MovieChat Forums > Slipstream (2005) Discussion > that was terrible.

that was terrible.

posted 19 years ago by spammehard
25 replies | jump to latest

Horribly written, horribly directed, and horribly acted. This was truly cringe inducing. I will cut the actors some slack, as it can't be easy to give a good performance with that material and direction. Plus there seemed to be quite a bit of awkward ADR work giving it the strange dubbed quality of a spaghetti western--and those were some of the worst British accents I've heard coming from British actors in a long time. The use of slow motion was gratuitous and an obvious attempt to bump this up to feature length. As was that strange and pointless shootout scene right in the beginning. This was an hour-long show, including commercials, that was pushed way beyond the breaking point in the editing room. Oh yeah, before I forget, the editing was horrible as well. One scene in particular where two takes of a single conversation were edited together--one inside a car and one outside--that I guess was supposed to symbolize the disjointed nature of time and space, but just came off very amateurish and student filmy.

I don't understand some of the other comments in here saying it was good. Are people so starved for sci-fi that they will fool themselves into thinking this was even marginally good? Is it some denial based devotion to Sean Astin that they can't accept he's done nothing good since LOTR and precious little good before? Goonies was a long time ago people.

[–] vinegartoast 19 years ago

I completely agree with you. It would of made a great 10 minute short or a Twilight Zone episode at best. I mean the concept was on the right track, but the movie completely lost me after the whole 90 minute slow motion bank robbery scene and the 40 minute hostage bus scene. The rest of it I must of blocked from my memory until the slow motion plane crash. And then it took them like 5 minutes to show us the entire film backwards, reminding us of the 2 hours we just wasted watching it. The fact that theres people on this board who actually thought it was great, makes me ashamed to be a human being...

[–] spammehard 19 years ago

Finally the smart people are back in the discussion. I was holding my own against these.... I have no idea how to characterize someone who thought this was a good movie. At the most generous, I'll just say they must not have any experience with many good movies. From the majority of favorable posts, I'm guessing that the people who liked it mainly are Brits who saw it at some sci-fi con in London. Guys, seriously, you are second to none in TV comedy, from Python, to The Office you have America's ass kicked, but Slipstream is a BAD movie.

Speaking of the rewinding of the film at the end, did anyone else notice how they showed evens that were no longer part of the time thread--like Sean Astin getting shot outside the bus. That event was erased. Astin had to be told he was killed. This is just sloppy filmmaking.

Oh, and I love the throw away line given by the FBI boss that these bank robbers have been hitting banks up and down the west coast for ten years..... ten years, and the FBI can't catch bank robbers as stupid and unnecessarily violent as this group?

[–] Li-1 19 years ago

This was a truly bad movie. By making the time travel device portable, the writers sort of put themselves in a hole. Asting keeps proclaiming he can't save Milicevic's partner because more than ten minutes have passed. But isn't it possible to just use the device repeatedly to travel back ten minutes every time (i.e. if an hour had passed after the bank robbery, just use it over and over until you went all the way back an hour)? While I understand he didn't have possession of the device anymore, I can't believe nobody in the film even brought the point up. Retroactive nicely avoided such a problem by making the time travel device non-portable and keeping the heroine a fairly far distance from it every time she travels back twenty minutes (as it would really take her twenty minutes to get to the machine from where she was).

Astin explains that whatever he's touching goes back in time with him if he has the device, so when he's grabbing someone, wouldn't he still be grabbing the person after they went back in time (or at least still be holding onto that person's shirt)? In this movie, the person he's holding onto ends up in the spot they were ten minutes (or whatever amount of time they traveled back) prior to using the device.

Shaving a rat and sending it back ten minutes so that it ends up unshaved shows that the movie's operating on the principle that if you travel back regardless of whatever shape you're in, you'll be in the same physical condition you were ten minutes ago (or whatever amount of time you travel back). That might explains the FBI agent not being killed by the gunshot, but then again, wouldn't the bullet have still been stuck inside her?

Add to that the FBI agent's stupid insistance on shooting it out with the bank robbers; yes, not letting them rob a bank is one thing, but having already gone through one round with them before, being far outnumbered and outgunned, and knowing they're not bluffing about killing people is another thing entirely.

[–] spammehard 19 years ago

Yeah, I mean, banks are insured for that kind of thing. So instead of letting them get away, IDing the van, and easily catching them on the freeway with backup, they get into a firefight in a crowded bank to help lower the bank's insurance premium.

But if they didn't shoot it out, then we wouldn't have been able to see that incredible rotating shootout scene. Redefined cinema, it has.

And if the company was so upset about Astin stealing the PDA for personal gain, couldn't they just unplug that radio tower that has the silly rotoscoped electricity whenever he activates it? Catching him would be a lot easier if he couldn't go back in time.

[–] somedude04 19 years ago

Yeah, the whole thing was just rediculous and poorly thought out. The special effects sucked, the acting sucked, and the realism sucked. It pissed me off so much I decided to spend my time going on the internet to write about how much it sucked. HORRIBLE. Can't believe there are people out there who actually liked it.

[–] davidcox1960 19 years ago

I'm one of those who liked Slipstream at its premiere in London. As I said in my review, of course there are parts that don't make sense and there are other faults too but I can't believe how seriously some people are taking this story. It's a sci-fi action comedy, guys! I read the description "tongue-in-cheek" about this film somewhere, and that's just what it is. I still think it's a fun ride, and quite stylish. Just don't expect it to make sense!

[–] triforcer 19 years ago

if it was suppose to be a comedy than they should have also made it funny.

[–] dreamdoggie 18 years ago

Genre: Sci-Fi
...and that's it, if they ment to make this a comedy, they would have stated so in the genre. Seriously you "wankers" (UK fanboys & girls), you can't watch this without alcohol and I don't give a damn about some retard who acted in LOTR, why? THIS IS NOT LOTR!

P.S. Is there a way to identify who have rated a movie and what rate they gave? And so block the people who can't use the internet.
--
If you don't like this comment, please hold ALT and press F4.
(I won't read your reply, someone else might, but nobody cares if you win teh internets)

[–] peter_gordon 18 years ago

Why is everyone assuming that anyone who liked this film must be british? I'm british and I thought it was one of the worst films i've ever seen... the acting, direction, script, and plot were all atrocious.

[–] vinegartoast 19 years ago

haha it definately redefined cinema. it also redefines sci-fi as we know it. I would like to watch 2 hours of David van Eyssen, Louis Morneau, and Phillip Badger get shot in slow motion over and over again. Not even Mike and the 'bots could survive the abortion that is Slipstream.

[–] Li-1 19 years ago

Morneau is quite a bad director and writer, but I at least freely admit to enjoying Retroactive (very similar premise to Slipstream), which was way better than Slipstream (the most egregious error in Retroactive happens to be six-shooters and small pistols that can fire over a dozen shots).

BTW, I understand Slipstream isn't being entirely serious, but from Sean Astin's annoying mannerisms to Vinnie Jones' failed lines, there's nothing about the comedy that strikes me as the slightest bit funny. So if it fails as sci-fi, and as action (horrific editing and logistics during the bank shootouts), and as comedy, then I simply can't find any more ways to even comprehend excusing the movie.

[–] justin8788-1 18 years ago

As a person who has seen lots and lots of movies, I have to say this movie is not THAT bad. I mean there have been worse movies, trust me see The Avengers or Cannible Ferox or You Got Served. Those are terrible movies, this is not terrible. It's not a good movie by any means, the acting is poor, the plot is good but not well written, the special effects are ok at best, but it's a movie that can be entertaining if you just shut your brain off for an hour and a half and just enjoy the movie. It's kind of hard to explain but I watch movies differently and judge them differently. You got to really think about what the movie is aiming at and how good the producers intend to make it. There's a lot more effort put in to a Clit Eastwood, Oliver Stone, or Martin Scorcese film because you're dealing with the best, so you expect the best. So when you're dealing with filmakers like this, what do you expect? Certainlly not the best, but then again not the worst either. The point is, you got to look at movies differently when it comes to who did the film, who is in it, and how much money is spent into the project.

[–] EpicOrigin 18 years ago

I didn't like it that much. The premise was interesting, but a lot of it was absolutely horrible, whether it was supposed to be a comedy or not.

One of the things that made me cringe was all the FBI and whatnot agents. They all seemed absolutely stupid. This included the drawn out, oddly done bank shoot-out. The agents were standing right in front of the robbers and vise versa, and neither could aim at all, nor did they seem to realize 'hey, perhaps it isn't that smart to stand in the wide open while someone shoots at me.'

I could go on for a lot longer, but I didn't have high expectations going into the movie, anyway.

[–] luckystrike502 18 years ago

I liked the movie. It might not be one of my favorites, but I'm not going to sit here and talk bad about any movie and keep rambling on about it. Every movie has it's mistakes since nothing is perfect. Everyone has their own opinions, and everyone should respect everyone's opinions. Anyone who didn't like it, that's cool. Anyone who did like it, that's cool also. In my opinion, there will never be another time traveling movie like "Back to the Future" or the original "Time Machine". Now them are classics. And to all of those who are fans of "Back to the Future", you might wanna check out "Interstate 60" if you havn't already seen it. It's a pretty cool movie.

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] depris 18 years ago

As a person who has seen lots and lots of movies, I have to say this movie is not THAT bad. I mean there have been worse movies, trust me see The Avengers or Cannible Ferox or You Got Served. Those are terrible movies, this is not terrible. It's not a good movie by any means, the acting is poor, the plot is good but not well written, the special effects are ok at best, but it's a movie that can be entertaining if you just shut your brain off for an hour and a half and just enjoy the movie. It's kind of hard to explain but I watch movies differently and judge them differently. You got to really think about what the movie is aiming at and how good the producers intend to make it. There's a lot more effort put in to a Clit Eastwood, Oliver Stone, or Martin Scorcese film because you're dealing with the best, so you expect the best. So when you're dealing with filmakers like this, what do you expect? Certainlly not the best, but then again not the worst either. The point is, you got to look at movies differently when it comes to who did the film, who is in it, and how much money is spent into the project.

Let me start by saying I agree with what you're saying in regards to expectations. However I don't think that having a small budget is any excuse for making a movie as terrible as this one was. I've seen a lot of good B movies and some of my all time favorites were shot on very meager budgets. Good writing, acting, etc can take a film all the way to greatness. The most recent flick that comes to mind is Skeletons in the Closet (2001) ... I caught that one when a friend rented it. I was very skeptical with the title and even moreso when the film appeared to have been shot on video however, while it wasn't great it was much better than I expected. The acting really carried the film in my opinion. Boondock Saints is a great example of an otherwise "B movie" (it was shot on a very very small budget) becoming an instant classic. Same goes for Resavoir Dogs.

Contrast those with this pile of poop. The opening speech kinda made you feel it'd be a halfway decent B movie. However it soon just turned to drivel. Their's no excuse for most of the scenes... a 10 minute 2 fbi vs 8 criminals shootout and no one gets hit? wtf? Man, just writing this makes me quiver at how absolutely horrid this thing was. A cool opening speech, a 45 minute bank robbery, a 30 minute bus hijacking and a 5 minute flashback. Everything was just so ridiculous. The way the time traveling was executed with that cheesey tower.. the horrid dialogue, the ridiculous shootouts, the dumb fbi agents, the scarcely populated scenes, just blah.

[–] joe-wilger 11 years ago

The spelling of Mr. Eastwood's name leaves much to be desired.

Ahem.

[–] ndmlosi 18 years ago

wait, british actors can't have bad accents, only bad accents based on what YOU think it should sound like.

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] starshiptrooper100 18 years ago

This is a very bad movie.
I usually watch movies to the end since I take them to the gym and watch them on the bike to pass the time. However, I had to pull this one. It would not even be a good TV movie. The opening monologue makes you think this movie has a chance, but it goes downhill from there.
The shootout in the bank doesnt make any sense as other people have mentioned.
Here are two FBI agents presumably without body armour standing up and firing at the bad guys who have automatic weapons and body armour. Presumably in most bank robberies the bank robbers are interested in taking money instead of killing people or they would go to a shopping mall.
The characters are not so interesting that it would bother you if any of them die.
I had to turn it off once they took the hostages as the acting seemed to get worse and worse. The premise is interesting but the story has enough holes to drive a mac truck through.
How this movie got made is beyond me.
It makes you think anybody can be a screenwriter.
Hollywood here I come!

[–] Krups_coffee_maker 18 years ago

It would not even be a good TV movie

Funnily enough, it was a tv movie, originally airing on the Sci-Fi Channel, just in case you didn't know.

“Ow! This helmet is chafing my eyebrows! I swear!” – Darth Vader

[–] Mikiville 18 years ago

Very bad movie in every aspect. Probably one of the worst ever watched in my life.

[–] hoppz 18 years ago

its a fooking movie for god sakes it wasnt great, it wasent even good but it was watchable and you sad people who didnt like it cuz of its factual errors and plot holes what the hell do you expect if you want an intelligent movie dont watch a movie like this its a stupid action no brainer and i have to say it was better then a lot of big budget movies i seen lately

and finaly the idiot who said they where the worst british accents they ever heard

THOSE ACTORS ARE BRITISH THAT, IS HOW WE SPEAK, IT REALLY GETS ME WHEN PEOPLE EXPECT THE BRITISH TO ACT AND TALK LIKE THEY HAVE WALKED OUT OF A MERCHENT IVORY FILM.

rant over, i apologise to those i have no doubt offended

[–] huizekist 18 years ago

I bought(!) this movie on DVD last year, because I hadn't seen it yet and I spotted Vinnie Jones on the cover. I absolutely love the movies he's in (Lock, Stock & 2 Smoking Barrels, Snatch, The Mean Machine), so I was going be in for 89 minutes of pure entertainment. Or so I thought.

I had watched about 10 minutes of this movie with two friends of mine, and we had pretty much decided to press the stop-button at that time. Until then, "The 13th Warrior" was about the most horrid load of crap I had ever seen, but Slipstream went past that quite easily. We decided to watch it in its entirety anyway, but we really shouldn't have done that. Slipstream is likely the most annoying and boring movie ever produced.