Michael Ledo 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.

rstef1 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.

Chuck Straub 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.

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.