Genres

Visitors Review

I M Buggy 2012-05-19 17:20:06

another case of self-indulgent grandiose babble

The viewer is immediately dropped into a world of psychoticabstract-reality. Apparently the production team thought that viewerswould 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 notinvest much emotional empathy or care, eventually the experience mightbecome meaningful. But-- why?!?!? Why would we the viewers have thatexpectation put upon us? The characters start with no introduction, nocharacter-development, and some vague stuttered-effect hint of what ishappening and what is to come. Make us care. They do not.

Amber Wilkinson 2012-05-19 04:46:45

What would have perhaps made an excellent short subject becomes a cumbersome, confusing and deeply unsatisfying mess of a vanity project.

2012-05-10 01:47:35

Excellent film

This film was very entertaining, but if you're easily confused or lacking a sense of humor I wouldn't recommend it.

lukn4frnz 2012-05-09 10:25:36

Congratulations Anthony - your movie tops my MOST AWFUL MOVIES list

Awful movie I want my dollar back I spent at the public library rentingthis posIt helped some when I watched a few minutes of the movie with Hopkin'svoice-over, and he's saying (and I'm not sure I'm quoting 100%accurately), "I made this movie for me. If people liked it, fine. Ifthey didn't, even better"Guess when you get to be rich and famous you can make crap like this. Ican't believe it's rated a 5.1 from other viewersEven I a nonactor could have made something a lot better than thisCrapola

mstomaso 2012-05-02 06:16:52

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

Be forewarned... this entire review is a spoiler. It should probably beread AFTER, you've seen this movie.A Bit Pretentious... Slipstream jams as many postmodern cinematographicclichés as possible into a relatively small package - and throughoutthe film we are vaguely aware that Director/Writer Hopkins is pokingfun as the genre, directing, writing and therefore, indirectly, athimself. This is an art film which seems to parody and pay homage toother art films. Yet Slipstream - if you GET IT - is actually entirelylinear. Is this simply modernist gimmickry clothed in postmodern garb,or is it REALLY Hopkins' attempt to make a cinematic joke, as he hassaid? Is this simply arrogance? Does Hopkins really think that the veryserious matters the film involves can be appropriately examinedcomedically? I do not believe Slipstream is a joke, a bit of arrogance, or agimmick. But I can not explain Hopkins' attitude toward the filmeither.Had Hopkins strictly followed a post-modern formula, he would havesituated himself more completely within the film's metanarrative.However, he denies us this. The one postmodern trope Hopkins is VERYcareful to leave out is reflexive self-examination. For me, thisartistic decision was aggravating, and I suspect that it will besimilarly annoying to anybody who understands what this film's centraltheme is really about. However, the film itself IS reflexive and in themost obvious manner possible - an important, and jarring, component ofthe 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 importantdetail at the end of my review. Not much of a mystery.... If you have ever intimately known somebodywho suffered a severe brain injury, you will understand virtuallyeverything in this film immediately, and you will understand thecentral plot five minutes after it begins. If you have not, you aremore apt to compare the film to better postmodern efforts such asInland Empire, Elephant Man or postmodernism-influenced pop films suchas Memento, The Truman Show, etc. While the comparison is structurallysound, the major difference is that Slipstream is actually about ONETHING - a major brain injury. If you understand Slipstream, thesecomparisons appear entirely superficial. Rather than creating a feelingor mental state (like Lynch) through impressionism, or playing clevergames with chronology, perception, etc, to enhance an otherwise simpleset of concepts and stories, Hopkins plays a kind of insider joke whichthose who have known hemorrhagic stroke victims and other sufferers ofmajor right hemisphere brain injuries will get. Remarkably Accurate.... This film is a REMARKABLY ACCURATE portrayal ofthe interior life of a man who has had an acute brain injury. The factthat this man is screen-writer whose most recent effort is beingmishandled by a production team of absurd stereotypical Hollywoodincompetents is, perhaps, the only truly comedic aspect of the film -but it also an allegoric comment on the subject's experience. The onlyother possible interpretation (and either one works perfectly in theworld of severe brain injuries) is that the film (entitled"SlipStream") is nothing more than a red herring created by thebrain-damaged screenwriter as he begins to lose his grip on reality andhis perceptions (film being an analogy) spin out of control (as doesthe film being shot within the film). Which brings me to an interpretation which, perhaps, explains the jokeHopkins was attempting to make. Not knowing Hopkins (the person) verywell, my reader should understand that this is the only part of thisreview which is abject speculation. Perhaps Hopkins is reflexively telling us that all of thispostmodernism is a result or akin to brain damage (or the societalequivalent). I wouldn't put this level of social criticism past him -the man is certainly brilliant, but, unfortunately, I think we'll neverknow. And perhaps this is the most postmodern and mysterious aspect ofthis actually very simple story which has been exploded into a vastlycomplex thing simply through the method of its telling.

Annlee Ellingson 2012-05-01 17:25:18

If consummate thespian Anthony Hopkins downplays, even dismisses, discussions about the "craft" of acting, then Slipstream, only the second film he's directed, betrays evidence that it's a subject to which he's nevertheless given a lot of thought.

Harvey S. Karten 2012-04-30 23:51:01

Even second-rate David Lynch and third-rate Federico Fellini is worth our attention.

2012-04-30 08:18:00

Just became number one on my all-time worst movie list

I like Anthony Hopkins and most of the other actors in this movie; I felt it had a great cast. Those who liked it may have read what it was about beforehand. Try watching it like most people, just seeing the trailer/commercial. You're led to believe Slipstream is more of a time travel movie where the person is sent into the past to change things they're afraid of, etc. (this definition of the word slipstream is stated by one of the characters talking to Anthony) but that never happens. So, with that introduction, and no information or sense of what his current life/reality is, you watch the movie trying to figure out which parts are past, present or possibly future. As it turns out, it's all "present" but you never really get that.I have a good sense of humor (I don't care for the "Three Stooges" type of humor, but today's type I enjoy) but I saw NOTHING humorous about this movie and didn't even realize it was supposed to be a comedy 'til after I'd seen it. I'm also not "easily confused" as a reviewer felt negative reviewers might be. When someone asks, for example, "Do you know the time?", it is generally understood to mean, "Please tell me the time if you know it" and the typical response may be, "12:35". However, another valid, but less expected (and less enlightening) response would be, "Yes, I do. Thanks for asking." This is sort of what goes on in this movie. When they said they lost the plot, since the movie is about people filming a movie, it's naturally assumed the person is referring to THAT movie's plot, NOT the one you rented ("Slipstream").Everything else I have to say against this movie has already been made clear in other people's reviews. All I can add is that we felt we'd lost that time we could've spent watching something worthwhile instead of this misleading waste of time.

zerobeat 2012-04-23 19:26:39

Don't mistake this for the 2005 movie of the same name!

I accidentally saw this movie. The TV guide showed the description asbeing the 2005 movie of the same name, where somebody can go back intime in 10 minute intervals and uses it to rob banks. From what I havesince read, THAT movie is a total piece of crap, although I guess I'llhave to see it someday (me loves the time travel).So several minutes into the film I'm still convinced there's gonna besomething about time travel coming!I thank Anthony Hopkins for being so self-indulgent. This is theopposite of a movie being made by committee, all watered down and lame.Sometimes it's just plain enjoyable (as with David Lynch) to be takeninto something so abstract (at least for most of the film, one isconfused 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 movieas being perfectly capable and active, wasn't asked to have a part inthe 4th version of Invasion of the Body Snatchers from last year (hedid have a cameo in the excellent 70's remake). Oh well, the latter tworemakes weren't very good anyway.

jojo195713 2012-04-23 01:45:54

Terrible

I love Anthony Hopkins as an actor so I was very interested to see howhe would do as a writer/director. I could not have been moredisappointed by this move. The movie was so disjointed and thecinematography was so over done to the point I wanted to pull the plugout of the wall. The actors were very good but it was such a waste oftalent. Not all actors are cut out to be writers or directors andclearly Mr. Hopkins falls into this category. Of all the movies I haveever 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 areexcellent at, and leave the writing and directing to those who aretalented in those areas. If I could give this movie a rating less thanone I certainly would.

2012-04-16 18:45:35

Absolutely unwatchable if you're prone to nausea

I love elliptical, even trippy movies. What I can't stand is an aggressive visual style, with shaky cam, flash cuts, 1-frame inserts, random images thrown together. My flicker-fusion threshold is slightly faster than average; I see florescent lights flicker when others don't. I also get sea-sick extremely easily.This made me sick, and angry. The first 7 minutes are a complete visual assault. I didn't get past them. This was edited, not by Hannibal Lecter (he has some taste) but by Multiple Miggs in the cell next door. Just because it's possible to hurt the viewer with these techniques doesn't mean you *should.*A must to avoid for the sensitive: Or, viewable only with a scopolamine skin-patch and sedation.update: I gave this a second chance. I found the rest to be as unwatchable as the first part. And, it's not even interesting thematically--life-as-movie? Come on. I don't want to watch actors improvise about How Confusing It All Is. I'm a big fan of metafiction like Adaptation. This was no Adaptation.

MaryAnn Johanson 2012-04-16 05:11:25

[S]o fascinating a failure that it's worth seeing...

thinkstrats 2012-04-09 20:11:24

One way of seeing this film is as a surrealistic stream of consciousness depiction of delusional episode.

Absolutely brilliant! Whether or not it was Sir Anthony Hopkins'svision this is, hands down, the best representation of a BSD psychoticepisode I have encountered. If folks are curious about what it feelslike to have a Bipolar delusional episode this is a wonderfuldepiction. Can't put more into words about how this moved me. I highlyrecommend it!Cinematography and editing made for truly dreamlike scenes. Thelability of time in this film allows the viewer to have a more intimateconnection to the main character. One can feel the confusion and fearand experience empathy for the main character. Some scenes and languagealthough likely disturbing to young and very elderly viewers, depictedthe type of mental images/anxieties one might experience duringpsychosis. I felt relief that someone out there found a way to usemedia to explore these things. Great for (stable) persons with BipolarSpectrum Disorders and their loved ones.

Susan Granger 2012-04-09 04:17:02

An avante-garde, admittedly experimental, absurdist, through-the-looking-glass glimpse of behind-the-scenes movie-making, it's the Mad Hatter's Tea Party.

Edward Douglas 2012-04-07 00:52:41

A visual masterpiece and an amazing achievement in cinematography and editing.

Jules Brenner 2012-04-06 08:24:45

The editing-on-speed renders Hopkin's "experiment" inacessible to the degree that the movie will be lucky if it makes two cents.

2012-04-02 20:26:27

Landscape of the Mind

How to convey that life feels unreal and meaningless ... not only feels that way, but can very likely BE unreal and meaningless? Perhaps one way is to make a movie that pulls viewers through unreal and meaningless moments ... and just as they think they can put something together into meaning, pull them back out into another mystery that can't be solved.I'm glad I rented Slipstream. I knew I was going to be in for a ride that would be disjointed and confusing in a movie in which characters comment about the movie itself -- "we lost the plot!" It's a landscape of the Mind. I appreciate that. My advice if you are going to watch it "Just go along, let yourself be pulled forward by the slipstream..."

MBunge 2012-04-02 05:12:35

By what standard can you possibly judge this?

SLIPSTREAM 2007Written and Directed by Anthony Hopkins. Starring Anthony Hopkins,Stella Arroyave, Lana Antonova, Michael Clarke Duncan, Gavin Grazer,Fionnula Flanagan, Jennifer Anne Franklin, Lisa Pepper, ChristianSlater, S. Epatha Merkerson, Camryn Manheim, Jeffrey Tambor, JohnTuturro and Jennifer Mann.I suppose when you are as old and as accomplished as Sir AnthonyHopkins, you should be allowed to do whatever the *bleep* you want. Ifwhat he wanted to make was a stream of consciousness bit of folderolabout the creative process and an old man's fear of mortality, who cangainsay that? Slipstream is not really a film. It's a collage ofimages, sounds and editing and camera effects. There's slow motion,fast motion, reverse motion, fades, wipes, dissolves…you name it, it'sprobably in here somewhere. The plot about an aged writer and anout-of-control film production doesn't make any sense, but it nevertries to and clearly isn't supposed to. There's an assemblage ofskilled actors put to work here, but they might just as well all bereading off the backs of different boxes of cereal. Old Hollywood actorKevin McCarthy shows up when the movie falls into this mobius loopobsession with the original Invasion of the Body Snatchers. Watchingthis thing is like looking through the eyes of someone with a worseningcase of dementia.What is there to critique about a film like Slipstream? It'sdeliberately and laboredly inexplicable and disassociative. There is noobjective standard to which this movie aspires or adheres, so there'sno utility in saying "this" is good or "that" is bad. A bunch ofstrange stuff happens and Anthony Hopkins wanders around on screen inwhat appears to be a fugue state. If that sounds like something thatwould blow your skirt up, have at it.

Josh Larsen 2012-03-30 11:12:42

...makes you long for a pretentious, arty student short. Because those are only about eight minutes long.

2012-03-30 09:31:04

Not bad--Horrible

First off I'm a huge Hopkins fan and while I can certainly appreciate innovative experiments in all art forms, the only artists that can deviate from the basics of any craft and effectively pull off a "new" film experiment are few and far apart.I believe Hopkins tried to do this very thing with his first directorial debut but failed miserably.The movie seems to try to plunge us into the world of what actors, film makers, and screenwriters might go through as they slug along trying to make sense of their life as film creators.The problem is who cares. We the viewing public pay to see a film that takes us into story and can suspend our reality for another.This film fails to establish that "other reality" and therefore is tedious and extremely boring. Reminds me of the stupid psychedelic films that have been long forgotten into oblivion of the 60's--but instead much worst.Those who found this movie entertaining or humorous must be either on drugs or are the type of people who laugh at senseless violence.The film editing and camera effects make up 3/4s of what the film is about and as a film maker myself, I was not in the least bit impressed.I have seen better editing and film effects from beginning film students.This film was obviously made to cater to those who can sit and lose themselves (perhaps with the aid of drugs) watching a mish mash of cut scene after cut scene of unorganized footage with the repetitive and god-awful-boring endless `déjà vu' references.One of the worst written, misdirected, poorly filmed, and edited efforts in years.What on earth was Hopkins thinking or better yet what medications is he on these days.