Very uneven, to say the least. I see glimpses of Linklater's late work, but this just doesn't grab me. I wish it did. I really love most of what I have seen by him. Several of the conversations are quite entertaining. However, after about an hour, I found myself hoping it would end soon. At some points this feels like a pretentious college hipster movie, but I won't reduce it to that. I honestly would have liked it better if the stronger segments were made into a short film.
Fantastic. Evidently not for everyone, but if you're into realism, this film will give you a window into life at that specific place and time, among those specific people. In fact, I do not think I have ever seen a film that manages to capture a specific reality more successfully than this one.
As a fan of Richard Linklater, I was very interested in finally watching his early Slacker, but yeah... Not so enthusiastic about it. The experiment is a worthy one: The camera follows one character for the length of a conversation, piggy backs on another present, even just a passerby, and so it goes for about 24 hours, walking around Linklater's Austin, using local celebs and friends with little to no acting experience. Unlike a multiple threads film like, say, Altman's Short Cuts, the sequences don't have narratives as such. They are vignettes of people with too much time on their hands (artists, students, unemployed, retirees, and thus "slackers") shooting the shit. And how literally I mean that is where my problem lies with the film. Where Linklater would eventually perfect the art of the "philosophical talking" movie in the Before films, and the most obvious follow-up to Slacker, Waking Life, what the characters have to say in this film is rarely that interesting or thought-provoking. And though Linklater apparently thinks of the word "slacker" in positive, subversive terms, it's hard to not see the film as an indictment of the lifestyle as that of pretentious people filling their lives with their own bullshit instead of properly engaging with the world. While as a snapshot of the ordinary, which this film could also have been, it's too artificial and awkward for that. I still respect its overt experimentalism, and particularly like the destruction of cinema crafted in its last sequence.
Funny how the movie goes forward with the jumping from story to another story, without being confusing or distracting.
First movie of Richard Linklater that have come a long way since doing this movie.
4/5
a very commendable effort and achievement for the inexperienced filmmaker that he was at the time. I love the ambition of the film, using a bold idea of passing through the lives of people in a city, fluidly drifting.
I agree with many who dislike some of the characters or conversations, there were several which annoyed me (Madonna papsmear girl, guy in batman t-shirt who goes on and on) and others who made me laugh in ridicule at what they were saying, but even during the scenes involving annoying characters, there was still so much to appreciate and commend in the attempt.
I think it's an excellent film and adds to my appreciation of linklater.
I'm sure Linklater thought he was 'capturing the voice of a lost generation' here, but this is just a collection of the most boring people we have ever met talking drivel for an hour and a half. $3000 is apparently enough to make a film looks just fine, but it is not enough to buy a good screenplay.
A camera follows a bunch of nobodies around Austin, Texas as they go about their everyday lives. If you don't think that sounds like a great movie, I don't want to know you.
Add your comment
Comments 1 - 15 of 16
kellyoung
A movie about real life: Slow, mundane, and full of people who keep talking even when they have nothing interesting to say.stefenemie
Very uneven, to say the least. I see glimpses of Linklater's late work, but this just doesn't grab me. I wish it did. I really love most of what I have seen by him. Several of the conversations are quite entertaining. However, after about an hour, I found myself hoping it would end soon. At some points this feels like a pretentious college hipster movie, but I won't reduce it to that. I honestly would have liked it better if the stronger segments were made into a short film.numbernine
Fantastic. Evidently not for everyone, but if you're into realism, this film will give you a window into life at that specific place and time, among those specific people. In fact, I do not think I have ever seen a film that manages to capture a specific reality more successfully than this one.Siskoid
As a fan of Richard Linklater, I was very interested in finally watching his early Slacker, but yeah... Not so enthusiastic about it. The experiment is a worthy one: The camera follows one character for the length of a conversation, piggy backs on another present, even just a passerby, and so it goes for about 24 hours, walking around Linklater's Austin, using local celebs and friends with little to no acting experience. Unlike a multiple threads film like, say, Altman's Short Cuts, the sequences don't have narratives as such. They are vignettes of people with too much time on their hands (artists, students, unemployed, retirees, and thus "slackers") shooting the shit. And how literally I mean that is where my problem lies with the film. Where Linklater would eventually perfect the art of the "philosophical talking" movie in the Before films, and the most obvious follow-up to Slacker, Waking Life, what the characters have to say in this film is rarely that interesting or thought-provoking. And though Linklater apparently thinks of the word "slacker" in positive, subversive terms, it's hard to not see the film as an indictment of the lifestyle as that of pretentious people filling their lives with their own bullshit instead of properly engaging with the world. While as a snapshot of the ordinary, which this film could also have been, it's too artificial and awkward for that. I still respect its overt experimentalism, and particularly like the destruction of cinema crafted in its last sequence.Joker of Gotham
Funny how the movie goes forward with the jumping from story to another story, without being confusing or distracting.First movie of Richard Linklater that have come a long way since doing this movie.
4/5
thestuman101694
I enjoyed this movie.jacktrewin
a very commendable effort and achievement for the inexperienced filmmaker that he was at the time. I love the ambition of the film, using a bold idea of passing through the lives of people in a city, fluidly drifting.I agree with many who dislike some of the characters or conversations, there were several which annoyed me (Madonna papsmear girl, guy in batman t-shirt who goes on and on) and others who made me laugh in ridicule at what they were saying, but even during the scenes involving annoying characters, there was still so much to appreciate and commend in the attempt.
I think it's an excellent film and adds to my appreciation of linklater.
ClassicLady
They have an even more mundane life then I do! Boring!...NuclearPlanet
This movie only wins for the madonna pat smear.Dieguito
Strange.. :/Shaunage
I'm sure Linklater thought he was 'capturing the voice of a lost generation' here, but this is just a collection of the most boring people we have ever met talking drivel for an hour and a half. $3000 is apparently enough to make a film looks just fine, but it is not enough to buy a good screenplay.Tiago Costa
4,5 /5pimpmaster spaceman
A camera follows a bunch of nobodies around Austin, Texas as they go about their everyday lives. If you don't think that sounds like a great movie, I don't want to know you.Badeanders
This is one weird movie. The ultimate hipster film.Litso
Pointless and dull. Reminds me of Jarmusch' films but without any of the interesting characters or funny vignettes.Showing items 1 – 15 of 16