I know I'm in the minority, but I honestly thought this film was brilliant. Kind of a non-linear meditation on creativity and the commercialization of creativity and the environment that builds up around that. Both profound and silly at the same time. A little like life.

More incoherent than a drunk toddler speaking a foreign language.

Interesting and bold stream-of-consciousness film by Anthony Hopkins about a man on the brink of death and the world he envisions in his transition. It's ultimately a bit of a failed attempt though. And this movie is just going to alienate most audiences...

Pretty weird movie -- essentially about losing one's mind, I think, but I cannot tell for certain. And then the very end throws all of that out the window.

I love films like this one, which push boundaries and can be interpreted in many, many ways, perhaps unique to each viewer. There are so many different types of reality-dreams, imagination, the movies, books, ideas, mental problems, television, illness, approaching death--so many things influence our personal view of reality. But one thing is sure (if anything can be), no one's personal view of reality is the absolute. I can see why Hopkins didn't want anyone else to have final cut over himself on this film--it would alter his reality, and would have utterly spoiled the film.

The only thing worthwhile was seeing that Kevin McCarthy was still alive in 2007. I have no idea what blackmail Hopkins used to get anyone else to work on this...film??

Some incredible old time actors turn up for a quick cameo which assists in the movies high brow story moving along. It is a little off beat with lots of baffling scenes. Indented acting causes the mix to remain focused and is filmed and directed in a very diverse style adding to the overall mystery. It keeps the suspense until the end. Nibbles: Chicken Kiev.

This movie is like watching someones LSD trip. Really makes no sense.

yikes! my husband and I tried to like it. love all the actors in other movies just not this one. remind me of The Tree of Life. although, everyone seemed to really like that movie.

Criticize this movie would be like criticize a Dali Painting. Expressing that on the painting the face shouldn't be so long, the chair so small. Is on a portrait or on a landscape painting where those criticisms should, and must be applied. In the case of Slipstream, it is a movie to be watched and felt, and not observed and analysed. I signed up on this website just to give my point on this matter. So, for those who read it, please, give it some thought. Thank you.

You'll either love it or hate it. Take some time to understand it's purpose first before you watch it.

Surprising experimental film from Anthony Hopkins that mostly worked for me.

What the hell was this movie about?

Never have I so desperately counted down the minutes for a movie to end. A convoluted, pretentious, utterly horrible mess.

This was a weird experiential film, which says a lot. It's weird in that it seemed unsure what it is it wanted to experiment. Did it want to play around with reality, story telling, film making, writing, what? It wasn't shot bad and the acting isn't terrible, Christian Slater pulls quite a good performance here, as does Hopkins, but it feels too disjointed. It feels manufactured rather than an honest experiment. I know Hopkins made this film to have fun, but the viewer doesn't feel like it. It also feels a little too long despite being only 96 minutes. It's sad, though, because there are great moments such as Kevin McCarhty's performance and the scenes with Slater in it. Ultimately the experiment fails, but I can't downscore it for, at least, trying to make something different.

Le débat est lancé: est-il possible d'en mettre TROP dans la réalisation d'un long-métrage? Anthony Hopkins, en 2007, profite de la renommée que s'est attribué son nom au cours des dernières décennies pour remettre en question le rapport entre le spectateur et le film. La relation à laquelle nous convie Hopkins est, cela va de soi, on ne peut plus incongrue. D'ailleurs, lui-même disait préférer que le public déteste son film, question de susciter une vive réaction chez l'auditoire. Parlez-en bien, parlez-en mal, mais parlez-en. Eh bien, pourquoi pas? Si Hopkins se dit libre de toute influence cinématographique, il se doit de réviser sa notion de liberté puisque le concept de l'avant-garde est infiniment dépassé au 21e siècle, époque où tout semble avoir déjà été produit auparavant. Les rapprochements cinématographiques avec d'autres réalisateurs sont on ne peut plus évidents, et quand bien même Hopkins voudrait repousser le passé, on parvient clairement à voir l'influence, par exemple, d'un David Lynch sur SlipStream. Beaucoup pourraient reprocher à SlipStream d'axer beaucoup trop sur la réalisation aux dépens de l'histoire. ''Quelle histoire?'' clameront d'autres. Par contre, il est indéniable que le film, en lui-même, n'est qu'un alliage fusionnel de montage, d'édition, d'effets visuels et d'extradiégétisation, si bien qu'il en devient carrément impossible (je vous l'assure) de détourner la tête un seul instant sinon on a déjà manqué plusieurs effets de réalisation. Poésie visuelle ou pollution optique? Ce qui m'a tout de même moins satisfait, ce sont les commentaires de Anthony Hopkins sur son propre film, qui lui-même, tout de suite après avoir affirmé vouloir choquer l'auditoire en le brusquant dans ses conventions, en vient à considérer son bébé comme une vraie ''blague cinématographique de créativité'', tout juste de quoi allouer une perte de crédibilité considérable à son premier long-métrage. En ce sens, lorsqu'on s'avise prêt de réaliser et de produire quelque chose à la SlipStream, le plus dur est à venir: savoir se taire. Après tout, laisser planer le mystère est un art que tous ne maitrisent pas.

This is easily one of the weirdest movies that I've ever seen. It's so weird that it would make David Lynch blush. Don't watch this on drugs.

" Are you on drugs? " This movie will be great to watch with someone else who hasn't seen it yet. The movie drags on and on leaving you asking yourself "what the heck is going on?" and is finally summed up at the very end. I love it when Christian Slayer plays the " I-can-snap-at-any-second" badboy role, he kinda reminded me of Clarence in True Romance. I guess the main thing to remember watching this movie is not to get discouraged with the seemingly constant inconsistency.

A poor man's Mullholland Dr.

The synopsis to this movie says that the Anthony Hopkins character is baffled but trust me the only one who will be baffled is you the viewer.This movie was up there with the worst movies I have ever seen.