Slipstream

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.

A brilliant work and watch for those fascinated with subconsciousness, dreams, hallucinations. One to see when you're in a suitable mood, preferably alone during the small hours, or at a night-cinema.

• There's thousands of people who will absorb this experience and appreciate it, but millions who most likely will never even have a clue about it. Ah well, Many guitarists will always be disgusted hearing Jim Hendrix play. Many lover of jazz will suffer heart-attack if they'd have to stay awake on an all-night acid dance-floor. Some are fascinated by abstract paintings while others love the sharpness of a shiny apple on canvas... And thats okay. However, this movie isn't made to interpret from a rational standpoint.

Here's one for the Mindseye...

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.

Slipstream is a film written, directed and financed by Anthony Hopkins. If you've seen the previews you will know this looks to be a bizarre film, but I assure you, it's far more bizarre than the trailers make it seem. It's not for everyone, and any viewer has to have a great deal of patience to watch it. Don't expect your typical movie here, and that includes the traditional concept of a plot: Rising action, climax, falling action/conclusion. The movie twists from place to place and never gives much in the way of answers. Towards the very beginning a man runs out of his car and screams, "We've lost the plot!" In a way, that's exactly what this movie is about, but it's never exactly clear what happens in terms of character, or even what the plot is exactly.

Like a Lynch film without his signature twist where the "real world" is suddenly revealed, this film barrels onward into an incredibly strange experiment in film. If you're not into experimental films, or films that give questions and absolutely no answers, DO NOT SEE IT, YOU WILL NOT ENJOY IT. Even if you're into art films or films like David Lynch's, there's no guarantee that you'll like it, but I suggest you give it a rent. If you invest some time in it, I think the randomness starts to take form and meaning, but you have to be patient enough to invest that required time.

Again, to reiterate, if you're not into experimental films, skip this one. To those that are: Rent it, but watch it with an open mind.

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.