Exoticalot People are voting emotionally.

MoPoshy Absolutely brilliant

Fairaher The film makes a home in your brain and the only cure is to see it again.

Jenna Walter The film may be flawed, but its message is not.

UK Shaun 'I'm Boo Boo. I'm the bipolar bear..' For some reason this line stuck with me, made me laugh.First impressions are less than favourable. How can I explain it? Slip Stream plays something like:Freeze frame, slow motion, fading from colour to black & white, overlay one frame on top of another, flick back & forth rapidly between frames. The experience feels like an intense eye workout. Who ever edited Slip Stream appears to have had a field day with an editing suite.Needless to day, Slip Stream isn't for everyone. It at least offers an interesting experiment.Slip Stream takes place in Vegas. From time to time, the camera pulls back to reveal the filming of Slip Stream, thus all those behind the scenes (cameraman, director etc) appear in front of the camera. Then there's those moments off set. While all this is going, the thoughts of those involved in the production are revealed in the form of brief cutaways. Needless to say, the line begins to blur. In this sense, it reminded me times of Inland Empire.

winopaul The most obvious example of a meth-film was Slingblade, the short, not the full-length movie. I am sure Billy Bob was locked in some bathroom after a 3-day run, with his gravelly meth-voice, and his creepy character talking to himself in the mirror. "Some call it a Kaiser blade, I calls it a sling blade." Other obvious meth-films are anything by David Lynch, Pulp Fiction, and now this Slipstream flick. But here is the thing. After Billy Bob did his three-day run, he went straight for a few weeks as he wrote Slingblade. As his dopamine levels returned to normal, he was able to make a relatively sensible coherent short film.Same for Pulp Fiction. I am sure that the crystal helped Tarantino chop up the time line and have all kinds of quirky speeches and strange happenings. But Quentin did get off the pipe long enough to straighten out, and made a mostly straight movie out of his dope fantasy. Indeed, maybe that is the difference here. Tarantino just snorted the stuff, whereas Hopkins is boiling it off a piece of tin foil and sucking up the smoke with a toilet paper tube.And not even the ingestion method would explain the stupidity of this film. See, this film was not only conceived in meth, it was written on meth, acted on meth, produced on meth, edited on meth, and they sure had to be on meth when they released it to the theaters.I bumped it up to a 2 since they have that black girl that was in the Law and Order franchise playing Bonnie. I love her and it was the only reason to watch this exercise in over-stimulation. I will admit that its nice to watch a movie that you don't even have to see the ending before you know it sucks. There is a certain integrity in that. Twenty one minutes to go, and I am not hopeful. Crap, I am missing Antiques Roadshow reruns for this. And the Roadshow has more of a plot and substantive narrative than this mess.Opps another reason to watch, John Turturro is in it, And OK around 35 minutes in, it almost turns into a movie instead of a visual flash fest trying to give seizures to Japanese schoolboys. Oh, never mind, an hour in and its brain splat time again.And for the next disjointed meth-fest movie, please add a gratuitous scene of an Abraham Lincoln speech "Four minutes and 7 years ago, our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new movie, conceived in drug abuse and dedicated to the proposition that grown men can act like children for eternity." Make sure he really sells the lines.

Freedom060286 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.

mstomaso 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.