sideFX

2004 "A fatal drug with a thirsty side effect."
3.1| 1h25m| R| en| More Info
Released: 19 October 2004 Released
Producted By: Hold It Now Films
Country: United States of America
Budget: 0
Revenue: 0
Official Website: http://www.holditnow.com/sidefx/
Info

Sex, drugs, and rock-and-roll will never be the same after a medieval sex drug makes a comeback on the college party scene. Everyone wants to try this "orgasm" drug but no one considers the side effects.

Genre

Horror

Watch Online

sideFX (2004) is currently not available on any services.

Director

Patrick Johnson

Production Companies

Hold It Now Films

sideFX Videos and Images

sideFX Audience Reviews

CheerupSilver Very Cool!!!
Jenna Walter The film may be flawed, but its message is not.
Sanjeev Waters A movie that not only functions as a solid scarefest but a razor-sharp satire.
Staci Frederick Blistering performances.
Gislef 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.
siderite 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 :)
whpratt1 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 !
angelycan 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.