Slipstream

A world away from the 1989 sci-fi faux pas starring Mark Hamill and Bill Paxton that carried this movie title, this a low-budget film with an interesting cast. Most notably last seen in The Lord of the Rings, Sean Astin, Bosnian beauty Ivana Milicevic and Hertfordshire hardman Vinnie Jones.

However, despite being produced on a very limited budget, and in a remarkably short period of time (27 days according to van Eyssen), this film still remains watchable.

The script is good and delivery from Astin is excellent. Vinnie Jones plays…well, Vinnie Jones and Milicevic has her moments; only plot holes in the screenplay itself, written by Louis Morneau and Phillip Badger, let the actors down in important scenes of interaction.

This film doesn't have the same seamless flow that other time-playback movies like the fantastic Run Lola Run or even Groundhog Day or Sliding Doors has. Consequently you're never quite sure whether you actually give a damn about the characters or not.

It becomes apparent as the film unfolds that the director had to cut corners (the budget was repeatedly slashed according to van Eyssen) and gaping wide plot holes are hurriedly painted over with techno-babble and the extremely convenient occurrence of events.

However, despite these issues, the cinematography in places is excellent and van Eyssen uses inexpensive camera techniques very well demonstrating that stunning big screen effects can be achieved without a Battlestar-sized budget.

A little bit of background info putting this movie into context will make it much more interesting and it's an enjoyable example of the potential of director David van Eyssen.

Just watched this on DVD. Potentially a good idea, spoiled by woeful direction and some of the worst acting I have seen outside of a school play. Sean Astin puts in a reasonable performance and Vinnie Jones tries hard, but the rest of the cast was appalling. It's almost as if the principal cast was signed up, locations scouted, and then they knocked on doors at their locations and asked people if they wanted to be in a movie. The story had promise but it all fell in a heap. Awful. Time travel movies can tend to be disjointed, but if it's done well it all makes sense in the end. This makes sense it just doesn't seem worth the effort of watching. I ended up sticking with it till the end and was not rewarded for my efforts.

The first 10 minutes had me thinking this was one of the worst movies ever produced. As it went on it became more watchable and evolved into a quirky sort of interesting movie. There were some seemingly pointless scenes and some artsy for artsy sake bits, but the plot itself as well as some of the effects were actually pretty decent.

As for the acting, Sean Astin was as good as Sean Astin gets, take that for what it's worth and the seemingly unknown cast was fair with only a few who were brutal actors.

Overall, this was an interesting free watch, I might have walked away from a theater scratching my head mind you :-)

Slipstream obviously is a bad movie. Now there are two types of bad movies. The first is of the Steven Seagal-category: meant to be cheap fun, and that's what it is. Poor film-making, but somehow fun to watch. The second category is where Slipstream fits into: meant to be original, innovative and artful yet all you get is mere pretentious junk. A Steven Seagal-picture knows it's terrible but doesn't want to be any more than terrible. Slipstream tries to be terrific but is actually the opposite, so in the end it's annoying as hell. The whole movie you're thinking: whoever made this should be sent to prison for insulting the intelligence of man. To sum up some of the things that went wrong with this flick: 1) the director uses all kinds of advanced techniques, mostly derived from The Matrix, for no purpose at all (a little like Swordfish but a thousand times worse), 2) the acting is totally unconvincing, people dying everywhere and the protagonists behaving like nothing is the matter, 3) huge plot holes everywhere, 4) an incredible load of editing errors, 5) everything is ripped from other movies, 6) this is the worst thing I've ever seen, 7) you shouldn't watch it, 8) forget all the positive comments around here. Thank you.

It's not as awful as some people think, or as good as a few think.

In fact, the average rating of 4.6 is about right. I'd give it perhaps a little lower, about a 4.

It never ceases to amaze me how a Hollywood director will spend millions, even tens of millions of dollars or more to produce a film, and try to create an illusion, and then shoot it all to heck by getting sloppy and sticking an obvious wrench into the believability. Without giving any spoilers, I spotted two very obvious believability wrenches.

This is a film with quirky direction. I guess they tried to make it different. Well, I guess they succeeded.

I call it a "minor" time travel tale because that's simply how it feels.