All the films from all the editions, including those subsequently removed, presently totalling 1167. An easy way of seeing how…
Presents a day in the life in Austin, Texas among its social outcasts and misfits, predominantly the twenty-something set, using a series of linear vignettes. These characters, who in some manner just don't fit into the establishment norms, move seamlessly from one scene to the next, randomly coming and going into one another's lives.
Richard Linklater's Slacker is a film about nothing. People who do nothing. A town that feels like nothing. And yet, I can see why some get angry when others say that there isn't any point to the whole thing.
Basically, that the film has no point is the point. These characters, lost in a state of disillusionment, are living their lives; and Linklater made a movie out of it. And for most of the running time, It's pretty brilliant.
Sure, the film meanders at some points, and some characters are more interesting than others; but the rest is so enthralling that you don't really care.
Linklater is becoming one of my favorite directors, and Slacker is a prime example why.
It says so much about the ultimate destination of Kevin Smith's career that it began when he watched Slacker and felt like it was so tin that it proved he could do the same. Granted, Smith's conception of slacker culture, of people stagnating when they reach their 20s and realize they have no idea what to do and ultimately just bullshitting about Star Wars and sex talk is, on the whole, perhaps more accurate a portrait of youthful wheel-spinning. Linklater's film, on the other hand, is less about a specific generational angst than the collective drain of people of all ages who are just a bit off, who never really got with the program.
"Slacker," then, is more of a…
Richard Linklater's debut shows almost everything he aspired to do with his next films, both technically and in terms of topics covered, Slacker is a real intrinsic and geniune first film from one of the best directors of his generation. If someone had told me that I would actually like to see an infinite number of characters babbling and rambling around for more than ninety minutes, I would not believe it but the truth is that, as time began to pass, this film started to gain my privileged interest.
I wasn't kidding, this film is literally about a bunch of guys who talk and talk and never shut the fuck up, it's a film that's constantly shifting from character to…
A bunch of pretentious, unlikable dicknozzles wander around Austin for 90 minutes talking about stupid stuff.
And I loved it.
I just watched Slacker, then started it over and listened to the commentary. I love this frantic, lazy, wry, clever, weird-ass movie. I love every moment of it.
I love this movie because it makes me want to be a filmmaker. I am a senior in high school, and right now I am in the middle of my biggest film project to date. We are making a documentary. I look forward to shooting it each week. It is insanely fulfilling, challenging, and enjoyable. Every time I have been a part of making a short film, the process has been simply romantic. Even with the fighting on set, the script disagreements, and the painstaking process of editing, the process is magic.…
Second watch now, and the second Linklater notch in the ''I was wrong'' cinema bedpost, Dazed and Confused will inevitably be the third when I get around to it later. This is another Linklater film that when I first stumbled upon it—knowing very little of its narrative and ideas—I thought would be the kind of dance floor I could really get down on. Yet in peculiar identical fashion, just like his previous film, I adored the ideas but not the execution, quickly palming it off as a failed experiment that somebody else—even myself—could have taken all the way to the bank. Rewatches like this make me very insecure about this here film 'hobby', maybe I should just give up watching…
Since my last viewing of this way over a year ago, it had became much less interesting in my head, remembering it as very gimmicky and merely a gateway film. I had really forgotten how on the ball Linklater is with Slacker, and far exceeds its premise. There's a sort of unconscious narrative that takes place between the philosophical ideas/life attitudes presented with the characters and the structure of the film.
-Tedious and boring
-Speaks to a specific time and place I can't relate to
-Some individual scenes are funny (like the girl selling Madonna's pubic hair)
-Overall just feels kinda static in its pacing, scenes don't really add upon one another in what feels like a meaningful way
-8mm impressionistic sequence at the finale was the only engaging part of the film for me
-85% satire, 15% actually into some of the nonsense spoken by its characters?
Definitely captures a mood of a place and time...but I just don't want to hang out with these characters.
Confirmation bias will enable one to pick up some point of agreement from the lines of almost every single character in this movie, which has been rightfully called generation defining. Also "are you making somebody's life hell right now?" might be the greatest line ever used to inquire the relationship status of a girl.
I liked this a lot. It has no plot, it's just following the lives of many people in Austin, Texas. The camera just sort of floats around, moving from conversation to conversation. This film kind of encapsulates what I imagine the early 90s to be. Members of Generation X are becoming young adults and are being lay-abouts, philosophising, drinking, etc. Richard Linklater's next film Dazed and Confused is much the same, except set in the late 70s and with a plot of sorts.
I gotta go put on some flannel and listen to Pavement now.
Linklater's first attempt is funny, and leaves a lasting impression on viewing, but is forgettable. Feels more like a screenwriting exercise than a movie.
I love this movie for the same reasons other people hate it -- it's literally about nothing. There's no narrative. There's no plot structure. There's no characters that stick around for the entire duration of the film. There's nothing conventional, basically.
And...honestly...that's what's so great about it! Linklater, even early in his career, was an innovative motherfucker. Sure, everyone (including yours truly) praised Boyhood for being filmed over 12 years to age the same actors in the story realistically. But here he creates the illusion of a one-shot film. It's not, clearly, but doesn't it play like it? Everything plays out like a real day.
I recall being slightly confused and mildly annoyed in the first five to…
I'm afraid to say that I enjoyed Slacker significantly less on a second viewing. It's become clear that Linklater's study of his hometown in Austin, Texas is also a study in the tediousness of it all. Everyone in the town either comes off as down-on-their-luck or completely insane, which is pretty accurate for Austin I might say.
It's good, but it's not the great film I once believed it to be.
One of the very first of the 1990's American Indie Film Wave, Richard Linklater's "Slacker" still holds up. As far as I'm concerned this film is an American Cinematic Treasure that serves as an all too accurate satirical mirror to the MTV Generation.
Filmed on a shoe-string, Linklater manages to create a well-paced and focused examination of eccentricity, cultural malaise, paranoia, boredom and confusion that we found ourselves once our universities released fully degreed into a world to which we simultaneously connected but didn't understand.
Linklater also intelligently pays homage to every great filmmaker from Atlman to Goddard in under 2 hours. Brilliant. A must see for anyone who enjoys cinematic experimentation and entertainment that is firmly placed just off to the left of center.
For five years, film critic Scott Tobias compiled "The New Cult Canon" in a regular column for The A.V. Club…
[after his parents have left, thinking he is ill] "They bought it. Incredible! One of the worst performances of my…