MovieChat Forums > Slacker (1991) Discussion > Simply Terrible

Simply Terrible

posted 15 years ago by goff361
32 replies | jump to latest

I was very excited to finally see this film, after having heard so many great things about it over the years. I finally picked up a copy from a friend, and I began to watch it with a very open mind...

... an hour and a half later, I was actually angry at myself for sitting through the entire movie. I honestly wish I had turned it off after the first 15 minutes, and found something slightly more interesting to do with my time; like maybe watching paint dry. I totally get the point of the film; but like many other posters on this forum, I got the point of the film after about 10 minutes; it didn't need to go on for as long as it did.

While Linkaster eventually executed this style well, with Waking Life, Slacker seemed to be the first, and very flawed attempt at this type of film making. The dialogue in Slacker; which takes center stage, is not only uninteresting, and abstract, but at times I found it downright insulting. The "faux-intellectual" conversations between the characters were so unintelligent in their attempt to sound profound, that the dialogue sounded like caricatures of the people which were intended to be portrayed.

Interesting idea; but very, very poorly executed. I did not enjoy this film in the least bit, and actually found it borderline irritating. I would not recommend this film to anyone that I know, and I have no idea how so many people have recommended it to me over the years. The only people who may enjoy this film, are people who are high; perhaps to them, the monotonous dialogue would provide some entertainment. But unless you are under the influence of drugs, I do not see how any person could sit through this film, and honestly say that they enjoyed the experience.

[–] AlbinoAl 15 years ago

"The "faux-intellectual" conversations between the characters were so unintelligent in their attempt to sound profound, that the dialogue sounded like caricatures of the people which were intended to be portrayed."

I agree. But that was the whole point, wasn't it? Some of them are supposed to sound like wannabe intellectual dickheads.

[–] Druff 15 years ago

But that was the whole point, wasn't it? Some of them are supposed to sound like wannabe intellectual dickheads.

That's pretty much what I got from it. A lot of it totally reminded me of when I used to hang in the underground scene. Most of the people I met then were very cool, but there was also a contingent of these pseudo intellectual bohemian bozos who obviously thought they were "deep", but to me they were just damaged nitwit losers. Seemed to me this was often mocking that sort.

[–] Cue-ball 13 years ago

If that WAS the whole point, it didn't need ninety minutes to make.

The time has come for someone to put his foot down. And that foot is me.

[–] fede_4488 9 years ago

If you think that Richard Linklater was making fun of those kids, then you didn't get the point.

[–] Howlin Wolf 8 years ago

So the point of the film was to make the viewer hate the people they see, and wish to see them exterminated?

Gotcha. Mission accomplished, then! Personally though, I don't like tuning into a film to be deliberately annoyed... Normally, when a film gives you characters you hate, it also gives you some that you LIKE, as a counterpoint... Sadly, I didn't find any of the latter.



"Your mother puts license plates in your underwear? How do you sit?!"

[–] garriotts 15 years ago

To each their own I guess. This is one of my 3 favorite movies ever. I could watch this anytime anywhere. I find it constanly entertaining. Sometimes funny, sometimes hypnotic, and always engaging. I could see not liking it, but your criticism seems way over the top.

"the sun's not yellow, it's chicken"

[–] LoveTag 15 years ago

garriotts said:

To each their own I guess. This is one of my 3 favorite movies ever. I could watch this anytime anywhere. I find it constanly entertaining. Sometimes funny, sometimes hypnotic, and always engaging. I could see not liking it, but your criticism seems way over the top.

I agree with garriotts.

[–] ripetomato 15 years ago

But...were you high or under the influence of drugs either before or during Slacker? :-) Does the film experience vary depending on which drug you're being influenced by...funny=weed, hypnotic=shrooms/K/X, engaging=meth? Well...if so, it would still fall under GOFF361 opinion of the film. If this was the start of movies like Search for 1eye jimmy, napoleon dynamite or any Jack Black film...yeah it is a complete hit or miss type film. And his criticism is on point for the "miss crowd". I find these characters far too annoying to sit through and turn it off. At least napoleon dynamite gave us memorable one liners...

[–] iscream22 15 years ago

I love the film I think its great. The film is meant to be a commentary on that Slacker generation. If youve ever hung around a "hip" college you'll hear meaningless wannabe existentialist conversations like this happen all the time (but then again, I myself fit that stereotype and am damn proud of it), they are meant to sound intelligent when in fact they are more pretentious. But you know what, I'd much rather watch a film like this than 95% of the garbage that Hollywood releases these days. So many of todays popular films are boring predictable garbage chock full of CGI and actresses with too much makeup and whiny emo soundtracks. The 90s had much better independent cinema, same thing goes with the 60s. All in all i think the 90s was a overall better decade for pop culture. The overly paranoid culture war commercialized self obsessed materialistic society we live in today is so much more of a downer to me, which is why i dont have cable television nor do i listen to radio because so much of the media is crap. What we call news today is nothing more than slanted opinions than it is actual reporting or true journalism. And as far as the radio goes for music so many of the classic rock and alternative rock stations have changed formats to top 40. Theres no way on Earth that i'd be caught dead listening to Lady Gaga or My Chemical Romance, ill stick to my The Pixies, Beatles, and Smashing Pumpkins thank you very much.

.../ `---____________|]
../_==o;;;;;;;;_____.:/
.. ), --.(_((_) /
..//(.)//
.//__//

[–] wanna_b_anarchy 15 years ago

I agree the movie was interesting. You know its funny reading previous posters describe the characters and dialogue as "faux or pseudo intellectual", "pretentious", "wannabes", ect. It seems that people today are more jaded and quick to dismiss whatever they see or hear. Its like now that we have everything at our fingertips nothing is considered original or worthy. And we've lost a lot of the drive to be unique and creative, people will just assume every things already been done or any new idea has already been proven wrong. Hence reality tv: we've tried it all, we can't come up with anything new, so lets just turn on some cameras and hope for the best.

People also seem to be in state of despair today as well. Twenty years ago people were already starting to realize that humanity was screwed and there wasn't much we could all do about it, but they were still thinking about it and talking about it I suppose. But today there is this sense of despair about the world's problems, or people just try to ignore them, and it seems to me that you don't hear a lot of "deep" conversations anymore as if everyone has just thrown their hands up in the air and said screw it.

[–] KillYourShadow 15 years ago

How is OP jaded or "OVER THE TOP. THE END" for describing the dialogue in the movie the way he saw it to be? He said multiple times he understood the movies concept and even liked the concept. He just said it was drawn out and boring and just because it accurately reflects these social misfits and pseudo-intellectual babblers does not make for an entertaining movie.
I understand how people like this movie. It is not a surprise to me that it has a following. But if you are going to refute OP you need to not sound as if you are a character from THIS movie, ranting on and on about the present state of our media and narrow-mindedness of viewers etc etc. You are beating around the bush and need to answer this question : Why do you think this movie is actually worth something, as opposed to nothing.

Ignore the smoke.

[–] Howlin Wolf 8 years ago

"Turn on the camera" seemed to be the philosophy of this film as well, though... Sometimes that approach works, and sometimes it doesn't. In this instance, it didn't work for me.



"Your mother puts license plates in your underwear? How do you sit?!"

[–] garriotts 13 years ago

I don't see why this should be considered a drug movie, or a movie to be enhanced by drugs. It's a slice of life, about real situations. It's appeal (at least to me) is very primal, and human. I don't see it having anything to do with movies like Napolean Dynamite or Jack Black stuff personally. Maybe it had some influence on the culture which those movies came from, but if even if that's true it's completely accidental.

"I don't consider myself outside of anything. I just consider myself not around."

[–] iscream22 13 years ago

@garriotts
I agree, I don't think it is either, but i do think that particular subculture enjoys these types of films. Your average John and Jane moviegoer wont like films like Slacker when you can see drivel like Iron Man 2 or whatever. However a lot of art college kids/wannabe filmmakers (a lot of which are stoners) would be glad to watch a film like this or Waking Life.

.../ `---____________|]
../_==o;;;;;;;;_____.:/
.. ), --.(_((_) /
..//(.)//
.//__//

[–] chilone (17277) 6 years ago

What are the other two?

[–] mramirez1974 15 years ago

I reacted almost the same way to this film. I was looking forward to seeing it but quickly realized how boring it was. The dialog in the opening scene where Richard Linklater was in the car talking about his dream and his alternate reality theory was probably the best in the movie. After the scene where the guy hit his mom with the car (which was not developed and ultimately served no purpose), the movie just went downhill.

I actually enjoyed what he *tried* to do. The dovetailing conversation concept was great. And having lived in Austin for almost three years (particularly south Austin), I can appreciate the uniqueness of some of the people here. The consipiracy theorist elements were particularly fitting. However, in my opinion the dialog was contrived and mostly uninteresting, with almost no relief from either silence or music. Elements that make other dialog-driven movies more interesting, such as humor and pop-culture references (Clerks), style (Pulp Fiction), and plot (Singles) are missing from this movie. (One exception here is the conversation about Scooby Doo and referring to the Smurfs as a tool for Hindu indoctrination.) The only part of this movie with any character was Super-8 scene up on Mount Bonnell at the end. But by then, it was too late to redeem the rest of the film.

One of the characters provided some commentary that oddly seemed to fit the film quite well:

"[Y]ou're just pulling these things from the s*** you read. Man, you haven't thought it out for yourself--no bearing on the world around us and totally unoriginal. ... It's like [you've] just pasted together these bits and pieces from your 'authoritative' sources. I don't know. I'm beginning to suspect maybe there's nothing really in there."

All this being said, I've heard enough good things about Linklater that I'm looking forward to seeing his later, perhaps better-executed movies.

[–] el-9984 12 years ago

The "faux-intellectual" conversations between the characters were so unintelligent in their attempt to sound profound, that the dialogue sounded like caricatures of the people which were intended to be portrayed.

Dude, what the hell are you talking about? These people ARE caricatures…and they know it. Unlike the folks we often see in a wordy Bergman film or practically every "walk and talk" TV show since CSI or the West Wing, the characters in Slacker don't take themselves very seriously. Their lack of self importance provides a sense of immediacy and genuineness to their dialogues and to their situation. It forms the core of the film's honesty and helps Linklater cover a lot of territory without sounding like a pedantic professor.

btw…it's one of my favorite films.

[–] nimstic 11 years ago

Finally a reply I can totally second! Absolutely.

I've heard the criticism and all I can say is, that its not meant for them. They were talking about stuff like 'not entertaining' and 'character not developed' etc. The point of the movie was none of these. I can sit here and blindly say Linklater didn't make this for everyone! Thankfully I see and I enjoyed it. Just because the characters are wannabes/pretentious I need not dislike the movie. So you watch a movie about psychopaths out of your genuine love for their kind? It all boils down to your own taste and preferences in movies.

Each to his own is the mantra. I did not like OP because he seemed keen to write out his strong view (fair enough) and then make everyone else who liked the movie as silly/pretentious/whatever other expression he used (NOT FAIR!!!)

[–] Howlin Wolf 8 years ago

Psychopaths are usually interesting regardless of whether you relate to them as people; those who have a whole lot of nothing to say about everything invariably aren't however - and that's the difference, for me.

I do agree that if you liked it, then you shouldn't be dismissed, though... I'm pleased that other people were able to see something that I could not.



"Your mother puts license plates in your underwear? How do you sit?!"

[–] chilone 12 years ago

I agree. A total waste of time. If you want to watch this movie, leave your house and go anywhere. It's all there in it's mundane glory all around us and as equally pointless.

Living well is the best revenge.

[–] Howlin Wolf 8 years ago

I agree. Footage of people prattling on for the sake of it isn't hard to capture.



"Your mother puts license plates in your underwear? How do you sit?!"

[–] maniuis 11 years ago

Sorry to hear u wasted so much time. I did turn it off after the first 10 minutes. I'm glad to hear that sb else hated this film since I was tempted to give it a 2nd try. Now I'm not.

[–] el-9984 11 years ago

Give what a second try...the first ten minutes you couldn't get beyond the first time around? Please don't flatter yourself. If you can't even summon up the mental stamina to type full words in a simple IMDb post I very much doubt you'd get much out of the rest of the film.

[–] nimstic 11 years ago

dude/or dudette
Reading your post I'm pretty clear you didn't get the film at all. I've seen it like 8 times, spoken to other fans and I am pretty sure your perspective would be non-existent if you'd taken it on the right stride. I'm sorry man.

[–] lasherxl 11 years ago

I still think this movie is horrid. The concept even some of the scripting was decent, but the cast and the utter lackluster line delivery made it worse than an hour of fingernails on a chalkboard.

I've spent many an hour in a coffeehouse and you do get your deep thinkers and pseudo-intellectuals. I always feel as if he'd taken the time and had it spoken like real humans converse. It drones on so long its like 90 minutes of dry-ass toast and after you're done you're dying for a glass of water, or pretty much anything.

The common concensus from many fans of the film is that you don't understand bohemian subculture, or independent film and I find that to be a stark misrepresentation of non fans. It's much the same if you had Downton Abbey redone by the cast of the Jersey Shore it just doesn't work.

[–] breinfout 10 years ago

After the first scene, right when the guy gets out of the taxi, after that point you can turn the movie off, think about it for 1 minute and see how it would develop in the spirit of the conversation you just heard.

After that conclusion you did some speed movie watching, yes because this is the most superficial thing ever.

If it was a troll movie (which it clearly wasn't) but if you can believe that for the whole movie, then and only then, you might enjoy it.

[–] aburn-1 10 years ago

i didn't 'get it'. i watched this because Dazed And Confused is a masterpiece and i am an Austinite. but this just looks like boring crap to me. i need some kind of plot. people like to compare this to Clerks; well, Clerks at least goes somewhere. you can follow it. but there is nothing to follow here. it's the equivalent of just walking down the streets of Austin for a couple hours. the characters are all extremely uninteresting and the acting is beyond horrible, even for a low budget independent 'project'. i admit that i don't really 'get it', but there is no way you can convince me this thing is good compared to other independent films.

how the hell did this earn over $1M in ticket sales?

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] breinfout 10 years ago

Dazed And Confused was indeed a superb movie but you are absolutely right. I do get why people would compare this to Clerks but on the other hand, if they do that, they didn't get the spirit of both movies.

Slacker is just the portrayal of everyday 'real' life with a strong hipster vibe and that's it.

[–] K_C_Forever 10 years ago

It's an Austin, TX thing, you just don't understand.

[–] breinfout 10 years ago

Then I need to visit Austin, TX some time :D

If possible, could you elaborate on that a bit more? It's a serious question, no troll of some sort because I'm from The Netherlands and my only reference to the USA is NY which does not come close to the Austin lifestyle I presume?

Thanks in advance :)

[–] rzajac 9 years ago

Some flicks are for certain kinds of people. I didn't see it in the local art house when it came out, but years later I brought a VHS home. My wife and I were sitting rapt... really, almost hypnotized... for the duration of the flick. At the end, we sorta snapped out of it, and I said to her, "Well, whaddaya know... They made a movie about Our People...".

We mentioned it to a neighbor. At the time, she and her old man watched 2 or 3 movies a week, at home, in the evening, on VHS. They rented it, and got *nothing* from it. I felt like I understood.

I think it's a tribute to the fact that people's neural nets can be wired so differently. A strange thing about Slacker is that it emanates from ideas, thence the verbiage, and the visuals are window dressing. Watching it again (as I type), I'm surprised at how visually engaging it is. It's amazing that the visuals are as good as they are, given their derivative nature. And that's the point. At a particular point in your life, your brain is ready to see Slacker as an engaging production. An another point in your life (or most any point in some people's lives) it doesn't engage.

At any rate, it's a cavalcade of weirdos who produce humor, raw ideas, pity, derision. That works for me!

--
And I'd like that. But that 5h1t ain't the truth. --Jules Winnfield