input: ....this mini does not get better with age. I saw this and it's sequel when originally broadcast, and like so many others was blown away. In early 2002 I borrowed the novels for both WOW and W and R and was even more impressed. I then decided that I had to see both again and invested $200 plus on the DVD sets. I watched both minis again in painful detail and realized I had done things backwards - I should have purchased the novels and borrowed the DVD's.

Don't believe it is abysmally miscast? Read the novels and see for yourself. Don't think this is dated? Screen it for somebody not old enough to have seen it originally broadcast and watch the reaction you get (warning - reactions from such people range from looks of horror to belly laughs).

According to the trivia section for this mini - Dan Curtis himself chose Ali MacGraw and Robert Mitchum. Yikes!! Production quality, music scoring, dialog - a great story was turned into a late 70's soap opera by an overly ambitious producer/director who was in way over his head. This thing was dated the minute it was completed.

These two minis were great when original broadcast and to those of us who saw them then, tug at a nostalgic string that reminds us of younger days. IMO - this mini does not nearly live up to its reputation and severely disappoints.

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans: negative

input: Just okay film about a woman who is a twin having disturbing visions of her sister in danger back at home. She then returns home to find all is not well and that she is going to have to find out what happened to her sister and why.

This is the sort of thing that kind of almost works but doesn't quite. I can't really put my finger on why it didn't work but it was good enough that I kind of wished it was better, or at least had gotten the little things right- like having the girls who play the twins in the flashbacks be closer in size. I think perhaps thats whats wrong with it there are lots of little things that just are wrong.

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans: negative

input: What Hopkins does succeed at with this effort as writer and director is giving us a sense that we know absolutely no one in the film. However, perhaps therein lies the problem. His movie has a lot of ambition and his intentions were obviously complex and drawn from very deep within, but it's so impersonal. There are no characters. We never know who anyone is, thus there is no investment on our part.

It could be about a screenwriter intermingle with his own characters. Is it? Maybe. By that I don't mean that Slipstream is ambiguous; I mean that there is no telling. Hopkins's film is an experiment. On the face of it, one could make the case that it is about a would-be screenwriter, who at the very moment of his meeting with fate, realizes that life is hit and miss, and/or success is blind chance, as he is hurled into a "slipstream" of collisions between points in time, dreams, thoughts, and reality. Nevertheless, it is so unremittingly cerebral that it leaves no room for any hint of emotion, even to the tiny, quite rudimentary extent of allowing us a connection with its characters.

I didn't think the nippy and flamboyant school of shaky, machine-gun-speed camera-work and editing disengaged me, but reflecting upon the film I am beginning to realize that it had a lot to do with it. There are so many movies of the past decade in which the cuts or camera movement have sound effects as well as other atmosphere-deteriorating technical doodads. I suppose in this case it was justified in that its purpose was to compose the impressionistic responsiveness of dreams. However, I knew barely anything about Slipstream when watching it, and I came out the same way. And I just do not care, because Hopkins made no effort to make us care. There are interactive movies, and there are movies that sit in a rocking chair and knit, unaware of your presence. Slipstream is the latter.

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans:
negative