Slipstream (review)

Get new reviews via email or app by becoming a paid Substack subscriber or paid Patreon patron.

This is a tough one to talk about. On the one hand, it’s failure, maybe even a disaster. On the other hand, it’s so fascinating a failure that it’s worth seeing, and worth seeing on a big screen because it’s the kind of film that works best — when it works at all — by dominating your attention in the way that only seeing a film in a darkened theater can. (Alas that it’s opening on only six screens in North America today.) Anthony Hopkins (Bobby), as writer, director, and star, has created a phantasmagorical journey through the psyche of his protagonist screenwriter (if we can even believe that much about the central character) that wends from an L.A. freeway road-rage incident during which bullets fly to a desert movie location where the director is losing a grip on his noirish story to an out-of-control actor (Christian Slater [The Deal], in one of his most interesting performances yet). Is Hopkins’ character slipping in and out of a movie in his imagination, or are we? Playing off the multiple meanings of “to shoot” and weaving in asides about lost plots and screwed-up continuity, snidely hilarious sniping at Hollywood phoniness (John Turturro’s [Transformers] hotshot producer is a hoot), and Twilight Zone-ish appearances by actors out of old black-and-white classics, this is a manic Bugs Bunny cartoon of a head trip that is more enigmatic than enlightening, more experience than explication. But what it loses in lucidity it makes up for in the persuasive confidence of its delusion.

(Technorati tags: , , , )

share and enjoy
             
If you’re tempted to post a comment that resembles anything on the film review comment bingo card, please reconsider.
If you haven’t commented here before, your first comment will be held for MaryAnn’s approval. This is an anti-spam, anti-troll, anti-abuse measure. If your comment is not spam, trollish, or abusive, it will be approved, and all your future comments will post immediately. (Further comments may still be deleted if spammy, trollish, or abusive, and continued such behavior will get your account deleted and banned.)
If you’re logged in here to comment via Facebook and you’re having problems, please see this post.
PLEASE NOTE: The many many Disqus comments that were missing have mostly been restored! I continue to work with Disqus to resolve the lingering issues and will update you asap.
subscribe
notify of
3 Comments
oldest
newest most voted
Inline Feedbacks
view all comments
Jimmee Jonwalk
Jimmee Jonwalk
Sat, Mar 29, 2008 9:35pm

This is a horrible, horrible movie.
It tries to pressure you with flashes of ugly scenes that go by extremely quickly and constantly with a story that does not tie in with itself.
This absolutely sucks and is a waste of life watching. I did watch about two thirds of this movie only because I picked it out and I blew it bigtime.
Did I mention this is a horrible movie?
I think you get what I am trying to say by now.
Thank you for reading..

caleb
caleb
Thu, Apr 03, 2008 9:34am

I disagree with Jimmee on one important point: This is not a horrible, horrible movie, rather, it’s a horrible, horrible, horrible movie.

In addition to the pointlessness, for the visually sensitive and easily motion-sick (me) it was literally painful and nauseating. And, I mean “literally” literally.

If I saw flash-cuts and one-frame inserts on a large screen, I would barf during my seizure.

This is less fun to watch than the promos for Fox News: Wham! Bang! Pan! Cutcutucutuctucutuctut.

You get the idea.

Also, it’s a horrible movie.

Kim
Kim
Wed, Apr 16, 2008 6:54pm

This is the worst movie I have seen in a long time. It may possibly be the worst movie I have ever seen. It was incredibly irritating and painful to watch.
Absolutely horrible!!!!!!!!