Slipstream 2007(in Hollywood Movies) Slipstream 2007 (2007) - Download Movie for mobile in best quality 3gp and mp4 format. Also stream Slipstream 2007 on your mobile, tablets and ipads
Plot: Aging screenwriter Felix Bonhoeffer has lived his life in two states of existence: in reality and his own interior world. While working on a murder mystery script, and unaware that his brain is on the verge of implosion, Felix is baffled when his characters start to appear in his life, and vice versa. Runtime: 96 mins Release Date: 26 Oct 2007
Probably the best surrealist movie in years (by be-bop-795-4205)
This is a great surrealist movie, probably the best in years, a true gem which will become a cult classic. No wonder many people hate it: one has to open his mind to understand and enjoy it.If you routinely switch your creative self off with the 'play' button on your DVD, you'll most probably hate "Slipstream". No peace of mind here. If you are expecting a certain plot and a regular story development from exposition to culmination, etc., you'll be disappointed.Because this is a story of a story. A story that is not cut in stone once and forever but an open one, an <more>
unfinished one, unveiling in many different directions at the same time. It involves different scenarios, actors and real life people changing places, untimely side thoughts, personal memories, citations, flashbacks. Not an elaborate lynchian riddle, although it may remind you of one. 'SLIPSTREAM' IS ABOUT HOW OUR CREATIVE MIND WORKS, did you notice the title? It it about a process rather than about a product. A process that cannot be separated from the writer's own life well, unless what he's doing is a calculated cynical imitation, of which we are seeing plenty - and that can only be finalized by death. Given the writer is so old, his mind is freely tripping about past and sometimes the future. Logic and sequence are of no more weight here than his subliminal.Some find 'clipping' visuals in movies disturbing. I would agree in most cases but not in the case of 'Slipstream'. How better can you introspect the creative process of finding the right scene and the right angle? 'He is waiting in front of a bright yellow sports car... no, acid slate green sports car... oh, may it be a violet car looking the other side?' Besides, the camera work is just very tasty and sometimes visuals are quite beautiful, the American landscapes near Vegas in particular.Being a rich, thoughtful film of many layers, 'Slipstream' is by no means heavy going or dull - provided you do understand what it is about see above . There are many memorable scenes i.e. Slater's loaded gun monologue about the 'Body Snatchers' and little gems like John Turturro shouting into his cell 'Cannot talk any more, I'm on someone's hard disk!' . Funny, sad, scary, absurd, lighthearted - the movie is true to life as a mixed bag of impressions. Think of Lynch's 'Twin Peaks', of Bunuel's 'Discreet Charm of the Bourgeoisie', some 'Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas', some Fellini's Amarcord - these are hardly direct analogies but just what comes to my mind in response to seeing 'Slipstream'.Hopkins is predictably fantastic in his role. Slater, Turturro, Tambor deliver excellent performances. A special note must be made of Stella Arroyave who was so natural and rich I could not believe it was her debut role.I have been a fan of Hopkins as an actor, now I'm also a fan of him as a director, and of his wife as an actress as well. A 10/10 movie without reservations. Do yourself a favour, make a break from stupidity and watch this movie with all your three eyes open.
I won't care to comment on the style although he captured something that I relate to on a very functional level. They spoke of the akarishi records or something. I don't know the exact word for it, but it is a concept that in a higher plane there is a place that holds all the knowledge or something. Like Nostradamus or something. It is tied with Indian philosophy which also thinks that this is all a cosmic drama. The format of these records, although I don't know that this is true of the concept or just what I imagined , would be a library of data but all in the form of <more>
consciousness, like every single person's, some people might say animals, and even fewer aka, those who believe in animism, would say rocks They had flashes of the things in our life that stick with history, Hitler, Nixon so on. This would be congruent to some one who is plugged into the so called super consciousness that is prevalent in Hindu religion. The film style really appeals to those who seem to want to stop and reevaluate to the most serious degree as much as they can in their daily life this can be caused by an intellectual disease or perhaps being bipolar, manic, depressive,etc . The writer seems to be hooked into all of this or the akashi records or whatever, or to be sensitive to empathetic nature to the point where to are confused in sensing what other peoples lives are like. This also can be seen as looking into past lives as the movie spoke of in the beginning. And it all gets so confusing. This man writing a story gets so stressed he can't remember. He can't even keep track of which characters he kills off. I see this as the writer being god and this point in history where god or the collective consciousnesses is getting overwhelmed or that gods job to help us or see over us via the super consciousness is getting to be to intense. Although he is still god so in the hospital scene everything is fine with him. There seems to be nothing wrong, however that doesn't mean that he the existence of life won't accidentally step in front of a car. All these horrible and crazy things happening in the world, thats just god going crazy, or maybe falling asleep. But it rewinds all over in the credits, and he wakes up saying welcome home. This is like the dharma sp cycle in where every soul eventually returns home, they will have to purify themselves of course. This is a terrible excuse for an in depth analysis, but what this movie conceptualized the metaphorical life of god according to the history of the universe and thats not even the right way to say it.None of this is. But it is a really amazing concept, that any religion has metaphorically put in terms of the apocalypse or the resurrection of every one . It symbolized a lot of Hindu philosophies with a nihilistic twist. I don't know if he meant to, but it was really the mention of those records things by the female character sitting with him at the cafe outside right after the horse races. She is talking about the spiritual channelers is what really got me thinking about it from a Hindu/general religious view point. This is what made me watch the movie as the way that god would be watching the universe via the super consciousness and trying to govern at the same time. And still I don't feel satisfied because I know I haven't gotten all of it out of my head, but the concept that hey, we can't kill god, but we can drive him to insanity, or the thought that the collective consciousness is losing its mind is one I've never come across.
If there's a movie, which is directed and written by the same guy who also acts and composes the music in it, of course I'm going to watch it - especially when that man is someone who I admire.After reading about the movie, I was pretty sure I shouldn't expect simple plot, simple storyline. I was right, the plot is very complex, and it felt like it was layered, even if that's too simply described. I enjoy complex, layered plot, but of course it doesn't always work. It wouldn't work in thriller or adventure or anything like that, but it works for experimental drama like <more>
this.The special effects are one of the things I'm very critical about. Mostly because they could easily cause headache, and I think the movie should have some kind of epilepsy warning on it. But the effects worked pretty well – they strengthened the dreamlike atmosphere the movie had almost all the time. Also, it's very hard to explain the plot without giving too much away. It's mostly sitting there, watching, trying to figure out what's happening, and then suddenly it's "oh" and you can see it so much better. This basically means that you have to watch the movie at least twice to completely understand it, to figure out perfectly what is happening and what probably isn't happening, etc. One kind of special thing about Slipstream was the music. Because while I was watching the movie, I didn't really pay attention to it. It was there, but it didn't draw my attention from what I was seeing. But I liked the movie, I liked it very much. Anthony Hopkins seems very talented writer and director, as well as composer.
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 <more>
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...
96 minutes trapped in someone else's mind on drugs (by dbborroughs)
Anthony Hopkins writes, directs,scores and stars in a movie that is like the bastard child of David Lynch and Peter Greenaway. Its a film that operates on a visceral level and is akin to being trapped in someones head which is the point . Nominally the tale of screenwriter who is having the real and fantasy worlds of film and his head merge. Beyond that I can say no more- partly because the more adventurous of you may want to try this, and partly because I couldn't explain it if I wanted to. As Hopkins says in the commentary on the DVD about portions of it "I can't explain it <more>
either". Characters come and go everything refers to everything else, everyone has multiple parts and the film doesn't end until the film stops. This is food for thought and then some. It means something and it means nothing. From the opening seconds you are bombarded with sounds and images that over lap. There are quick cuts, long takes, things change from shot to shot...and in someways its like a punch in the face. Its a shot of some hallucinogen in the mind of someone else thats forced upon you to further mess you up. Its a mediation on the notion of reality and a puzzle. Its a true masterpiece of cinema and the most pretentious piece of dog doo. I am in awe of it. I have no idea who would want to watch it, but I am in awe of it. It is one of the most personal films I've ever seen. Watching it with the commentary helps to a certain degree.and in other ways it confuses things. What the hell is this and how the hell did it get made. One of a kind. I'm not even sure it goes where Hopkins thinks it goes, yes the trajectory is kind of foreseeable but at the same time...what the hell is this? I feel like I've been messed with in a physical manner, like a truck has hit me. Few films have ever effected me like this. Is it a good film? I have no idea Should you see it? I have no idea Will I see it again? probably. This is an experience. Beyond that you're on you're own.Rating of 9 out of 10 is for the technical wizardry of the film and because it does what few films do now a days and that is provoke a reaction of some kind in the viewer. The film forces to react in someway either with confusion, laughter or to turn it off. Its is not an indication of what I or you may think of it on any other level.
At the end, it is only a matter of taste, of chemistry between the work of art and the individual receiving, experiencing it. For me, it was a great experience, one of the few that leaves you awestruck, dumb, full of admiration for this director who, understanding absolutely what cinema is about, offers us this symphony, this difficult mastered composition of image and sound bound together in a crazy rhythm. It happens, from time to time, but not very often, that a director uses the media in all its possibilities, and if you are really willing to go with it, it becomes a powerful ride. I <more>
don't think this is intended to mass audiences, though, because it requires an active audience, and again, you have to feel fit for it. There are movies to entertain us, to relax us, to makes us empathize with the characters, this is a movie to put all your senses to the test. Imagine you set yourself inside the head of a very creative person loosing the grip of reality, contemplating what is not very plausible to be real, immerse at the same time in the process of creation of a fiction story, with interferences of both worlds, along with the feelings that situation arouses in us. Very coherent with the story it tells, the movie puts you there, and makes you experience the same puzzlement and confusion the main character feels. That , and the complete master of the resources cinema offers, ends up in a very brave and modern piece. Mr Hopkins, waiting for your next one.
A truly strange motion picture (by michaeldhopkins)
As Sir Hopkins was the first to admit: this is a strange film. Because of Slipstream's structure it is both extremely easy and quite difficult to "spoil" the movie, but suffice to say that it's the story of a very mixed up screen writer. It takes a fair amount from films like 8 1/2, Muholland Drive, and Adaptation, but it's quite different any of them. For better or worse, the editing style is by far the most distinctive feature of the film. Every editing technique known to man is utilized in a short time. Perplexing and subliminal imagery abound, and it would take many <more>
viewings to try and decode it all. I found the editing style interesting and generally well done, but it does get tiring after a while. The cast is superb. There are no huge names here, but Hopkins combines seasoned and well versed character actors with complete unknowns. His part in the film is central but actually takes up surprisingly little screen time, and his performance is subdued. Hopkins emphasized that he saw this film as lighthearted and poking fun at Hollywood. There are certainly some funny scenes, especially on the film set, but this is far from a comedy.The film is a deeply personal one. Hopkins was on hand to introduce and answer questions about his film at the Seattle Film festival, and he made it clear this is precisely the film HE wanted to make. With few willing to finance such an unusual picture, he put up his own money. When the backers he had tried to put strings on the production, he got rid of them and bankrolled it himself. This is a film meant to be interpreted and understood on an individual level. Hopkins has his own meaning for the film, but we're expected to form our own.This will doubtlessly be a divisive movie. I guarantee it will gain a cult following with time, and I also guarantee a large portion of the audience will HATE it. Don't go into Slipstream expecting a typical Anthony Hopkins film if there is such a thing , don't go into it expecting any kind conventional narrative, and don't go into it expecting another Muholland Drive. Whether you view Slipstream as self indulgent trash, or creative brilliance; it's nothing if not unique.
"They're making a movie around here... somewhere." (by funnylookingmonkey)
Anthony Hopkins' psychedelic, enigmatic, comic, meta-cinematic headtrip is an engagingly personal vision of film-making from the inside out. its relentless visual and aural audacity and experimentation will no doubt leave some viewers bothered and bewildered, but, unlike say Tony Scott's Domino or Joe Carnahan's Smokin' Aces, here all the technical gimmickry and razzle dazzle is thematically justified by the strange and elusive story. here the hyperbolic stylizations constantly reveal subtextual nuances and narrative asides like Oliver Stone when he's on his game... in <more>
fact, i can imagine some crass marketeer coming up with a tagline of: "If Oliver Stone and David Lynch teamed up to remake Fellini's 8 ½, it might look something like this..." . written, directed, scored by, and starring Hopkins, this is an uncompromised auteur's statement, and he's enlisted a strong group of supporting players to aid in the effort. the cast includes John Turturro, Jeffrey Tambor, Christian Slater, S. Epatha Merkerson, and a cleverly hilarious bit part by Kevin McCarthy; the crew includes DP Dante Spinotti and editor Michael R. Miller. it's film-making that never holds you by the hand, that tempers its darker and more uncomfortable moments with humor, wit, and bits of the absurd, and that's the type of film-making that suits me just fine.
Although the film was a bit strange, and was not a choice of film my wife would ever watch again, I rather enjoyed the way Mr. Hopkins directed it. Yes very hard to follow at times, but I believe I understood his meaning for the story. I believe you must watch the film from beginning to end to really appreciate where Mr. Hopkins was going with this film. Not the usual film Anthony Hopkins would generally star in, but seeing it was his own piece of work, at his cost, I believe he got his point across. He did state it was made for a joke or a poke at Hollywood. I've decided to implant ideas <more>
or thoughts into your morbidly obese subconscious. By reading this alone, you are filtering information that at this time you feel unaffected, but the process has already begun, the nature of this exchange should already make you feel uncomfortable, which triggers synapses response to electric exchange. Your mind will process this information tonight, in a matter of images and synthetic five sense replay, all your hopes and fears, designed to let you cope with the ongoing bombardment of life's never-ending gifts.That's my view on Mr. Hopkins story, and hats off to you Anthony Hopkins.