After watching this movie, I realized something. Movies like 'Less Than Zero' (more so in Bret Easton Ellis' novel than the movie, though) and 'Bonfire of the Vanities' and other similarly themed movies presents one class of people, wealthy apathetic socialites who exist in a state of perpetual uselessness. 'Slacker' presents the other extreme. Young people in their twenties in this small Texas town with zero prospects, zero interest, and a lot to say about nothing. They're so hell bent on some kind of 'anti-establishment' philosophy, that they completely consume themselves in absolute drivel. Sort of like, rebelling too much about something they really know nothing about. No tough lives, nothing. Just person after person pontificating about absolute nonsense. These kind of people aren't profound philosophers, but instead, are just as useless as the obscenely wealthy bonvivants of the films of the 80s.<br /><br />I don't think 'Slacker' is a celebration of that type of character either, since most of the people in the movie, at least to me, come off as giant idiots. I think it was the intention of the filmmakers to mock that, although I don't remember the early 90s enough to conclude that based on its original context. The movie drags on and on, passing from one person to the next in this small Texas town, doing their bit before the camera before it passes them over and travels on to the next. They're not particularly interesting and to me, and in fact, are annoying enough to give someone the homicidal twitch. If you can tolerate the near hour and a half of convoluted yammering of the characters (because that's all there is), then you'll probably be able to get through it. Once was enough for me.