Watch Slacker For Free

Too much of everything

I like movies that are aware of what they are selling... without [any] greater aspirations than to make people laugh and that's it.

At first rather annoying in its heavy emphasis on reenactments, this movie ultimately proves fascinating, simply because the complicated, highly dramatic tale it tells still almost defies belief.

This is one of the best movies I’ve seen in a very long time. You have to go and see this on the big screen.

Portraying a mundane Summer's day in Austin, Texas, Richard Linklater's riotously funny and often though provoking sophomore film is one of the greatest indie movies I have ever seen. Refreshingly entertaining and compulsively rewatchable, "Slacker" does not focus on story or even meaning; instead it works as a sort of character study, however it is a character study that lacks a main character, or any main characters for that matter. The camera flows through Austin's streets searching for its next subject; the audience gets a taste of one strange person's day to day experiences and moves on to another's. Witty, sometimes amusingly pretentious dialogue is spit back and forth constantly as Linklater paints his city portrait with a palate made up of conspiracy theorists, aspiring musicians, artists, (pseudo) intellectuals, anarchists, photographers, filmmakers, students, hitchhikers, philosophers, and so on. The countless characters are explored in a fashion that is not directly mocking, but still contains a slice of light, tongue in cheek satire. The camera moves with grace, tracing various streets and buildings, briefly observing multitudes of often weird, sometimes brilliant conversations. Everything from the hidden messages of Saturday morning cartoons to the government's hidden Mars colonies is discussed in a way that provides laughter of the highest (and smartest) degree.

There is no actual story here, so if you need a movie to have a standard plot to legitimize it, this isn't your movie. This movie is almost entirely made up of dialogue between dozens of different and often bizarre characters, and most of the dialogue is quite quirky and humorous, especially if you live in a college town like I do where so much of this felt familiar.A lot of people are going to hate this movie, and it's easy to understand why, but it's going to depend on your personality and what preconceived notions you have about watching a film, because there is so little structure to Slacker.If you can take this movie on its own terms, it's actually fairly amusing, as it paints a quirky kind of perspective on people and life in a college town. I personally loved it, but it's not for everyone.

A film that is plot less and based on pure conversations that are incoherent and yet so interesting. This is remarkable filming.This film is an evocative reflection of an American Community based in Texas and it reflects it so aptly and in sync with the title Slacker. "Slacker" refers to a person who lacks work ethic or who avoids work. Most of the characters, just speak and there work is never shown. What they do, why they do that. All this is not mentioned for most characters. They just speak something. For most of the time, there dialogs actually mean nothing and may even some gibberish, unless you pay attention to the subtexts. Indeed, they have a profound meaning underground and they are interesting too. Just have the patience of paying attention and you will be rewarded.Richard Linklater made remarkable films. From the "Before" trilogy to his most provocative and philosophical "Waking Life". I suppose so, that "Slacker" is indeed a prequel to "Waking Life" where conversations mean everything, characters are just real characters, who speak their mind, and there is no coherence to relate the whole film to a story. So those are the similarities of these two films and yet there are many differences too, which I better not discuss here. Linklater's eye for detail and understanding nuances of a whole community and capturing them as if they are all impromptu is indeed wonderful. This sets the film apart and the structure is rather stunning and yet so simple, indeed, the structure is just a flow of characters. One character leaves and other picks it up and sometimes the new character was part of the previous frame or scene too. So the structure could have been new in 1991 for many, but such structure came in 1929 with "Man with a Movie Camera". Now, what's outstanding though is the dialog. Linklater has a gift for provoking thoughts with his dialogs and this perhaps is his earliest instance where he showcased in talent in full flow. This was made on a shoe-string budget of $23000 (courtesy : Wikipedia). Considering that, this is made wonderfully. Also, this film was shot on a span of few days only in Austin, Texas. So, this is a wonderful attempt in Independent films and it has raised the bar for writing and dialog. The production values are not great but manageable. The editing is superb and the cinematography fine. Other aspects of acting are just apt. So all in all technically it was a great attempt with the budget it had.I liked this film but this cannot be visited multiple times as the dialogs are interesting but are limiting with the characters. Thus, I am going with a 3/5 for a good film.

Dull and pretentious movie. Pointless unrelated stories stitched together. One or two of the stories are mildly interesting. However, the rest are incredibly dull, consisting mostly of people talking either about weird but dull stuff, pretentious philosophical things, inane conspiracy theories or boring domestic stuff. I generally like character-driven dramas, but this was horrible. None of the characters are likable. In fact, they're all incredibly loathsome. Bit hard to feel engaged in the movie if you hate ALL the characters...Notable only for being Richard Linklater's second movie as director (and writer). Thankfully, he got better. A lot better. His next movie was Dazed and Confused...