I think this is a new genre that they're all sort of working their way through it and haven't got all the kinks worked out yet but it's a genre that works for me.

The movie's not perfect, but it sticks the landing of its message. It was engaging - thrilling at times - and I personally thought it was a great time.

It really made me laugh, but for some moments I was tearing up because I could relate so much.

Mostly, the movie is committed to the value of a good time.

Basically a crazy quilt glimpse into a day in the life of a colorfully kooky assortment of fringe folks in Austin, Texas, writer/director Richard Linklater's idiosyncratic cinematic meditation on the endearingly absurd, comical, and sometimes even desperate measures loopy, marginal, and/or disenfranchised people are willing to resort to in order to give their empty and aimless existences some semblance of meaning and purpose displays a genuinely disarming affection for these lovably wayward souls that's both affecting and amusing in equal measure. Moreover, the vivid array of oddballs, deadbeats, dropouts, anarchists, and crackpot conspiracy theorists featured throughout for the most part are a quite funny and engaging bunch. The rambling free-form narrative structure boldly eschews convention and predictability while Lee Daniel's fluid cinematography makes adept and impressive use of long takes and continuous tracking shots. A quirky delight.

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.

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.

Richard Linklater creates an indie of a day in Austin, Texas. The camera follows one character leading to another in a series of portrait of misfits and disenfranchised. Linklater uses long uncut takes of these people talking usually in a monologue. The series of eccentric discussions and weird characters are a mesmerizing tapestry. Individually interesting, they are string together until it creates a picture of a subculture and a neighborhood. It's not a narrative and it's very random. I do have some problems especially with the lady getting run over and nobody seeming to care. It makes the people look heartless which I hope isn't Linklater's intent. Otherwise it's an interesting unique indie.