Slipstream

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.

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.

I really believe a fourth grader could have written better dialog and plot. The idea for this movie creates tremendous potential which is totally wasted on sheer stupidity of conversation and illogical plot. Movies involving time travel can be tricky but if done right, can also be very thought provoking. This movie doesn't even try to go there. This movie, like so many scifi's today, is overly focused on special effects with the plot and dialog treated as an afterthought. I'll have to remember the name, David Van Eyssen, and make concerted efforts NOT to watch anything directed by him. Foolish waste of time. I really have nothing more to say about this movie but the submission filter wants more lines. So here they are.

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.

Where do these good reviews come from? With words and phrases like "accomplished," "mesmerizing," "visually stunning," "reminds me of the best moments from Blade runner and 2001," "Astin acts his heart out." Sounds to me like some PR people are doing damage control on the old IMDb in the hopes they can salvage some kind of life for this film on DVD. "I can't believe it wasn't theatrically released." Well, I can, and we should thank the studio execs who decided to give this movie a basic cable burial. They did so to preserve social harmony. If the general public had paid box office price to watch Slipstream, riots would have surely ensued.

Make no mistake, people, this movie is BAD. The amazing directorial technique some seem to be so inexplicably impressed by is nothing but hack. Slow motion is used to signal the slowing down of time before a backwards trip, but it's also just used any old time to signify nothing other than the total running time needed to be longer to qualify as a feature-length film. Then there's the rotating camera. Why use the technique so much? Well they bought the rig, and darn it, they were going to use it. Stupid, horribly staged bank shootout? No worries, we've got a rotating camera. Stupid, horribly written and acted bus bathroom scene? No worries, we've got a rotating camera. And here's a dilemma, we've got two versions of a scene, one with the actors inside a car and one where they're outside, both are horribly written and acted, but we forgot to use the rotating camera. What do we do? No worries, we'll just inter-cut the two separate takes, and the lack of continuity will jar the stupider viewers into thinking that we "have a visual style." Yeah, that's right, I've been saying horribly acted. No one, in this movie is a great actor, by which I mean, has a great range. To the Astinites out there, sorry, but your boy is a serviceable actor at best. Without an extraordinary director and extraordinary writing, the mediocrity of Astin's performance is an unbearable distraction. He's had the good fortune to be in a few good movies in his career, but, left to his own devices, he will pick insipid little things like Slipstream simply because the script uses the phrase, "String Theory." This is a dangerous trait for a less-than amazing actor to possess. If he wises up, he will accept the role of supporting, character actor with grace. He cannot and should not attempt to carry a film.

To give a little credit to the actors, including Astin, there's not much you can do with writing as terrible as this. There are no character arcs to speak of, just starting points and end points. How did they get there? What's the motivation? Who could be that stupid? Who cares! Have you seen our rotating camera? And, to all you aspiring directors, when faced with a script with no feeling and actors phoning it in, don't forget to use slow-motion. It saves the writer from having to write something compelling and the actor from having to emote. The slower you get it, the more emotional weight a scene can carry. And if you manage to have a rotating camera with slow-motion, whoa boy! Oscar can't be far behind. Or at the very least, a BAFTA.

I've never, before watching Slipstream, felt it my duty to so harshly trash a film on the internet. I registered with IMDb because of it. Believe it or not, this is me at my most humanistic. Mankind should not have to watch this movie. If I can prevent one person, then I've done my part to make a better world.

For the love of all that is good, go rent Donny Darko and stay far away from the abomination known as Slipstream.