 | |
List Price: $19.94 | | Label: Sony Pictures
Salesrank: 22215
Released: February 26, 2008 |
| Our Price: $7.95 |
| Used Price: $0.48 |
|
MPAA Rating: R (Restricted)
Media: DVD |
|
Editorial Review:
Aging screenwriter Felix Bonhoeffer has lived his life in two states of existence--the world of reality and the world inside his head. Hired to rewrite a murder mystery set in a desert diner and unaware that his brain is on the verge of implosion, Felix is politely baffled when the characters from his movie start showing up in his life and vice versa. Felix tries to maintain his equanimity as reality and fantasy collide in an increasingly whirling slipstream, while his memory banks fire off seemingly random references to songs and sci-fi movies from the Fifties.
Description of Slipstream:
For years, George Lucas has talked about going back to directing avant-garde films with limited commercial potential that would be bound to confound audiences. Venerable actor Sir Anthony Hopkins, 70, went ahead and did it with this daring, provocative dream-within-a-dream, movie-within-a-movie. Part David Lynch, part Pirandello, it throws viewers into the deep end of this "looking glass world" and "mad hatter's tea party." This much we know: Hopkins (who wrote, directed, and even composed the musical score) stars as a screenwriter, Felix Bonhoeffer. Most everything else is up for grabs. Slipstream unfolds in fractured fits and starts. Christian Slater and Jeffrey Tambor portray two actors in a wildly troubled movie ("the whole thing is going to hell in a hand basket" someone proclaims). John Turturro appears as a manic producer in a performance that makes his turn in Transformers look like a model of understatement. There is a Dolly Parton look-alike who introduces herself as "Dolly Parton Look-alike." Kevin McCarthy, star of Invasion of the Body Snatchers), turns up as a dottering incarnation of himself. There is an in-joke about "Hopkins" doing Hannibal 4. Fantasy and reality become interchangeable as Felix is visited by his characters ("You killed me in Scene 23," one protests. "I've got the script"). But that's only the beginning… or maybe the end, as the case may be. Slipstream is thrilling in a "what the what?" sort of way, and repeated viewings will reward adventurous viewers trying to plumb its secrets. --Donald Liebenson
Slipstream Reviews:
Hopkins gave up; copped out 
2008-10-06 - Anthony Hopkins could not have started to make the movie that resulted. This is someone unable to bare his soul; unable to commit to any one important concept that would open a window to the viewer; or allow the viewer "into" Hopkin's consciousness. A gutless collection of "isn't this a cute effect" bridge-to-nowhere-isms.
He is quoted at a film festival as saying 'he was just having fun," but why spend your (or investors) money to not even try to make a piece of art? I believe when his failure became obvious, Mr. Hopkins is hiding in the rationalization that "Well, I didn't really try to make a movie."
Surprising plasticity hidden in special FX.
Hopkins is as confused as his character 
2008-08-24 - "Slipstream" is a movie written by, directed by and acted in by Anthony Hopkins. It should be great. It is a stinker. Nowadays it has become popular to make surreal movies that leave the viewer guessing. It is overdone, in general, and especially overdone in this movie. There is a constant barrage of disconnected shots and sounds, leading more to confusion and boredom than to profound experience.
I'm still not sure what this movie was supposed to be out and was surprised when one commentator wrote that it is supposed to be a commedy [???]. If so, it's the most uncomedic comedy ever. The only thing I can figure about this mishmash is that it reflects the writer's [Hopkins] own confusion in making a confusing movie. It might be like an old "Twight Zone" film that was altogether better done. In the Twilight film characters at a diner are confused when they do illogical things, make stupid statements and then have to repeat them again. It turns out that they aren't real. They are the product of an overwrought author's imagination as he types pages of dialogue and action, only to toss them in artistic disgust and start over again.
Maybe that's the point of this movie but, if it's the point, it's seen through a very dark looking glass. Maybe Hopkins the writer is writing and rewriting his script and his 'actors', not knowing they are puppets on the writer's string, go through oftentimes idiotic actions only to have to repeat them again, better. Maybe but I'm not sure. I gave this one a second star because I think anyone with 'Sir' in his name needs better than a one star.
Ron Braithwaite author of novels--"Skull Rack" and "Hummingbird God" on the Spanish Conquest of Mexico
How I Went From Hating It To Being 'Interested' 
2008-08-05 - As most of you, I am a fan of Anthony Hopkins (unlike most of you I hated Silence of the Lambs as it seemed to me to glorify cruelity)
I started watching this film cold turkey and after 20 minutes, I was thinking "This is the stupidest, dumbest, most irritating pile of crap I have seen" and I turned it it off but out of respect I went to Anthony Hopkins commentary...and like Seinfeld, he admitted it was a filmm "about nothing', he just wanted to play with his imagination...First of all I could listen to him and/or James Earl Jones read the phone book and still love...but he makes some interesting philosophical observations..So it was like having dinner with Mr. Hopkins just 'for the hell of it'
Fun, but I would never watch it again...
WHERE DO I BEGIN?
2008-08-03 - Let me start by saying that I love Anthony Hopkins and when I saw that he had his hands into every part of this movie, I jumped at the chance to watch it. That turned out to be a HUGE mistake! I do understand what Hopkins was trying to portray but what actually poured from his mind onto film was erratic and disjointed. I hate to bash anything with Hopkins' name on it but I feel that people should be warned. (Stick with eating people Hopkins....please)
Sweet Dreams are made of these? 
2008-07-03 - Edgar Allan Poe
After being bombarded with previews for this film over the course of the past three months with whatever film I rented; the catchy Lennox song, the obscure language, and the idea of a dream within a dream all pulled within my mind so long, that "Slipstream" finally found its way into my queue - subsequently into my DVD player. Bravo to the marketing, its constant barrage of previews finally did break through my subconscious and I had to watch this movie. None the less, 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 playbook 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-esque 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 *****
