Slacker (1990)

This film about Texas misfits gets off to a somewhat amusing start as Linklater, the writer-director himself, takes a cab ride and rambles off for several minutes about alternate universes and the roads not taken to the disinterested cab driver. When he reaches his destination, however, the focus shifts to another character that Linkletter passes on the street. Then it's on to another unrelated vignette and another and so on. It seems that each segment is less interesting than the one that preceded it. About half way through, the concept runs out of steam and film really begins to drag. It's an interesting concept that would have worked better if Linklater's script were actually funny. Alas, the laughs are few and far between.

Fmovies: Even though I've immensely enjoyed many of Richard Linklater's films (especially "Waking Life" and "Dazed and Confused"), I never had much desire to sit through Slacker. The title and the era made me anticipate this would be a lazily-crafted, self-indulgent, aimless exploration of the oh-so-forgettable ennui of 20-somethings.

Boy, was I wrong.

"Slacker" is actually a true "art film", a highly conceptualized storytelling experiment in the manner of mid-60's Godard. In fact, in many ways it seems patterned after Godard's "Weekend" -- a bold ambition for a young low-budget filmmaker if ever there was one -- with its long, fluid takes that seamlessly drift from one story to another with chance passings on Austin's sidewalks.

In many ways I found Slacker more interesting and more enjoyable than Godard's movie, though. Weekend ultimately boils down to Godard satirizing his society, while maintaining a dry, utterly unsentimental and unemotional attitude towards his characters. When you watch Weekend, there is always the sense that Godard is looking down his nose at his characters (however justifiably). Slacker has a more complicated relationship between Linklater and his subject. While there is undoubtedly a strongly satirical feel to many of the scenes (for example, the two apparently stoned guys debating the meaning of Saturday morning cartoons while they chain smoke in a bar), at the same time, the movie feels made from the inside. It's, maybe, a satirical self-portrait. In fact, since Linklater plays the first of the Slacker characters that we meet -- the cab fare spinning yarns about parallel universes -- it is in some manner quite literally a self-portrait.

All of that is a very academic way of saying what's viscerally obvious when watching Slacker - - it's funny and real and naturalistic at the same time that it is abstract, constructed and very obviously written.

I'm not sure what it all adds up to or if it's supposed to add up to anything. After all, this is the story of people who, with a couple of notable exceptions, can't seem to put their plans into action ("You're not on the list"), so it makes perfect sense that the movie in the end feels like it just wanders off a cliff instead of coming to an end. It would be a mistake to say that the movie captures a generation -- these are caricatures, without doubt -- but it does capture the flavor of the times as they rolled by on some particularly lazy afternoons.

The idea is interesting. Follow a group of slackers interacting with each other and then cut away to new group when new passerbys come on-screen. The problems are in execution.

The point is well-taken after only a few of these interactions and new digressions. But the exercise goes on far too long. This would have worked much better as a movie short. There is nothing new to gain from seeing 40 interactions as opposed to just the first few.

The second problem is that the characters are not interesting. They are all, every single one, simply annoying. They go on at long length about conspiracies, and make many idiotic statements throughout (both young and old), but never offer any new insights. Since all the characters (and there are many) are slackers of one variety or another, it makes it appear that the entire town of full of nothing but weirdos. As a former resident (and student) of Austin in the mid-to-late 80s, I can attest that there are *some* individuals like this, but they are certainly in the minority and not at all representative of the city. The only interesting thing for me was seeing the various Austin locales.

Slacker fmovies. The title of Richard Linklater's deadpan debut feature describes a new generation of young, educated, aimless social misfits, part of a young neo-bohemian subculture of drifters, dreamers, and losers with no money, no ambitions, and no worries outside the occasional paranoid conspiracy theory. Their marginal lifestyle revolves around the concept of (in slacker vernacular) 'hanging out': eating, sleeping, watching TV, drinking coffee, and listening to the latest, local garage bands. But what they do best is simply talk, and the viewer is invited to eavesdrop on an extended series of hilarious soliloquies, anecdotes, and observations about politics, history, art, Smurfs, and UFOs, from a cast of nearly 100 genuine slackers pulled off the streets of Austin, Texas, apparently a hub of slackerdom. The film (not a documentary) is structured entirely around random encounters, methodically following one character after another, with no plot to interrupt all the verbal detours and digressions. It looks (and sounds) entirely improvised, but believe it or not was all carefully scripted and choreographed, and the result is one of the more unique and original American features of its time.

I agree with the other people who have praised this film, it is terrific. I also own a copy and find that I seldom make it all the way through. Still I keep it and periodically go back to it because I can't wait for a particular character to show up or to be reminded of one that I'd forgotten. And best of all....I think that I've known most of these people at some time in my life! As bizarre as all of these characters are they are very much like some of the wackos everybody encounters throughout their lifetime. Linklater did a very good job of his caricatures and drew excellent performances out of his cast.

it's not often that a movie can keep you guessing from beginning to end. slacker is the movie that will stretch your mind past the boundaries of traditional thought. if you are able to fully immerse yourself into the story, you will begin to think like the characters. You will start questioning governmental activity, development conspiracy theories of your own, and possibly give up all hope in the realm of collective action. The director uses spontaneous, free-flowing dialogues to convey a realistic approach to what its like to be a drifting, free-thinking individual in Austin. The movie never grows tiresome because of the fact that the moment you start to figure out a character, you are left hanging to make your own conclusions of what happened to them. Without a second thought, the film immediately pursues the life of a new "slacker". Look for the creepy aspects in the film as well: subtle, missing children flyers are scattered throughout the backdrop of the scenes; and the schizophrenic cafe are a couple that stood out for me. this is a movie that you could watch a hundred times and still find a something new to walk away with. a modern classic.