From the director of Slacker and Dazed and Confused comes one of the most imaginative animated features ever made. This funny, ingenious film, which Rolling Stone Magazine calls “nothing short of amazing,” explores the fascinating question: “Are we sleep-walking through our waking state or wake- walking through our dreams”? Join Wiley Wiggins as he searches for answers to lifes most important questions in a world that may or may not be reality in the “most visually alive movie of the year.” (Roger Ebert, Chicago Sun Times)Waking Life is a film that never settles down. Or maybe it never wakes up. Regardless, Richard Linklater’s animated meditation seems to strike a perfect balance between the plotless meanderings of Slacker and the unquenchable knowledge-seeking of Hermann Hesse’s Siddhartha. Any way you look at it, this is a weird, original movie.
As he attempts to figure out what separates dreams from reality, the protagonist (Dazed and Confused‘s Wiley Wiggins) hears an earful from everyone he stumbles upon. Ramblings range from the scholarly (Linklater’s former college professor Robert C. Solomon gives a monologue) to the banal (of which there are plenty). Ethan Hawke, Julie Delpy, Steven Soderbergh, and Adam Goldberg all get animated cameos, basically playing themselves. The dream-centered dialogues eventually grow mind-numbing, but that’s OK; the animation steals the show. Each frame of the movie, which was first shot with live actors, was painted over, and the process renders a distorted and trippy collage of sights and sounds. Linklater’s film is ultimately quite poignant, but, as with any good journey, you’ll need to sit through some fairly tedious moments before reaching the destination. –Jason Verlinde
Buy “Waking Life” For Only $5.00
March 5, 2010
#1
Let me start by saying that while I did not really like or dislike this movie I gave it such a poor rating for a number of reasons: one I have never seen more people walk out of a movie then I did when i went to see this one (has to say something), two the lead actors voice just really did not sit well with me for the whole movie, three the movie struck me like philosophy 101 and not taught very well. I did thought think that the animation style was rather interesting; however, I do not think that this movie was the form to be using it in.
March 5, 2010
#2
The “animation”, which involves rotoscoping live action, is so jittery that it hurt my eyes. This movie stinks.
March 5, 2010
#3
As part of a movie group, last week we were afforded the opportunity to see Waking Life before it opened. At first when the audience heard that this film was animated and used old and new techniques, there were some groans. But my purpose in joining this group was to see movies other than the blockbuster conventional films so I truly looked forward to this experience with an open mind. Unfortunately I learned much too quickly that the groans were justified as was the audience’s deaprture from the theater before the movie ended. Never one to give up easily, I decided to stick with it but ultimately felt it was a waste of time.
My first objection to the movie was the use of this new animated feature where the screen was never without some sort of motion. Focusing on one of the faces, there was movement from the cheek, forehead let alone the eyes and nose and mouth. At times I became so dizzy that I had to close my eyes. And I wasn’t ever quite sure what the subject matter was all about. It seemed as though a young boy was interviewing teachers or mentors about the meaning of life, etc. But one scene, in light of the recent World Trade Center tragedy in New York, was particularly gruesome. A man speaking to the younger man comments that life is almost futile upon which he pours gasoline over himself and then lights himself causing his incineration. I would have found this horrifying at any time but especially now, it was seat squirming awful to view that scene.
I will close by saying that perhaps my appreciation level for movies like this isn’t what it should be or perhaps I’m not all that sophisticated a moviegoer after all. Today I feel it was a waste of time to view this film and think if I had stayed at home and rented a movie or watched one on TV, I would have been a much happier camper.
March 5, 2010
#4
Ok, I give credit to the director for making a quite interesting movie.
Lots of people here seem to love the movie, which is cool, but for me, I thought it was boring. In fact, I didn’t even finish watching the whole movie. Lots of talk, talk, talk, and more talk.
Quite frankly, it never interested me. You like horror, action, mystery, drama..etc, then this movie shouldn’t be for you.
I thought it was going to be cool since its all animated, but besides that, its not that interesting.
March 5, 2010
#5
…
The first 10 minutes of the DVD contain some good “rotoscope” style animation — at once intriguing and engaging. And then the seasickness kicks in. Perhaps using the queasiness engendered by the Blair Witch Project as a model, some of the animators seemed determined to conceal their attempts at art under a panopoly of discordant visual stimuli. Who knows whether their attempts at art was successful?
It is unviewable.
Like the “computer newbie” who’s discovered different fonts, effects, and colors in a word-processing package, and seems to have sworn out a vendetta on white space, several of the animators use the Macintosh-hosted animation application to make their own work unwatchable. Not content with the camera movement that the hand-held digital video backdrop provides, several of the animators place ‘their’ segment’s background on multiple layers, each of which has been configured to rock back and forth — out-of-synch with the others. This completely unnatural effect will give you an eyeache, at the very least. Persevere at your own peril. You will be probably be rewarded with a splitting headache, and no comprehension of the animator’s message, if you try to bear it out (as I must ruefully admit to having tried to do).
The animation application itself, the subject of a very good documentary — shot with a tripod-mounted camera — is very rich in functionality and has been developed to be useful for a broad range of users’ talent-levels. So what … I can only wish several of the animators had been forced to take lessons. The ease of use of a camera, the interface of the application used for F/X in the Jurrasic Park movies, the difficulties trapping colors in blue-screen effects, and other technical issues should be concealed from the viewer.
The producers of this film forgot this critical element.
<>
<>
<>
Don’t waste your money on this one!!
…Please, please, don’t waste your money on this one!