Slipstream (2007) User Reviews

Bizarre, Challenging and Experimental

[imajestr · 6/10 · 15 April 2008]

Slipstream is a film written, directed and financed by Anthony Hopkins. If you've seen the previews you will know this looks to be a bizarre film, but I assure you, it's far more bizarre than the trailers make it seem. It's not for everyone, and any viewer has to have a great deal of patience to watch it. Don't expect your typical movie here, and that includes the traditional concept of a plot: Rising action, climax, falling action/conclusion. The movie twists from place to place and never gives much in the way of answers. Towards the very beginning a man runs out of his car and screams, "We've lost the plot!" In a way, that's exactly what this movie is about, but it's never exactly clear what happens in terms of character, or even what the plot is exactly.

Like a Lynch film without his signature twist where the "real world" is suddenly revealed, this film barrels onward into an incredibly strange experiment in film. If you're not into experimental films, or films that give questions and absolutely no answers, DO NOT SEE IT, YOU WILL NOT ENJOY IT. Even if you're into art films or films like David Lynch's, there's no guarantee that you'll like it, but I suggest you give it a rent. If you invest some time in it, I think the randomness starts to take form and meaning, but you have to be patient enough to invest that required time.

Again, to reiterate, if you're not into experimental films, skip this one. To those that are: Rent it, but watch it with an open mind.

A Bit Pretentious and Not Much of a Mystery, but Remarkably Accurate and Worth Thinking About

[mstomaso · 6/10 · 11 October 2008]

Be forewarned... this entire review is a spoiler. It should probably be read AFTER, you've seen this movie.

A Bit Pretentious... Slipstream jams as many postmodern cinematographic clichés as possible into a relatively small package - and throughout the film we are vaguely aware that Director/Writer Hopkins is poking fun as the genre, directing, writing and therefore, indirectly, at himself. This is an art film which seems to parody and pay homage to other art films. Yet Slipstream - if you GET IT - is actually entirely linear. Is this simply modernist gimmickry clothed in postmodern garb, or is it REALLY Hopkins' attempt to make a cinematic joke, as he has said? Is this simply arrogance? Does Hopkins really think that the very serious matters the film involves can be appropriately examined comedically?

I do not believe Slipstream is a joke, a bit of arrogance, or a gimmick. But I can not explain Hopkins' attitude toward the film either.

Had Hopkins strictly followed a post-modern formula, he would have situated himself more completely within the film's metanarrative. However, he denies us this. The one postmodern trope Hopkins is VERY careful to leave out is reflexive self-examination. For me, this artistic decision was aggravating, and I suspect that it will be similarly annoying to anybody who understands what this film's central theme is really about. However, the film itself IS reflexive and in the most obvious manner possible - an important, and jarring, component of the film is the film (Slipstream) being made within the film (Slipstream), with Hopkins (the actual screenwriter and director) himself playing the screenwriter. I will return to this important detail at the end of my review.

Not much of a mystery.... If you have ever intimately known somebody who suffered a severe brain injury, you will understand virtually everything in this film immediately, and you will understand the central plot five minutes after it begins. If you have not, you are more apt to compare the film to better postmodern efforts such as Inland Empire, Elephant Man or postmodernism-influenced pop films such as Memento, The Truman Show, etc. While the comparison is structurally sound, the major difference is that Slipstream is actually about ONE THING - a major brain injury. If you understand Slipstream, these comparisons appear entirely superficial. Rather than creating a feeling or mental state (like Lynch) through impressionism, or playing clever games with chronology, perception, etc, to enhance an otherwise simple set of concepts and stories, Hopkins plays a kind of insider joke which those who have known hemorrhagic stroke victims and other sufferers of major right hemisphere brain injuries will get.

Remarkably Accurate.... This film is a REMARKABLY ACCURATE portrayal of the interior life of a man who has had an acute brain injury. The fact that this man is screen-writer whose most recent effort is being mishandled by a production team of absurd stereotypical Hollywood incompetents is, perhaps, the only truly comedic aspect of the film - but it also an allegoric comment on the subject's experience. The only other possible interpretation (and either one works perfectly in the world of severe brain injuries) is that the film (entitled "SlipStream") is nothing more than a red herring created by the brain-damaged screenwriter as he begins to lose his grip on reality and his perceptions (film being an analogy) spin out of control (as does the film being shot within the film).

Which brings me to an interpretation which, perhaps, explains the joke Hopkins was attempting to make. Not knowing Hopkins (the person) very well, my reader should understand that this is the only part of this review which is abject speculation.

Perhaps Hopkins is reflexively telling us that all of this postmodernism is a result or akin to brain damage (or the societal equivalent). I wouldn't put this level of social criticism past him - the man is certainly brilliant, but, unfortunately, I think we'll never know. And perhaps this is the most postmodern and mysterious aspect of this actually very simple story which has been exploded into a vastly complex thing simply through the method of its telling.

Slightly pedantic but somewhat entertaining

[Polaris_DiB · 5/10 · 16 April 2008]

This movie is yet another example that just because something is stylistically unique and even rhetorically clever, the end result may not really be that much. Anthony Hopkins directs a movie about Anthony Hopkins writing a movie that's taken over by a character actor and re-directed. In theory, this is all happening in Anthony Hopkins' (okay, the character Felix, but really it's just Anthony Hopkins) head at the moment he gets hit by a car. In other words, it has its references and basis in a long history of similarly stylized metafictional works from "Blood of a Poet" through David Lynch to "Adaptation." Only it really isn't all that interesting, or even very good.

Basically, expect to get bored of all the self-referential camera jumps and effects quickly. From the moment the movie begins through the moment it ends, it is non-paced entirely by camera clicks, jump cuts, and purposeful breaks in continuity (later the movie gives reason for this by explaining that the script continuity supervisor was fired). Though this movie is called Slipstream Dream (with the Dream struck out, giving some evidence that Hopkins may have read "House of Leaves", which is cool), I wouldn't call it very dream-like because it's too excessively cinematic. Despite that particular species of film critic who claims that all film is dream-like, very few movies actually successfully pull off a dream- or trance-like state, and this movie definitely, definitely isn't one of them.

One thing Hopkins IS good at, however, is performance, and he gets similar good performances out of his cast. This is a good thing, because long after the stylistic editing has ceased to catch our attention, the characters are actually expressive and interesting enough to hold us through until the ultimately pedantic ending. And for many viewers, the ending will be a relief because it explains so concisely it doesn't really leave that much need to re-watch the film to "figure it out", so to speak.

Overall, I didn't actually mind watching it, and I think it's somewhat entertaining in general, plus I think people who are unfamiliar with this genre of film-making will find it fascinating. But there is SO much out there that is like this, only better. So if you were compelled by this movie, see some Lynch, Roeg, the like. And if you were not, don't worry, it wasn't that "you didn't get it".

--PolarisDiB

A classic "mess with your head" movie.

[McGonigle · 20 February 2007]

Sir Anthony Hopkins writes, directs and stars in a good old-fashioned "warped reality" movie. Hopkins plays a screenwriter who's revising the script of a movie called "Slipstream" as the movie is being shot. Needless to say, the line between fiction and reality swiftly blurs as characters from the movie start appearing in his real life, and we keep reliving the same scenes from different angles. It's nothing we haven't seen before in the works of David Lynch or Dennis Potter, but Hopkins keeps the action from flagging and provides a surprisingly emotional climax. Definitely worth a look if you like this sort of movie, but I don't expect to see it at too many theaters besides the hardcore art-houses.

A movie version of Alzheimer's disease

[real_hiflyer · 1/10 · 19 February 2008]

A confused mess from start to finish. Like they used to say about the Beatles'songs, there was a secret message if you played the LP backward. If one had the patience to watch this films scenes from finish to start, you'd come away with the same degree of disappointment.

Apart from all of this psychedelic hodge podge of flashbacks and false starts, the clearest characters were the movie backers, out for revenge if the movie didn't get sorted. There was nothing to like about these two either. Overacting, shouting and threats were delivered in comic book fashion. I think one dimensional was an overstatement.

Okay, so maybe the artsy types are rolling their eyes reveling in the fact that unlike them, we plebeians just didn't get it. Well I'm afraid there was nothing to get. And the two cardinal sins of any bad movie carried from start to finish. A non-existent and pathetic story line if you want to call it that, and by far the worst, not a single character you cared about in the least.

Extremely weird and jumpy

[tyche7-1 · 3/10 · 21 April 2008]

Personally I did not like this film very much at all. It was tiring trying to follow what was happening as the movie jumps around every 3 seconds. I kept thinking it would possibly stop and show some continuity but alas it didn't - the entire movie was like that. The cast is good and the acting was good but the plot sucked. It didn't draw me in enough to keep my attention. There is barely enough plot for how long the movie is (and it's only 90 minutes). To be honest, the only reason I finished the movie was because I had something else to do while I watched this. I would not recommend this to anyone unless you have severe ADD. I was disappointed.

Comment on the Slipstream movie

[Winchester_Girl · 1/10 · 18 August 2008]

This movie was a disappointment. I was looking forward to seeing a good movie. I am the type of person who starts a movie and doesn't turn it off until the end, but I was forcing myself not to turn it off.

Theonly reason why I didn't turn it off was because I am a huge Christian Slater fan and I wanted to see him act in it. I was really speechless after I finished watching the movie.

This movie was one of the worst movies that I have seen in my life. Thank you Christian Slater for putting some humor into it. If you hadn't been in this movie I would of been bored out of my mind.

I also agree that Anthony Hopkins needs to stick to acting. By the time the movie was over I didn't even get the plot. I was both confused and annoyed.

prepare yourself for this one

[slavewire · 6/10 · 19 February 2008]

i really wanted to like this movie even knowing that it would be a little complex and abstract. but after about 15 to 20mins i switched it off. it's not that i thought it was a bad movie, but complex and abstract were taken to a whole new level here. and i'm very into my artsy independent movies, but this was too much if you're looking to follow something that makes any kind of sense, at least for the first 20mins... but after reading other reviews on here, that doesn't seem to change much. this is definitely a movie to watch when you're in the right frame of mind and have a general idea of what you're getting into for the next hour and a half.

"I have a question: Who wrote this piece of crap?"

[Myssi from McF · 1/10 · 19 February 2008]

Yep, the topic is a straight quote from the movie and I think it's pretty accurate. I was so bored to dead with this pointless effort. All the flashes etc. making no sense after first 20 minutes is just bad film making + If you are epileptic, you would have died at least five times already. Of course all the David Lynch fans would raise a flag for this kind of turkey to be "the best film ever made" because it doesn't make any sense AND when it doesn't make any sense it's got to be art, and art movie is always good. Right? I say WRONG. This kind of artificial art grab is just a pathetic way to try to show that you're a good film maker. Anthony Hopkins as a excellent actor should just stay acting.

Abstract painting done as a movie.

[emdoub · 6/10 · 25 May 2008]

There is no coherent story here, so don't expect one. This film is to storytelling as abstract art is to portraiture - as a viewer, you may feel and guess at what the director's trying to say, but most of what you get from this, you'll have to dig deeply for.

There are fine (if occasionally and quite intentionally overplayed) performances here. The editing can be remarkably annoying, with flash cuts that you'll need to replay in slow to understand, and some intriguing shifts - a car changes color repeatedly, a shirt changes pattern, and probably more that slipped by me. Hundreds of brief scenes, some of which are clearly imaginary, others indeterminate, with some wonderful humor sprinkled throughout.

In the 'making of' feature on the DVD, one of the actors tells the story of reading the script, then calling the writer/director to ask what the movie's about - after a 40-minute conversation, he claims to have understood. I think I need to call Sir Hopkins up myself - I'm sure I could use some of that explanation.

I strongly prefer representational art, so this movie will never be one of my favorites, but it gets 6 stars for the skill and subtlety with which it was crafted.

Terrible

[jojo195713 · 1/10 · 24 April 2008]

I love Anthony Hopkins as an actor so I was very interested to see how he would do as a writer/director. I could not have been more disappointed by this move. The movie was so disjointed and the cinematography was so over done to the point I wanted to pull the plug out of the wall. The actors were very good but it was such a waste of talent. Not all actors are cut out to be writers or directors and clearly Mr. Hopkins falls into this category. Of all the movies I have ever seen in my 50 years, this is absolutely the worst movie ever. Please do us all a favor Mr. Hopkins and stick to acting, which you are excellent at, and leave the writing and directing to those who are talented in those areas. If I could give this movie a rating less than one I certainly would.

A truly strange motion picture

[michaeldhopkins · 8/10 · 30 May 2007]

As Sir Hopkins was the first to admit: this is a strange film. Because of Slipstream's structure it is both extremely easy and quite difficult to "spoil" the movie, but suffice to say that it's the story of a very mixed up screen writer. It takes a fair amount from films like 8 1/2, Muholland Drive, and Adaptation, but it's quite different any of them. For better or worse, the editing style is by far the most distinctive feature of the film. Every editing technique known to man is utilized in a short time. Perplexing and subliminal imagery abound, and it would take many viewings to try and decode it all. I found the editing style interesting and generally well done, but it does get tiring after a while.

The cast is superb. There are no huge names here, but Hopkins combines seasoned and well versed character actors with complete unknowns. His part in the film is central but actually takes up surprisingly little screen time, and his performance is subdued. Hopkins emphasized that he saw this film as lighthearted and poking fun at Hollywood. There are certainly some funny scenes, especially on the film set, but this is far from a comedy.

The film is a deeply personal one. Hopkins was on hand to introduce and answer questions about his film at the Seattle Film festival, and he made it clear this is precisely the film HE wanted to make. With few willing to finance such an unusual picture, he put up his own money. When the backers he had tried to put strings on the production, he got rid of them and bankrolled it himself. This is a film meant to be interpreted and understood on an individual level. Hopkins has his own meaning for the film, but we're expected to form our own.

This will doubtlessly be a divisive movie. I guarantee it will gain a cult following with time, and I also guarantee a large portion of the audience will HATE it. Don't go into Slipstream expecting a typical Anthony Hopkins film (if there is such a thing), don't go into it expecting any kind conventional narrative, and don't go into it expecting another Muholland Drive. Whether you view Slipstream as self indulgent trash, or creative brilliance; it's nothing if not unique.

Gives Us No Connection To Its Cryptic World So That We Can Feel A Part Of It

[jzappa · 6/10 · 21 August 2008]

What Hopkins does succeed at with this effort as writer and director is giving us a sense that we know absolutely no one in the film. However, perhaps therein lies the problem. His movie has a lot of ambition and his intentions were obviously complex and drawn from very deep within, but it's so impersonal. There are no characters. We never know who anyone is, thus there is no investment on our part.

It could be about a screenwriter intermingle with his own characters. Is it? Maybe. By that I don't mean that Slipstream is ambiguous; I mean that there is no telling. Hopkins's film is an experiment. On the face of it, one could make the case that it is about a would-be screenwriter, who at the very moment of his meeting with fate, realizes that life is hit and miss, and/or success is blind chance, as he is hurled into a "slipstream" of collisions between points in time, dreams, thoughts, and reality. Nevertheless, it is so unremittingly cerebral that it leaves no room for any hint of emotion, even to the tiny, quite rudimentary extent of allowing us a connection with its characters.

I didn't think the nippy and flamboyant school of shaky, machine-gun-speed camera-work and editing disengaged me, but reflecting upon the film I am beginning to realize that it had a lot to do with it. There are so many movies of the past decade in which the cuts or camera movement have sound effects as well as other atmosphere-deteriorating technical doodads. I suppose in this case it was justified in that its purpose was to compose the impressionistic responsiveness of dreams. However, I knew barely anything about Slipstream when watching it, and I came out the same way. And I just do not care, because Hopkins made no effort to make us care. There are interactive movies, and there are movies that sit in a rocking chair and knit, unaware of your presence. Slipstream is the latter.

Anthony Hopkins on Slipstream: "I Did It As A Little Joke."

[Mr_Saxon · 3/10 · 22 February 2008]

Given the chance to write, direct and star in my own movie, I would probably choose something about robot women with guns. Anthony Hopkins, however, decided to make possibly the strangest movie anyone has ever seen. "Slipstream" is a movie that is so strange that even David Lynch would probably look at the person next to him and say 'What's going on?'.

This is a movie where, in one scene, a man crosses the road towards a yellow car facing to the right which suddenly changes into a pink car facing to the left. This is a movie where two characters have a conversation interspersed with shots of random people laughing and insects climbing up walls. This is a movie where a man starts talking about "Invasion Of The Bodysnatchers" only for the actor of that particular movie to suddenly show up as himself (and then disappear into thin air).

This is a movie that decides to throw the need for a coherent plot straight out of the window and use fifteen different edits whilst doing so, as well as changing from black and white to colour for seemingly no reason at all.

I must, however, commend Mr Hopkins for his choice of actors in this movie (some of whom portray multiple characters). All of those involved throw themselves into their roles, even if they probably have no idea what they're actually doing. My favourite here was Christian Slater's thug in a hat who was impressively menacing whilst babbling nonsense and singing the American national anthem.

Anthony Hopkins has been quoted saying that he did this movie as a joke and that's possibly the best way to sum up "Slipstream". It's a joke on the audience. You'll watch it from beginning to end, trying to understand what is going on and hoping that the answer will come, only to discover that the answer never actually does. What the punchline to this particular joke is, only Anthony Hopkins will ever know.

I mentioned David Lynch earlier and I'm a big fan of that particular director. I would guess that Anthony Hopkins shares my love for the likes of "Twin Peaks", "Blue Velvet" and "Lost Highway". However, "Slipstream" isn't as satisfying as any of the movies of Lynch despite imitating many of his techniques (although I was surprised to discover that nobody talks backwards in "Slipstream"). It's far too chaotic and random - as another reviewer here pointed out, it's the movie version of Alzheimer's disease. No doubt there are a small number out there who are able to watch this and draw something from it. Unfortunately for the rest of us, "Slipstream" quickly becomes an annoying and confusing experience that was only made due to Hopkins' involvement.

Watch at your own risk.

Captivating on a level I don't Understand

[seraSmi · 8 March 2008]

A little while into this film I started thinking 'wonder what IMDb message boards' are gonna say about it and am I ever going to figure out what the movie is trying to say. Anyway, I made it through the entire movie without once looking to see the time left on the movie. I was afraid to look away from the screen in case I missed something that was gonna start to make sense.

I was thinking 'I hope the DVD 'making of' has someone explaining what is going on'. But I ended up watching the whole thing, all the way through the credits, where at the end there is a sort of addendum to the ending of the film. And while the interviews kinda explained it, it also showed that every one of the actors and people making the movie all couldn't understand the script and had to read it several times.

I still haven't really figured out the exact meaning; but then I think there are several ways to look at what happened. And then there's my new impression of Anthony Hopkins that I'm never gonna get out of my head.

He wrote that script. I was kinda less afraid of him as Hannibal.

I'm looking at him in a different light now. I still find him a great actor, but then there's this other side to him.

and I never looked at the time. So I guess the movie captivated me on a level I still don't understand.

Confused? - You will be.....

[Waldo_Pepper · 2/10 · 29 February 2008]

Oh dear... as an Englishman, and a small part Welsh, a fan of Anthony Hopkins' work in the industry..... to date, I am truly disappointed.

You see I am a nobody, who hoped for better. So my comments are as 'straw in the wind'. But, that's the point isn't it? - I have no axe to grind on the commercial value of a work. I, a full member of the great unwashed, go to see a movie to be transported to another place. To yes, suspend belief for a brief period. But not to enter a state of total disbelief.

Had this been by an unknown author and director, I would guess that this 'production' would have been castigated into oblivion. Unfortunately, its not, and I was left wide eyed and confused. Having seen some of the rave reviews given this work I am faintly worried....

Perhaps its that I try, without prejudice, to view each movie on its own merits. Regardless of author, director, studio or even the notoriety of the content.

My advice, as many before me: Don't Write and Direct the same production. It is fraught with danger. Movies need to be moderated to retain a semblance of credibility.

As they say in school reports "Could and can do better..."

Self Indulgent Trash

[mirabile5 · 1/10 · 29 March 2008]

This movie was a complete waste of time.

I viewed this movie with a group of cinematic enthusiasts, who have varied taste in movies yet always a keen eye for a work of "genius" (as one of my fellow commenters on this site had the gall to label this steaming pile…); not one of them found a single redeeming quality. We ended the movie with a rousing chorus of expletives I will not reprint here.

I can only guess that the positive reviews provided here were written by Sir Anthony Hopkins, himself. Afterall, as one of those reviewers will tell you, he financed the film himself – because no one else in Hollywood or anywhere else in the world, for that matter, would risk a single penny or their good name in association with this film. Don't let the semi-famous actors who appear in the film lure you into its clutches – as Christian Slater admits in the special features "making of" he signed on to the film without reading the script or knowing any details (a folly I am sure he will never repeat).

I pity the hapless individual who stumbles into this quagmire of self-indulgence written, directed, produced, and financed by a man who is too famous to admit to himself that not everything he creates is a masterpiece (and if you don't believe me please google "Anthony Hopkins" AND art).

Strange, yet no real redeeming qualities; i.e., a big dud

[D-Sligar · 1/10 · 11 June 2008]

I actually had quite high hopes going into this movie, so I took what was given with a grain of salt and hoped for the best. About 1/3 of the way through the film I simply had to give up, quite simply the movie is a mish-mash of stuff happening for no apparent reason and it's all disconnected. I love movies that make you think, but this movie was just a bunch of ideas thrown together and never really connected.

Don't think it's David Lynch-esquire as some would have you believe, it is nowhere near that realm other than some trippy visuals. Saying it's artsy to disguise the fact there's no apparent plot or story is just a manner or justifying why you wasted the 1.5 hours in the film. The acting was good, but that cannot save lack of story. I do agree with the one comment posted previously... "it's like being in some other person's head... while they're on drugs," in other words nothing makes sense.

Sweet Dreams are made of these...

[film-critic · 7/10 · 2 July 2008]

Edgar Allan Poe

Sir Anthony Hopkins jumps headfirst into the role of tri-fecta by directing, producing, and also creating the music for this random film that demonstrates the power of editing coupled with free thought. It is a simple story, but the way Hopkins narrates; he easily gives it a voice of his own as well as paying homage to several influential directors. As his wife produces and acts in this film, "Slipstream" transforms before your eyes from a confusing dream to a project of passion. As Hopkins gives you small puzzle piece after puzzle piece, the average viewer will immediately scrunch up their face, wonder where the explosions are, and not give this little gem an opportunity. This is not mainstream cinema. "Slipstream" forces the viewer to use your imagination, listen to the clues, watch the symbolism, and use every part of the brain possible. As this being a film by Anthony Hopkins it was surprising, for this critic, it was even a bigger surprise – "Slipstream" is a cranial film that kept me on the edge of my couch the entire one hour thirty minutes.

We Have Lost the Plot

Where did this film come from? Hopkins said that he had never written a film before, and I must say, this freshman outing hurt my brain more than any other film ever has. It wasn't that it was boring, dull, overly stylish, or cliché, it was just intelligent. There were scenes that just felt more surreal than – shall I say – real? The concept that Hopkins developed, the idea of a dream within a dream, translated well to both being dream-like to even more literally, a film within a film. He built an entire film around a small concept, a poem none-the-less, and he built it sans the big explosions, the linear storytelling, and the overpriced stars. For the first time in my possible review existence, I can say that I thoroughly enjoyed a particular scene involving Christian Slater and Jeffery Tambor. Pre-"Slipstream", one could never imagine the two being such a dynamic pair, but their words, their connection between themselves in that one scene was breathtaking. I had to watch it again just to ensure that I understood their language. It was as if Hopkins took a page from Tarantino's play book with Oliver Stone looking on, that entire "I'm Not a Crook" coupled with the entire Yogi Bear references just sent shivers through my spine. They were phenomenal, and I applaud Hopkins for giving them the words and emotion to create such a superb scene.

This Stone-esquire scene was just the beginning of something startling unique. Hopkins creates these scenes further within the film, never quite giving us that full taste of the real plot, but just enough to keep us guessing. This isn't "Remains of the Day" Hopkins or "Silence of the Lambs" Hopkins, this is a film utterly his own. The average viewer will not understand his darkened message about life and existence, but those cinephiles that enjoy challenging films will fall over backwards. Hopkins choice of editor also creates this world with fresh new brush-strokes. At times the jumps are spooky spiced with some brooding foreshadowing, but Hopkins creates a story with the jumps, the editing is a part of the story – choosing to ignore them will inevitably mean that you are missing the destructive nature of the film. "Slipstream" is a mystery; clues are heavily embedded in the language, characters, and choice of editing all created by Hopkins. It reminded me of a bit of "Primer" coupled with "Natural Born Killers", but uniquely Hopkins.

Overall, "Slipstream" came out of nowhere and proved to be an enjoyable hour and a half of unknown Hopkins. Just when you think you know his style, he creates something like this. The editing, the power of his actors (as small as they were), and his choice of language and sound blended a powerful film that will leave you guessing until the final moments – and even then, you may not capture the full scope of his message. This is a challenging film to watch. It isn't you straightforward storytelling or compelling characters, and in fact, Hopkins is only in about half the film. It is the idea of using the tools around you to create a non-linear story based with a film of a film. If that sentence doesn't hurt, than you may not be ready for this film. That isn't to say Hopkins film doesn't have flaws – it isn't perfect – but it was intellectually powerful. This is a thinking-person's film, Hopkins realizes it, but he doesn't talk down to the average viewer. He creates scenes and emotions that literally come out of nowhere, leaving you in the dust asking for more. Again, watch the Slater/Tambor scene to see what I am speaking about – surprisingly – it will knock your socks off! If this constitutes the new world of Anthony Hopkins, I cannot wait for his second outing. "Slipstream" took me back to an era where challenging cinema didn't go straight to DVD release, but instead found its way into mainstream and finally gave us something to pay nearly $10 for. If you are looking for explosions, scantily clad women, and product placement – go to any summer blockbuster – if you are hunting for something to ensure brain cells are not decaying – see "Slipstream", it impressed me from beginning to end!

Christian Slater/Jeffery Tambor 2008!

Grade: **** ½ out of *****

Unintelligible

[danny_rome · 1/10 · 3 March 2009]

This movie is once again, one of those movies that someone thinks or tries to make others think that they understood it. Anyone who tries to make any sense of this is a MORON! My advise would be to take TWO not one but TWO hits of very strong acid and at least you'll get a visual thrill out of it!! Although at the end you may kill yourself for wasting your acid!!!! Being that this comment requires 10 lines of info, let me write something for those of you that will try to defend the movie. Unintelligble. Garbage. Schitzoid. Waste of talent. Movie is ice, with paper on destination with ringing clouds, on a sunny dive in the pudding.... Sounds like lion in a red light with seeing hair. Now explain that to me!!!!

Anthony Hopkins makes a movie that's very good in small doses

[Jackpollins · 6/10 · 10 August 2009]

I've always liked Anthony Hopkins. That's why when I was looking at his filmography, I automatically went out to rent Slipstream when I saw it because I had no idea what it was. While watching this I had extremely mixed thoughts. A couple of words I was thinking this movie was is interesting, heavy, weird, ludicrous, entertaining, head-ache inducing, good but only in small doses, cool, great. The movie is a day inside the mind of director Felix Bonhoeffer (Hopkins). He thinks up Kevin McCarthy fan bank robbers, Ray (Christian Slater), and Mort (Michael Clarke Duncan), weird actors, and recent and past memories. The movie is only stuff going on inside his head. This gets a little old. The nice thing is the beginning leads to a great twist at the end. I think the twist saved a lot of the head-aches I got during the course of this movie. It's a movie that will be good if you watch it 10 minutes by 10 minutes. If you watch it at one time, it will induce major headaches. That's exactly why I watched it twice. The second time watch it at one time, it will really sink in with you. This is why I am recommending this movie with reservations. Those reservations being watch it in small doses the 1st time, and at one time the 2nd time, and be ready to switch your brain tunes every minute or so, because it will require different parts of your brain to fully understand this interesting but only mildly rewarding and satisfying film.

Road To Nowhere

[oscarhopkins · 3/10 · 2 October 2008]

Look, I'm sorry if half the world takes offense at this, but life is confusing enough. I don't need to watch it that way. I dig Anthony Hopkins, big time. I even watched Fracture, and I knew that would be a steaming pile of Quentin. But this thing is not well shot, and it's not daring--even if it is artsy. Well-produced films have reasons for cuts and fast edits, not this "oh, but it's a realistic interpretation" excuse. This thing'll make your head hurt. It's the fastest moving picture ever to take you nowhere at all. I still love AH, and I'll always give him another chance, but if you aren't made of time to watch bad ideas on screen, skip this.

Probably the best surrealist movie in years

[be-bop-795-4205 · 10/10 · 25 July 2010]

This is a great surrealist movie, probably the best in years, a true gem which will become a cult classic. No wonder many people hate it: one has to open his mind to understand and enjoy it.

If you routinely switch your creative self off with the 'play' button on your DVD, you'll most probably hate "Slipstream". No peace of mind here. If you are expecting a certain plot and a regular story development from exposition to culmination, etc., you'll be disappointed.

Because this is a story of a story. A story that is not cut in stone once and forever but an open one, an unfinished one, unveiling in many different directions at the same time. It involves different scenarios, actors and real life people changing places, untimely side thoughts, personal memories, citations, flashbacks. Not an elaborate lynchian riddle, although it may remind you of one. 'SLIPSTREAM' IS ABOUT HOW OUR CREATIVE MIND WORKS, did you notice the title? It it about a process rather than about a product. A process that cannot be separated from the writer's own life (well, unless what he's doing is a calculated cynical imitation, of which we are seeing plenty) - and that can only be finalized by death. Given the writer is so old, his mind is freely tripping about past and sometimes the future. Logic and sequence are of no more weight here than his subliminal.

Some find 'clipping' visuals in movies disturbing. I would agree in most cases but not in the case of 'Slipstream'. How better can you introspect the creative process of finding the right scene and the right angle? 'He is waiting in front of a bright yellow sports car... no, acid slate green sports car... oh, may it be a violet car looking the other side?' Besides, the camera work is just very tasty and sometimes visuals are quite beautiful, the American landscapes near Vegas in particular.

Being a rich, thoughtful film of many layers, 'Slipstream' is by no means heavy going or dull - provided you do understand what it is about (see above). There are many memorable scenes (i.e. Slater's loaded gun monologue about the 'Body Snatchers') and little gems (like John Turturro shouting into his cell 'Cannot talk any more, I'm on someone's hard disk!'). Funny, sad, scary, absurd, lighthearted - the movie is true to life as a mixed bag of impressions. Think of Lynch's 'Twin Peaks', of Bunuel's 'Discreet Charm of the Bourgeoisie', some 'Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas', some Fellini's Amarcord - these are hardly direct analogies but just what comes to my mind in response to seeing 'Slipstream'.

Hopkins is predictably fantastic in his role. Slater, Turturro, Tambor deliver excellent performances. A special note must be made of Stella Arroyave who was so natural and rich I could not believe it was her debut role.

I have been a fan of Hopkins as an actor, now I'm also a fan of him as a director, and of his wife as an actress as well. A 10/10 movie without reservations. Do yourself a favour, make a break from stupidity and watch this movie with all your three eyes open.

See kids its fun to have dementia...

[xylusw · 7/10 · 15 April 2014]

Okay there are a couple things you need to know and realize before watching this movie:

A: This is a film made by a guy who's entire life has been synthesized through movies and acting and being told what his emotion for a scene is.

B:There is a theory that some dreams are actually are a glimpse into one of our past lives.

C: This is a story written by a man who possibly knows he doesn't have much time on this earth left and wanted to get his voice out and maybe his own confusion out before the end

And finally D: the entire concept of the story is explained when the woman tells him about the slipstream towards the beginning of the movie right down to the man saying a dream within a dream. What if he is dead and is cycling back and forth through his time lines, with no apparent beginning or end just a rush of images he can not control. He is dead and trying to make sense of all that he has seen and is probably going a little insane because of it. This idea would also attribute to the movie being played backwards really fast at the end of the movie.

In the end do not take this movie too seriously, or try to think of some big meaning of it just sit back and enjoy the fun photography, of actors playing crazy actors and just having fun being each other in that sense it is definitely good for a watch.

Worst Movie Ever !

[diabloever · 1/10 · 3 September 2008]

I have seen bad movies before, but this one takes the "Worst Movie of a Lifetime" award by far !! Anthony Hopkins has to be completely mentally ill to have his name attached to this one - anywhere ! I will never see another movie with him in it, directing it, etc., etc. ! I can't believe the other actors & actresses that I liked, (in this picture), that stooped so low to be a part of this disaster ! There must be some great drugs out there ! For anyone to not be embarrassed to be a part of such a film, is beyond me ! Save your money on this one ! HUGE FLOP from beginning to end ! Shame on you Mr. Hopkins ! Also, shame on Christian Slater ! I can't believe you put your reputations on the line for this one !