk
taglines trailers and videos posters photo gallery
External Links
showtimesofficial sitesmiscellaneousphotographssound clipsvideo clips

Reviews & Ratings for
SideFX More at IMDbPro »

Write review
Filter: Hide Spoilers:
Index 7 reviews in total 

11 out of 14 people found the following review useful:

A good variation on zombie movies.

Author: Chuck Straub from Mansfield, CT USA
18 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.

Was the above review useful to you?

5 out of 6 people found the following review useful:

Not Good

Author: rstef1 from Sarasota, FL
29 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.

Was the above review useful to you?

7 out of 11 people found the following review useful:

A Good Try

Author: alrightguy1728 from United States
31 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.

Was the above review useful to you?

2 out of 2 people found the following review useful:

Ecstasy drug, but no ecstasy to be found

Author: Gislef from Iowa City, IA
7 May 2008

*** This review may contain 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.

Was the above review useful to you?

4 out of 6 people found the following review useful:

Bad student flick

Author: siderite from Romania
24 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 :)

Was the above review useful to you?

4 out of 7 people found the following review useful:

Dracula Film ?

Author: whpratt1 from United States
27 June 2006

*** This review may contain 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 !

Was the above review useful to you?

7 out of 13 people found the following review useful:

i laughed all the way through this movie

Author: angelycan from United States
25 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.

Was the above review useful to you?

Add another review

Related Links

Plot summary Plot synopsis Ratings
Awards External reviews Parents Guide
Official site Plot keywords Main details
Your user reviews Your vote history