I give this movie a 9 just for how unique the story-line (or non- story-line) is. 20-something characters and scenes come and go, seemingly at random in Austin, TX in the early 1990s. The fluid segue technique is like nothing I have seen before. There's some 'Butterfly Effect' sprinkled in. Truly, a one-of-a-kind film. You don't have to be a Gen-X/Y to like it; I'm an old goat, and I loved it and will re-watch it tonight.

There is a lot of indie charm involved in this movie, from the clothes to the scenery to the subject matter, it is a bit entrancing. I guess that's in right now, the whole indie charm, I feel this movie captured it well. I do feel, however, that some of the conversation seemed forced and empty, like they just threw in a lot of this to be pretentious, but you know, that's up to opinion. One thing that did really capture me about this movie in particular was the way they were able to capture intersecting lives and stories, I loved the way the camera followed the people, it didn't just cut to a new person. I feel this gives perspective on the life we live everyday and how so many people pass us by that also have individual stories, that the world is more terribly interconnected than we'd ever hoped to believe. Although I did say earlier that I thought some of the dialogue was pretentious, empty, and forced, I did like a lot of it. I liked how they were able to integrate serious, pressing topics with lighter more humorous ones. This juxtaposition makes the movie feel more real, it pulls the viewer in and out of trains of thought. I felt this gave it a more surreal feel, the feeling that this, a movie, is not so far off from the life we live everyday.

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...

I'm a slacker by definition. At least, director Richard Linklater's stunningly sympathetic definition which is, "people who are ultimately being responsible to themselves and not wasting their time in a realm of activity that has nothing to do with who they are or what they might be ultimately striving for." I find that definition to be a pleasantly original one to a word often used to demonize those seemingly directionless and useless in the world.This is one of the many signs that Richard Linklater doesn't pretend to resonate with the adolescent community, but really does resonate and understand them, much like famous auteurs John Hughes and Kevin Smith. All three men know what it was like growing up geeky in suburbia, and all of them seem to have an instant pipeline to the minds and thoughts of adolescence and young adults. It's also no coincidence why Hughes greatly owned the teen movie demographic in the 1980's, and Linklater and Smith would go on to greatly define the nineties independent cinema by pioneering it and creating characters with meaning, opinions, and dialog that was sharp and gripping.Richard Linklater's Slacker occupies a structure that is primitive, unique, and relatively quiet. It involves a day in the life of random twentysomethings in the quiet, college town of Austin, Texas through a rhythmic and refreshing lens of cinematic poetry. We start out by seeing Linklater's character catch a cab and go off on a tangent, rambling to the uninterested cab driver about how he feels that every time we are faced with a decision, we have the opportunity to go off into a separate reality and some more convoluted scenarios he'll preach for the next two or three minutes. This is the taste of the elegance in the dialog we are about to endure for one hundred minutes.After we spend a few minutes with this guy, he gets out of the cab and walks a little before someone spots a woman who has just been hit and run. The camera pans back further and further, going in a circle, and then we see the same hit and run driver pull into his flat and sit in front of a few candles in a form of prayer or meditation, before he is eventually nabbed and arrested. The screenplay then sees two men walk by, one older and one younger, as the older one forces conversation with the younger one about how one must question everything they're told and rambles on for a few minutes about conspiracy theories, the moon landing being fake, etc. We then pick up someone else in the streets and the journey unfolds.The catch here is that the people we meet and focus on for a brief amount of time are talking about subjects we're surprised they even know about. "Slackers," themselves, are viewed as out of touch, lazy, careless, unimportant, and indifferent on many issues, but Linklater depicts them to be very knowledgeable people, possibly more informed than the talking heads on TV, who don't want to waste time bothering themselves with people or things that won't further them in life. They are far too smart for that.The screenplay, penned by Linklater as well, doesn't forcefully connect these stories, but ostensibly gets sidetracked when focusing on one. When the time is up for a person, the camera will swing around to someone else in the same shot. The film is simply in love with people and their thoughts, and subtly asks itself just before focusing on them for a minute or two, "I wonder what he is thinking?" This method could seem to birth issues such as laziness in writing, lack of ideas, or whatever, but I feel when a film is inherently plot less, it can sometimes accomplish more than a story that is locked down on a grid of clichés or story odds and ends.While the film seems to lack any and all themes or morals, one of the ones I cautiously picked up along the way was not only the love for the everyman, but the love for the opinions of the everyman. We often pass people, whether it be on the street, waiting in line at the grocery store, or simply strolling on a path we don't usually take. Sometimes, we may think to ourselves when we seem someone, what are these people's story? How did they get here, what do they do, what are their opinions, what have they accomplished, and simply, are they satisfied with life? Linklater knows how to accumulate this idea into a very well constructed film that, even if a little long, still doesn't manage to abuse the idea of human interest, pureness, and the importance of clever, engaging dialog in cinema.NOTE: Director Kevin Smith has gone on record saying that it was Linklater's Slacker that served as the direct influence for his directorial debut, Clerks (my self-proclaimed favorite film). Both films have a plethora of heart and intelligence, but I find Clerks to be a bit more focused and a bit more easier to endure. Slacker might need a few more viewings on my part.Starring: Richard Linklater, Kim Krizan, Marc James, Stella Weir, John Slate, Louis Mackey, and Teresa Taylor. Directed by: Richard Linklater.