Slipstream Movie
Storyline
TAGLINES
I've got to get back.
"Slipstream" is a noir-comedy about an actor and would-be screenwriter, who at the very moment of his meeting with Fate, comes to discover that life is random and fortune is sightless as he is thrown into a vortex where time, dreams, and reality collide in an increasingly whirling slipstream. The film will be a complex, surreal and dreamlike tale of one man's journey.
| Stella Arroyave | Gina |
| Lisa Pepper | Tracy |
| Michael Clarke Duncan | |
| Dana Generally | Stand In |
| Saginaw Grant | Man at Gas Station |
| Gavin Grazer | Gavin |
| Anthony Hopkins | Felix Bonhoeffer |
| Christopher Lawford | Lars |
| John Littlefield | Burt |
| William Lucking | Det. Buzz Larabee |
| Kevin McCarthy | Himself |
| Ken Millen | Dr. Stu Cohen |
| Richard F. Putnam | Dan, Assistant Cameraman |
| Thell Reed | The Armourer |
| Michael R. Robinson | Mort |
| Anthony Hopkins |
5.50 out of 10 (1847 votes)
Visitor Reviews
Strange, yet no real redeeming qualities; i.e., a big dud
posted on 10 Aug 2009I 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.
The weirdest movie I have ever seen...not in a good way.
posted on 08 Aug 2009Okay...so i've seen a lot of really odd/unusual movies in my day. Fear and loathing in Las Vegas comes to mind when I think of that. Well not anymore...from here on out, whenever someone asks me, "hey, what's the most unusual movie you've ever seen?" Slipstream is what i'll say! And I do not mean "unusual" in a good way.From the very beginning of the movie, it was obvious that this was going to be one of those "trippy camera effect" movies. By that I mean, little things like flashing images on the screen, rewinding and fast-forwarding people's words and scenes, messing with the color on the screen, flash forwards and flash backs constantly...then you have the actual acting itself. People randomly get violent, shoot things/people, say the weirdest things that just don't make much, if any sense.The movie is about a writer who starts to intermingle real life with the book he's writing and for a lack of a better way to explain it, you basically see this "trip" he goes on throughout the movie. The thing is, Johnny Depp went on a similar trip in Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas but the only difference is that his trip was entertaining to watch, not painful! Honestly, I had a real hard time even finishing Slipstream. It kind of hurt my brain a bit.I can see some film buff making a claim as to this movie having certain cinematic nuances that make it not only unique but add to the feeling of dementia...blah, blah, blah. Point is, this movie hurts your brain when you watch it....it makes very little sense, it takes all of your concentration to even remotely try and understand what is going on and even at the end, the only thing you can be happy about is that it's over...and you can say you actually sat through it! So in closing, if you want to see a movie that will have you saying "what the heck" over and over again both out loud and in your head, go ahead and waste an hour and 30 minutes and check this out.Mr Hopkins, while I applaud you as an actor and commend your choice to take a stab at directing....please, do not ever make a movie like this again. Next time, try something that relies a little more on great storytelling than camera techniques that tend to leave the viewer with a headache.
A classic "mess with your head" movie.
posted on 29 Jul 2009Sir 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.
prepare yourself for this one
posted on 01 Jun 2009i 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.
Anthony Hopkins on Slipstream: "I Did It As A Little Joke."
posted on 24 Apr 2009Given 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.
One for the minds-eye
posted on 31 Mar 2009A brilliant work and watch for those fascinated with subconsciousness, dreams, hallucinations. One to see when you're in a suitable mood, preferably alone during the small hours, or at a night-cinema.- There's thousands of people who will absorb this experience and appreciate it, but millions who most likely will never even have a clue about it. Ah well, Many guitarists will always be disgusted hearing Jim Hendrix play. Many lover of jazz will suffer heart-attack if they'd have to stay awake on an all-night acid dance-floor. Some are fascinated by abstract paintings while others love the sharpness of a shiny apple on canvas... And thats okay. However, this movie isn't made to interpret from a rational standpoint.Here's one for the Mindseye...
Bizarre, Challenging and Experimental
posted on 27 Feb 2009Slipstream 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.
Self Indulgent Trash
posted on 15 Feb 2009This 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).
Extremely weird and jumpy
posted on 12 Jan 2009Personally 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.
Worst Movie Ever !
posted on 17 Nov 2008I 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 !
Unintelligible
posted on 09 Nov 2008This 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!!!!
An idiosyncratic portrayal of a mind under stress
posted on 26 Sep 2008If you're looking for something that's not too taxing and with a familiar Hollywood formula, it might be best to avoid this one.I freely admit that themes, allegories and so forth elude me in film literature and office politics, alike. While I basically understood this by the end, Hopkins' commentary was very helpful. Through the first viewing, I was fascinated and enjoyed it immensely. On second viewing with commentary, I was impressed with the manner in which this 'relatively unknown' writer and director attacked this very challenging subject matter. Hopkins' attempt to define the essence and inner workings of the mind in the circumstances in which the lead character finds himself is a remarkable piece of work. In my opinion, it is reasonable to compare this work with Fellini's 8 1/2.
Gives Us No Connection To Its Cryptic World So That We Can Feel A Part Of It
posted on 31 Aug 2008What 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.
"They're making a movie around here... somewhere."
posted on 11 Aug 2008Anthony Hopkins' psychedelic, enigmatic, comic, meta-cinematic headtrip is an engagingly personal vision of film-making from the inside out. its relentless visual and aural audacity and experimentation will no doubt leave some viewers bothered and bewildered, but, unlike say Tony Scott's Domino or Joe Carnahan's Smokin' Aces, here all the technical gimmickry and razzle dazzle is thematically justified by the strange and elusive story. here the hyperbolic stylizations constantly reveal subtextual nuances and narrative asides (like Oliver Stone when he's on his game... in fact, i can imagine some crass marketeer coming up with a tagline of: "If Oliver Stone and David Lynch teamed up to remake Fellini's 8 ½, it might look something like this..."). written, directed, scored by, and starring Hopkins, this is an uncompromised auteur's statement, and he's enlisted a strong group of supporting players to aid in the effort. (the cast includes John Turturro, Jeffrey Tambor, Christian Slater, S. Epatha Merkerson, and a cleverly hilarious bit part by Kevin McCarthy; the crew includes DP Dante Spinotti and editor Michael R. Miller.) it's film-making that never holds you by the hand, that tempers its darker and more uncomfortable moments with humor, wit, and bits of the absurd, and that's the type of film-making that suits me just fine.
Captivating on a level I don't Understand
posted on 28 Jun 2008A 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.
A flawed masterpiece
posted on 14 Jun 2008Most quick and flashy MTV-inspired editing is unbearable to me. Either it is one-dimensional like John Woo's 'Paycheck', where there is only one string of attention to follow, designed by the director, or it is a claustrophobic idiocy akin to the last fifteen minutes of Saw III - movies where the cutting of the movie or a camera movement has sound effects. I knew next to nothing about Slipstream when watching it, and was amazed to see a movie where quick editing felt open and refreshing. It is expertly made, with some of the most virtuoso sound editing you will ever hear, but instead of stress the quick cuts construct the brutal awareness of deep sleep. The movie itself is flawed, as it is a blend of two things. One is probably the original idea, a somewhat whimsy comedy about a movie writer interacting with his own movie. The other is the fantastic scenes that emerged, of which the early scenes with a traffic queue and a madman is the best example. It is made in a way that resembles the way our minds store strong memories, like those from the childhood. The acting in the movie is also great, with the exception of some overacting that is supposedly meant to show funny Hollywood movie producers and directors. But that belongs to the original idea, which Anthony Hopkins should have abandoned along the way, to instead develop the piece of art that this almost became.
Disjointed & disappointing!
posted on 15 Apr 2008What seemed as a good premise for a movie...unfortunately it fails to deliver on nearly every level. Very hard to follow at the start of the movie I actually found myself fighting the urge to turn it off the biggest problem from a visual aspect is the fact that the camera work is simply over the top with so many "arty" splicings and semi-subliminal cuts throughout the movie that actually distracts you from the from the overall story. It really tries too hard to immerse you in the moment and build to a suspenseful ending but the movie just has so many half conceived characters and non relevant script it just leaves you feeling disappointed and confused as to why they tried to go so deep with it.
Slightly pedantic but somewhat entertaining
posted on 09 Apr 2008This 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
another case of self-indulgent grandiose babble
posted on 01 Apr 2008The viewer is immediately dropped into a world of psychotic abstract-reality. Apparently the production team thought that viewers would be so committed that they would want to continue the experience. Honestly, it's quite annoying.Yes if you are bored and wish to simply let the movie run and not invest much emotional empathy or care, eventually the experience might become meaningful. But-- why?!?!? Why would we the viewers have that expectation put upon us? The characters start with no introduction, no character-development, and some vague stuttered-effect hint of what is happening and what is to come. Make us care. They do not.
Don't mistake this for the 2005 movie of the same name!
posted on 26 Aug 2009I accidentally saw this movie. The TV guide showed the description as being the 2005 movie of the same name, where somebody can go back in time in 10 minute intervals and uses it to rob banks. From what I have since read, THAT movie is a total piece of crap, although I guess I'll have to see it someday (me loves the time travel).So several minutes into the film I'm still convinced there's gonna be something about time travel coming!I thank Anthony Hopkins for being so self-indulgent. This is the opposite of a movie being made by committee, all watered down and lame. Sometimes it's just plain enjoyable (as with David Lynch) to be taken into something so abstract (at least for most of the film, one is confused as the main character). The film is enjoyable on a very different level the second time around.And it made me sad that 93 year old Kevin McCarthy, seen in this movie as being perfectly capable and active, wasn't asked to have a part in the 4th version of Invasion of the Body Snatchers from last year (he did have a cameo in the excellent 70's remake). Oh well, the latter two remakes weren't very good anyway.