Slipstream

This is a great surrealist movie, probably the best in years, a true gem which will become a cult classic. No wonder many people hate it: one has to open his mind to understand and enjoy it.

If you routinely switch your creative self off with the 'play' button on your DVD, you'll most probably hate "Slipstream". No peace of mind here. If you are expecting a certain plot and a regular story development from exposition to culmination, etc., you'll be disappointed.

Because this is a story of a story. A story that is not cut in stone once and forever but an open one, an unfinished one, unveiling in many different directions at the same time. It involves different scenarios, actors and real life people changing places, untimely side thoughts, personal memories, citations, flashbacks. Not an elaborate lynchian riddle, although it may remind you of one. 'SLIPSTREAM' IS ABOUT HOW OUR CREATIVE MIND WORKS, did you notice the title? It it about a process rather than about a product. A process that cannot be separated from the writer's own life (well, unless what he's doing is a calculated cynical imitation, of which we are seeing plenty) - and that can only be finalized by death. Given the writer is so old, his mind is freely tripping about past and sometimes the future. Logic and sequence are of no more weight here than his subliminal.

Some find 'clipping' visuals in movies disturbing. I would agree in most cases but not in the case of 'Slipstream'. How better can you introspect the creative process of finding the right scene and the right angle? 'He is waiting in front of a bright yellow sports car... no, acid slate green sports car... oh, may it be a violet car looking the other side?' Besides, the camera work is just very tasty and sometimes visuals are quite beautiful, the American landscapes near Vegas in particular.

Being a rich, thoughtful film of many layers, 'Slipstream' is by no means heavy going or dull - provided you do understand what it is about (see above). There are many memorable scenes (i.e. Slater's loaded gun monologue about the 'Body Snatchers') and little gems (like John Turturro shouting into his cell 'Cannot talk any more, I'm on someone's hard disk!'). Funny, sad, scary, absurd, lighthearted - the movie is true to life as a mixed bag of impressions. Think of Lynch's 'Twin Peaks', of Bunuel's 'Discreet Charm of the Bourgeoisie', some 'Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas', some Fellini's Amarcord - these are hardly direct analogies but just what comes to my mind in response to seeing 'Slipstream'.

Hopkins is predictably fantastic in his role. Slater, Turturro, Tambor deliver excellent performances. A special note must be made of Stella Arroyave who was so natural and rich I could not believe it was her debut role.

I have been a fan of Hopkins as an actor, now I'm also a fan of him as a director, and of his wife as an actress as well. A 10/10 movie without reservations. Do yourself a favour, make a break from stupidity and watch this movie with all your three eyes open.

Most 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.

I simply do not like Hopkins. I think he is simply dull and lazy, conditions that talent and experience cannot overcome.

We've seen him in projects where his personal inadequacies support the role ("Remains of the day"). And we've seen him deliberately pushed to the point of embarrassment and declaring that he would quit acting. Recently, it has been one tiresome disaster after another. Shucks, if Michael Caine can find himself again, why can't this guy?

Well, here is his shot at doing something that matters, and I have to give him credit for knowing that he is in trouble. This is an incredibly risky endeavor. It deserves a close look. He has decided to place it somewhere among "Naked Lunch," "8 1/2" and "Singing Detective." He has — apparently without much control — turned over the editing job to a guy that is a B-lister but who has worked with the Cohens.

I am convinced that a better editor could have made up for the fact that Hopkins simply does not understand those three films I note. The composition here is juvenile. I saw this with "The Tracey Fragments," which has less but competent narrative structure and more masterful cinema. I assume that Hopkins thought that frenzy would cover the emptiness.

I wish he would have looked at Jodorowsky or even Hopper's inverted experiment instead. Then his confusion would be an asset, and we would be better off. Failure is honorable; cheating is not.

Ted's Evaluation -- 1 of 3: You can find something better to do with this part of your life.

Look, I'm sorry if half the world takes offense at this, but life is confusing enough. I don't need to watch it that way. I dig Anthony Hopkins, big time. I even watched Fracture, and I knew that would be a steaming pile of Quentin. But this thing is not well shot, and it's not daring--even if it is artsy. Well-produced films have reasons for cuts and fast edits, not this "oh, but it's a realistic interpretation" excuse. This thing'll make your head hurt. It's the fastest moving picture ever to take you nowhere at all. I still love AH, and I'll always give him another chance, but if you aren't made of time to watch bad ideas on screen, skip this.

As Sir Hopkins was the first to admit: this is a strange film. Because of Slipstream's structure it is both extremely easy and quite difficult to "spoil" the movie, but suffice to say that it's the story of a very mixed up screen writer. It takes a fair amount from films like 8 1/2, Muholland Drive, and Adaptation, but it's quite different any of them. For better or worse, the editing style is by far the most distinctive feature of the film. Every editing technique known to man is utilized in a short time. Perplexing and subliminal imagery abound, and it would take many viewings to try and decode it all. I found the editing style interesting and generally well done, but it does get tiring after a while.

The cast is superb. There are no huge names here, but Hopkins combines seasoned and well versed character actors with complete unknowns. His part in the film is central but actually takes up surprisingly little screen time, and his performance is subdued. Hopkins emphasized that he saw this film as lighthearted and poking fun at Hollywood. There are certainly some funny scenes, especially on the film set, but this is far from a comedy.

The film is a deeply personal one. Hopkins was on hand to introduce and answer questions about his film at the Seattle Film festival, and he made it clear this is precisely the film HE wanted to make. With few willing to finance such an unusual picture, he put up his own money. When the backers he had tried to put strings on the production, he got rid of them and bankrolled it himself. This is a film meant to be interpreted and understood on an individual level. Hopkins has his own meaning for the film, but we're expected to form our own.

This will doubtlessly be a divisive movie. I guarantee it will gain a cult following with time, and I also guarantee a large portion of the audience will HATE it. Don't go into Slipstream expecting a typical Anthony Hopkins film (if there is such a thing), don't go into it expecting any kind conventional narrative, and don't go into it expecting another Muholland Drive. Whether you view Slipstream as self indulgent trash, or creative brilliance; it's nothing if not unique.