I think what we were expecting was solid plotting and a commitment to character and narrative. You don't need a big budget to have that. That "They did the best with what they had" argument in nonesence. Far better movies have done far more with far less. What we got was not visual and emotional proficiency. It's just hack. Slow motion, and camera rotation, that's it. This is first year student film material, at best. Low budget has nothing to do with it; there was no inspiration behind it. How can you watch that bank shootout scene without laughing your ass off and the sheer stupidity and lack of vision? Having a low budget does not mean you spend all your money on meaningless camera tricks, over and over. They used two, count them two, hack director/editor tricks every ten minutes. The script was, at best 40 minutes of second rate TV material, stupid unnatural dialog, bloated into feature length with tedious editing. My only consolation is that, in time, history will vindicate those of us on this board who share my views. In a few years the rest of you will come around and see what a steaming load this was.
reply
share
SirCharlesBarkley
20 years ago
Wow! Frustrated filmmaker cleanup on aisle 5!
I think if you put down your joystick long enough to come back to the real world, you'd realize that this director was obviously having fun and taking some creative risks in order to elevate what would have otherwise been just another underdeveloped time travel flick! Instead there's a unique visual energy throughout the film that creates a completely original universe for the characters to inhabit. All in all, simply an entertaining little movie... case closed.
Oh, and in the future, please keep your "steaming load" references to yourself.
reply
share
spammehard
20 years ago
I used no profanity, so if you have a problem with the phrase "steaming load" it is none of my concern. I think it's kind of quaint that you would get upset by it. It makes me smile. For someone who takes the name of a very profane Basketball player, you seem a bit of a prude.
And because I really don't care, in the end, what people think of this huge steaming lumpy pile of a movie, I'll say goodbye. I must get back to my joysticks and frusterated filmmaking.
reply
share
Li-1
20 years ago
I'm going to have to side with spammehard; Slipstream was a tedious attempt at being a quirky sci-fi action flick, except in this case the sci-fi is completely uninteresting and unlike the similarly-plotted Retroactive, the action scenes stink and the time travel aspect does little to even make the shootouts the slightest bit clever (rather, the filmmaker just does that annoying quick-cut montage style, which if you ask me, ruins the intent of showing the same situation happening a second time but with characters gaining extra knowledge of what went down).
As for this being Sci-Fi Channel's most creative effort to date; well, I'm not a really a big fan of any of their two-hour TV flicks (although Silent Warnings wasn't half-bad and neither was Epoch), but Sci-Fi has cranked out some great miniseries like the two Dune productions, Taken, and even Battlestar Galactica was quite enjoyable once it got going.
reply
share