massively overrated
Rick Linklater brought this movie off on a shoestring budget: it follows, without a story, the various reflections of residents in the student ghetto area of UT Austin.

I've always thought this movie was greatly overestimated: there are some good lines, but not really "dialogue." Pretty much all the characters talks the same: like Richard Linklater, presumably. It's really just a continuous, occasionally amusing monologue that simply drifts from one character to another.

Linklater went on to do some legitimately good films, but this one, his third film, hardly deserves the massive study edition that this Criterion Collection edition is.

Helped to jumpstart the Indie Rennaisance
How my ratings work:
5 - I really liked/loved it
4 - I liked it/really liked it
3 - Could've been better/worth a look
2 - Just didn't live up to the potential
1 - Simply aweful

Richard Linklater's Slacker is a landmark film in that it has inspired future filmmakers like Kevin Smith (Clerks, Mallrats, etc) and was part of the Indipendent Film Rennaisance of the 80's and 90's. For me Linklater has made many better movies since this (Dazed and Confused, Before Sunrise, etc). But for a debut film (though technically it's his 2nd full length film) it's not a bad piece of work. It shows his later traits of offbeat characters and flowing dialogue. Some will complain about certain scenes (like the opening with the director's monologue). But if you listen to the commentary by Linklater he talks about the obsurdity of someone talking to a random person of their theories of life. He's was going for a strange random film. Some scenes in the movie drag too much. But there are scenes that are quite funny (where the girl tries to sell a supposed Madonna pap smear). Other fun characters include a government conspiracy guy who randomly talks to a guy walking down the street. I like that the more normal characters in the movie don't seem phased and or don't judge the more offbeat characters. There are some nice deadpan moments too. And a good deal of the movie manages to pull off scenes in one long take, which isn't easy in any budget aspect of filmmaking.

I myself and 3 of my siblings are from Generation Y (all of us born in the early to late 80's), my oldest brother is of Generation X (born in 1976), and my parents are from the baby boom generation (dad at the beginning and mom towards the end). Thanks to this age diversity in my family I've been able to experience many different aspects of music, movies, etc. I'm writing all this to explain my reasonings for my liking of this film. Seeing this film has given me a better view of the Generation X crowd.

Would I call this movie a masterpiece? No, not really. Would I call it influential? Of course. As said before it's influenced other filmmakers. As an aspiring filmmaker it's inspiring to me in that it shows you don't need a huge budget to make a movie. Also this movie brings up things that seemed crazy at one point but are now coming up and or have already happened (global climate change, terroist bombings, etc). It's definately not for everyone; most likely I wouldn't show this to my friends because it wouldn't be their type of movie. This is for more the eclectic type of movie watchers.

Criterion did a good job on the special features for this dvd. I like the multiple commentaries from Linklater, cast and crew members that talk about the aspect of making the film. The 10 year anniversary meeting of the cast and crew is interesting to see since most of these people haven't seen each other since the movie was made. As for Linklater's real debut film, It's Impossible to Plow by Reading Books; I haven't really been able to finish it. I know I will at some point in the future. There's also a booklet with different essays on the film.

Sucker
This movie sucks. Don't wonder why aging Baby Boomers or anybody else lacks respect for their offspring, the so-called Generation X, when fools go around claiming this is a good movie.

I have much respect for slacking in general, as I do believe that work is a much overrated endeavor. In fact, working kills people. The stress and misery it creates leads to premature death in millions. Of coarse work must be done to maintain society, but people should do much less work. And the work that is done should be for things that need getting done. Most work is not necessary or even bad for the planet. There is a case to be made that some of the great Zen masters achieved enligtenment through their "slack".

Anyway, I don't like the movie because the slackers portrayed in the movie are typically either crackpots, dopey idiots, or plainly uninteresting. It's a portrait of social decay. Again, slacking per se is fine, but being a loony conspiracy theorist, immature and developmentally retarded, or psychologically ill isn't cool --and in the case of this undeservedly popular cult classic, not very entertaining. Slacking is not to my mind synonymous with idiocy, mental pathology, or even mediocrity. If your going to portray crack pots make them more interesting. I like some of the girls. The analysis of Smurf society is good. There are a couple or so good moments, to be fair. Anyway,that's just my two cents.

There would be no CLERKS without SLACKERS and obviously Kevin Smith copied this film and made a much better, much more entertaining movie. Another positive result is that this project did lead to WAKING LIFE, which is very enjoyable. The characters and conversations were overall much more engaging for the viewer. Visually it was even better before advertisers started using the same animation method in commercials for cars and what-have-you. Whatever.

I should have given SLACKER 1 star.

One of the Best Indie Films of the 90's
A movie that must truely be viewed to be an eclectic arristicrate, with a slacker mentality.

"Slacking" in the entertainment department
Slacker - Criterion Collection

A story taking place in and around Austin, Texas in the late 1980's or early 1990's, about.......well, it really isn't a story. Slacker is about this guy.......well it really isn't about a guy, or a girl for that matter. Slacker is essentially a day in the life of the area in which it takes place from the perspective of its local and transplanted slackers. The camera bounces from person to person following each for a few minutes then randomly re-selects a new target with no discernable rhyme or reason as why the new person was selected. This pace of person, change, new person change, goes on for what feels like an eternity with no moral, plot, or point and then bluntly ends having never resolved anything.

This movie was terrible. I, like many, heard about this movie from Kevin Smith (Clerks, Mallrats (10th Anniversary Extended Edition)). According to Kevin this movie was one of his early influences and a movie that convinced him he could make movies as well. I know many will think that I don't get this movie, or that I don't like it because it is low budget or because it is about college/high school aged kids but non of these are true. I love Clerks which was made for 30K and is black and white. I love numerous movies about younger people like Dazed and confused to name one which is also by Linklater. For the reasons I don't like it see below.

The Good: The only, and I mean only good thing about this movie, is that it motivated Kevin Smith to make movies.

The Bad: The failure of this movie is collective. What I mean by saying that, is it failed on on multiple levels. Movies don't have to be made in conventional methods to work but do have to have some element about them that does work.

Characters: The characters are basically a bunch of college aged kids sitting/walking around doing nothing interesting. It was painful to watch. If you want to watch a movie about a younger crowd that was done the right way watch "Dazed & Confused (Widescreen Flashback Edition)" (maybe Linklater just needed some more practice).

Dialogue: Exactly what you expect to hear from a bunch of college age kids who confuse intoxication and ignorance with wisdom and insightfulness. It was painful to listen to. If you want to watch a low budget movie where the dialogue was done right, watch "Clerks"

Plot: There is absolutely no plot. There are numerous movies that don't have typical plots that work. Dazed and Confused comes to mind again and Memento comes to mind also. There are numerous movies that don't follow typical plot lines that still manage to be entertaining. Slacker doesn't.

Since this movie missed on all of these levels I consider it a collective failure. A movie with not plot is fine as long as it has interesting characters and dialogue. A movie whose characters aren't strongly developed can be fine if the holes are filled in with a strong plot or good dialogue. A movie with weak dialogue can still work if it has a strong plot and strong characters. This movie failed on every one of these levels.

Overall: This movie was terrible. Do not pick this up expecting something like Clerks. The only thing it shares with Clerks is it's budget. Skip this one and try something else.