Slipstream (2007)

Good , But It Is Overrated By Some

Am i the only one who thinks........Average?

The acting in this movie is really good.

It is an exhilarating, distressing, funny and profound film, with one of the more memorable film scores in years,

This movie isn't surreal and dream-like as some of David Lynch's work (like Mulholland Drive), nor is it visually entertaining. It's neither suspenseful nor intriguing. It's just senseless and illogical. There are some very good actors, but otherwise, there's nothing positive I can say about it. I'm not sure why Anthony Hopkins wanted to make something like this, I would have expected something better from such a great actor. After all, when great actors like Charles Laughton in his later years directed a movie, it turned out to be excellent.My advice to anyone thinking about watching this? Don't waste your time, there are plenty of better movies to see.

Absolutely brilliant! Whether or not it was Sir Anthony Hopkins's vision this is, hands down, the best representation of a BSD psychotic episode I have encountered. If folks are curious about what it feels like to have a Bipolar delusional episode this is a wonderful depiction. Can't put more into words about how this moved me. I highly recommend it!Cinematography and editing made for truly dreamlike scenes. The lability of time in this film allows the viewer to have a more intimate connection to the main character. One can feel the confusion and fear and experience empathy for the main character. Some scenes and language although likely disturbing to young and very elderly viewers, depicted the type of mental images/anxieties one might experience during psychosis. I felt relief that someone out there found a way to use media to explore these things. Great for (stable) persons with Bipolar Spectrum Disorders and their loved ones.

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!!!!

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.