Slacker defies categorization. IMDb lists it as Drama and Comedy because they have to put it in a genre. The camera follows one person or group until someone leaves the group thus giving the story the cue to focus on another character that enters the screen. You could say it's a movie about nothing, like how Seinfeld is a show about nothing. It's about normal life, with some of the moments having the potential to be dramatic. These moments are not shot in a dramatic way, however. If Linklater had chosen to do that there would be more emphasis given to one character over another, which the movie is intent on not doing, maintaining a steady pace of moving from one person and situation to another. There is no conflict to be resolved, another reason it makes it hard to consider it a drama. So the movie is more focused on style rather than story. Once you realize that this movie is unconventional you can enjoy it for what it is and what it won't be. As for the comedy aspect, there are moments that I laughed. I couldn't tell whether the moments were meant to be funny, though, which made them even more funny. So it was like my first watching of Napoleon Dynamite, moments I laughed but wasn't sure if they were meant to be funny because it was so weird and unlike anything else I had ever seen. I was impressed with how well they did and how much money they made with the little budget they had. They used hardly anyone with acting experience and yet they were believably real characters. If you like indie or unconventional movies, watch Slacker.

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.

Richard Linklater is a director well known for making films revolving around personal relationships, philosophy, and how people are affected by the passage of time. For this, he has made some of very memorable movies in the past including the coming-of-age comedy 'Dazed and Confused', the romantic trilogy starring Ethan Hawke and Julie Delpy, and the critically acclaimed masterpiece 'Boyhood'. Rewinding back to the early 90s, Richard Linklater directed his first film centering on the social politics of citizens in Austin, Texas during the the Post-Baby boom period. This movie follows various unnamed characters and scenes dealing with seemingly random events around the city of Austin, including a young passenger (played by Richard Linklater) in a taxi car yattering about philosophy of dreams and reality, a young woman wandering around town trying to sell Madonna's Pap lipstick, a man lecturing on the existence of UFOs, a group of friends chatting about the conspiracy of John F. Kennedy's assassination, an elderly man who bonds with a criminal after thwarting him from robbing his house, and many other social misfits. The film focuses on each of these characters for a few minutes and their actions, and then cuts away to a new cast of characters, never showing them again.This film is a highly unique movie with an interest that is incredibly difficult to describe, even for fans of Richard Linklater's other works. The concept of this film is that it doesn't necessarily have a plot of any sort, but basically explores different aspects of a society and creates interest through the intriguing and thought-producing topics of their conversations. Topics such as philosophy, terrorism, conspiracy theories, and politics are placed in the institutions of the conversations. As we listen to their thoughts on the topics, the character development comes how the conversations flow and how the characters interact with each other, to make viewers engage with the characters. Some of the conversations warrant some laughter, while other tackles on more subtle material such as in one scene with the man chatting on the existence of extra terrestrial life, or the scene with the teenagers talking about their beliefs dealing with JFK's assassination. The acting works quite well and the cinematography stays solid. The whole movie plays like a mockumentary about society functions. The movie is an interesting work of art, but can only interest those who understand the direction Linklater is taking this film. The only major flaw with the film is definitely the abandoned possibilities that Linklater could have done with the concept to make the film capture better interest.Slacker is very unique and inspiring piece of work, but one that will definitely not appeal to everyone. Those who go into this expecting a plot will be significantly disappointed. But those who are able to understand the direction of this movie may enjoy this movie. This is a movie that doesn't tell a story, but rather explores aspects of societal and social satire.

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.