All the films from all the editions, including those subsequently removed, presently totalling 1154. 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.
Slacker is an interesting cultural oddity, certainly an experience that I wasn't expecting. Throughout the film, I was reminded of the traditions of many great, canon filmmakers, whether it be the surrealistic nature of Bunuel, in particular the framing device that he employs in The Phantom of Liberty, or the non-narrative traditions of Godard. (It also wouldn't surprise me if this film later had an influence on Harmony Korine's Gummo.)
Slacker is essentially a day in the life of a vast group of characters. Each character has his own quirks, his own story, his own thoughts to share. The sort of paranoid, anti-government, anti-establishment theme that runs through the film helps depict an important setting and time period that allows…
Richard Linklater's debut film Slacker has all the great elements of independent filmmaking. Its originality, boldness, and uncompromising style make it a really nice appetizer for what will come later in Linklater's career.
Taking place in 24 hours, Slacker revolves around residents of Austin, Texas - a place that you soon learn is hipster hell. These pretentious, misguided, dickweed mcdouchholes are actually extremely compelling to watch. The movie is told through a series of scenes where the camera follows a new person after each encounter. These vignettes never allow the audience to get tired of a setting, plot, or character. However, there were a few occasions where I wanted to stay with one person instead of moving on. Some of…
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…
A wonderful piece of film which reflects the society the characters live in. Loved exploring so many different characters, and listening to their fascinating, some times completely normal, but also at times really fucked up ideas, opinions and stories.
A.V. Club review. Evidently I have a soft spot for movies that amount to a collection of shorts by the same filmmaker (as distinctly opposed to omnibus features)—see also 32 Short Films About Glenn Gould, Celestial Wives of the Meadow Mari, etc. Not as raggedy as I'd misremembered, though—Linklater put more care and purpose into each shot than the vast majority of Sundance neophytes manage even today.
Slacker is a classic indie film about drifters, dreamers and losers with no ambition, no money and no future. There's no plot and no main characters, and the camera just drifts around the city finding people to film as they walk by.
With Slacker, Linklater makes a films with a fairly interesting concept, and considering the budget it's a bit inspirational that he made it at all, but ultimately it lacks the consistency needed in the narrative structure to fully make it work (which he nailed in Waking Life). It's supposed to be loose and raw, I get that, but the dialogues are not always as interesting, which makes for some parts that are quite boring to be honest. Even…
Linklater. What's he like. The Before series, Dazed and Confused... brilliant. Some of my favourite films. Waking Life? Most pretentious pile of shit I've seen. Sadly Slacker is more Waking Life than it is Before Sunset.
Nothing much happens in the Before series. Most of the film is just people talking. Nothing much happens in this or Waking Life either. It's mostly just people talking. The difference is that we get to know the characters in Before. Vignettes obviously don't afford that luxury, meaning that it's just an endless procession of pretentious cunts moaning on about the end of the world and their sixth form politics. You'd move to another seat if some twat was talking this nonsense on the bus. I don't see why it's any different on the silver screen.
Richard Linkater's debut is unlike any movie I've seen--except for his later film, WAKING LIFE--and it takes us on a journey that is full of such contained, yet sparse life. We wander off from person to person, conversation to conversation in a town that encapsulates an array of feelings and stories.
Each person we meet gets around five minutes of screen time wherein they carry on their day to day life. There are no stories we invest in, no characters we need to care about, no big ideas being thrown at us to decipher; it's just a cruise of stories, people, and ideas shown to us with indifference--no judgments.
What keeps this movie interesting for us, the viewer, is how noncommittal the whole thing is. It doesn't ask anything of us, just sit back and let your mind wander.
I wish I lived in a world where people have conversations like they do in Richard Linklater movies.
Add this to the list of movies I half-slept through in college cause my head was up my ass, then watched 10 years later and loved.
Watching this film is like hanging out with a group of strangers who are making poorly thought out soliloquies about all sorts of philosophies and topics while getting stoned or drunken. You know you're having a good time but it wouldn't have any significant impact on your life the next day. Having said that, it's not a reason that should stop anyone to have this kind of experience.
The title promises exactly what this film delivers, it's as though Richard Linklater was trying to make a slacker of a movie. But a great character study following lazy people living in Austin as they meander through their lives talking of purpose and meaning without really finding any themselves. Through this collage of character vignettes, we see the dirtier side of Austin and find that America's subcultures really haven't changed that much since the 60's. Even with this film being more than 20 years old at this point it seems only more relevant and realistic than ever. A sure model for independent filmmakers and a great start indicating unique style for the career of Richard Linklater.
with character names such as "Questions Happiness" and "Has Conquered fear of Rejection" how can you go wrong?
"This story was based on fact. Any similiarity with fictional events or characters is entirely coincidental."
Usually I'm not a fan of Richard Linklater, but even I can't deny that this is a stone cold classic. It reminds me a bit of his Before-trilogy, but without the cloying striving for profundity that always put me off those films. Slacker is just kids, misfits, and freaks happily spouting rubbish for 100 minutes. Nothing more is needed, and thankfully Slacker understands this. It's also very dated, and that I mean as a compliment.
love this movie
Linklater may be my favourite director. I love just watching his characters walking and talking. He manages to make pretentious characters extremely watchable and rather hilarious. I am attempting to watch all of his films this month (as i have only seen about 70%) and i just can't get enough.
- A Trip to the Moon
- The Great Train Robbery
- The Birth of a Nation
- Les Vampires
- Donnie Darko
- Morvern Callar
- Irma Vep
- Miami Blues
- Babe: Pig in the City
For five years, film critic Scott Tobias compiled "The New Cult Canon" in a regular column for The A.V. Club…
- Grand Illusion
- Seven Samurai
- The Lady Vanishes
- The 400 Blows
The entire Criterion collection organized by spine number.
I don't know why I did this.