Wizard-8 I have to admit that I approached the time travel movie "Slipstream" with some hesitation when I saw that Louis Morneau was involved with the writing of the story. That's because years earlier, Morneau directed the time travel movie "Retroactive", which was next to incomprehensible. Happily, "Slipstream" proved to be a much better movie. The time travelling and the problems that it raises actually makes sense this time around, and it's easy to know what's going on. Also, the story plays out well, keeping up the viewer's interest and never getting boring. Though made on a low budget, there are some striking images and some good effects, though it's painfully obvious that this set-in-the-U.S. movie was shot in another country (South Africa, according to the closing credits.) Other problems include an obnoxious lead performance by Sean Astin, and a number of directorial touches that are way too flashy and pretentious. But if you're patient and can sit through rough patches such as those, you'll probably find this movie passable entertainment.

TheLittleSongbird Believe it or not, Slipstream did have an intriguing idea and did have potential to be good. Unfortunately it squandered this potential by very poor execution. The effects are actually not too bad and neither is the scenery, but I couldn't really enjoy them with the lighting being so dull and the overuse of rotating shots. The dialogue verged on cheesy and stilted, the pacing was dull and meandering and the story was predictable and by the ending(which was little more than a clichéd cop-out) contrived also. There are even seemingly two versions of the same scene, both poorly written and have no sense of continuity within each other or the film. The time travel stuff had potential to be interesting but turned out incomprehensible instead, and there are no well-developed or likable characters, made to do clichéd and irritating things. The acting is also poor, Sean Astin is good with worthwhile material but is stuck when not so, his performance here is the latter, coming across as annoying instead. Vinnie Jones' acting is also limited for the same reason. Even the soundtrack was convoluted, just a string of tunes that added nothing to the story or the atmosphere. Overall, the concept was good, and the scenery and effects were better than I thought, but the film itself tried too hard and ended up failing big-time to thought-provoke, entertain or even maintain interest. 2/10 Bethany Cox

john in missouri It's not as awful as some people think, or as good as a few think.In fact, the average rating of 4.6 is about right. I'd give it perhaps a little lower, about a 4.It never ceases to amaze me how a Hollywood director will spend millions, even tens of millions of dollars or more to produce a film, and try to create an illusion, and then shoot it all to heck by getting sloppy and sticking an obvious wrench into the believability. Without giving any spoilers, I spotted two very obvious believability wrenches.This is a film with quirky direction. I guess they tried to make it different. Well, I guess they succeeded.I call it a "minor" time travel tale because that's simply how it feels.

Silverwolf Oh, that was a really bad film. I like sci-fi very much, but this one... this is not sci-fi, this is a low-budget, low-story, low-acting "low-film". During watching the film I was waiting for something good, a good scene, a new idea, or... something. Unfortunately the end credits came before I found anything like this. Such a bad plot, the conversations... how could somebody write it down and make a film from it? Did he/she mean it really? I don't understand why such films are born, and why the people like it. Maybe I'am wrong, or something. If you want to absolutely rest your brain and see something dumb, without humor, without actions or drama, then this is your film, go for it.