Rating: 
Summary: Shimmering and Innovative
Review: "Waking Life" is the rare kind of movie that makes your jaw drop in more ways than one. It's worth the price of admission (more than once, in my opinion) just to behold the 'rotoscoping' animation. Shot in digital film with real actors, a team of animators painted over each frame to produce an eery balance between realism and fantasy. Colors reflect a character's emotions at a given time, shapes distort to express thematic conclusions, and lines themselves vibrate with a universal energy. The visuals are beautiful and hypnotic.What's equally impressive (and perfectly complementary to the animation) is the exposition of "Waking Life". I hesitate to say 'plot' (although the film does build on itself), since the main character (Wiley Wiggins) wanders from person to person in an attempt to understand the world around him. The film is largely a combination of monologues and soliloquies on the nature of dreams, reality, life, death, free will, and everything in between. Wiggins' character can't figure out what's happening to him - he seemingly wakes from dream after dream, wondering if he's really awake. What I find exhilirating may be frustrating for others, but if you have the chance to see "Waking Life", don't miss it. It's a cinematic masterpiece.
Rating: 
Summary: 864,000 frames of art
Review: "Waking Life" was beautiful,philosophical,inspirational and a little surprising. I felt like I was watching a lecture on existensialism, with the speaker being a 7-11 checkout guy who had one too many Slurpees and was using his sugar buzz as an excuse to poetically smother his customers. A mix of artistic innovation and theatrical self-examination, it is a cartoon like journey through our imagination that is definately worth experiencing. Visually, each frame of film was a work of art in and of itself. If our subconscious mind is without boundary, then why can't our conscious lives be without limitation? "Waking Life" seems to ask that very question and by doing so inspires the audience to look within themselves and Wake UP! It is a grand collage of art and personal philosophies that dreams its way towards revelation for every second of 90 minutes. Overall, the only weakness to me was the casting choice of Charles Gunning, the teenage protaganist. He was very meak and uninteresting as a lead character. He reminded me of one of those museum tour guides who is so boring that he is completely ignored up until the moment someone gets lost and needs directions to the gift shop. He was obviously chosen this way intentionally so as not to distract the audience from all the "meaning of life" speeches that were constantly tossed out at us. Nonetheless, groundbreaking and a must-see!
Rating:
Summary: Extraordinary feast of images and ideas
Review: No movie that I have ever seen contains such an overwhelming abundance of ideas. Good ideas. Penetrating ideas. Ideas about life, reality, the meaning of existence, and lots and lots of ideas about dreams. Linklater must have been a philosophy major at the University of Texas. I say this partly because of the sheer abundance of philosophical explorations of a huge variety of topics, but the presence of actual University of Texas philosophers. I spotted two with whom I am familiar (Louis Mackey, author of one of the best books on Kierkegaard and who portrayed the "Old Anarchist" in SLACKER, and Robert C. Solomon, a prolific publisher of books on a variety of philosophical topics). But I don't mean to mislead someone and intimate that this is a movie that solely addresses the head, and not the imagination or the heart. It does. Visually, this is one of the most remarkable films I have ever seen. Most individuals anticipating seeing the film are probably already aware that Linklater initially filmed live actors in the movie's scenes, and then collaborated with others in painting over the images to create a remarkable animated film. The result is delightful. Visually, the movie doesn't look like anything else ever made. But the film isn't just gorgeous to look at and stimulating intellectually: it is funny. Nearly ever scene results in laughter, and interpenetrating nearly every discussion, no matter how serious, is humor. Apart from the visual aspect of the film, WAKING LIFE bears a recognizable resemblance to SLACKER. If you had seen SLACKER and then went to see this one without knowing who directed it, you would be identify both as the work of the same director within a few minutes. In fact, one of the earliest scenes in the movie strongly echoes the first scene in SLACKER. In that movie, a guy at a bus station (played by Linklater himself), catches a cab and begins talking to the cab driver about his dream life. He explains his theory that dreams might be a window into an alternative reality, and tells him that in a different reality, he might have talked and gotten to know a woman he saw at the bus station. WAKING LIFE begins with the main character exchanging glances with a woman at a bus station, then going to catch a cab (though he ends up with a ride from a very unusual individual), and then the rest of the movie is an essay on the nature of dreams. Though SLACKER and WAKING LIFE are stylistically similar, in the end they are very different films. While both are somewhat episodic, with little (as in WAKING LIFE) or no (SLACKER) plot to speak of, and while both appear to be set primarily in Austin, Texas (I spotted one scene that seemed to have been filmed along the River Walk in San Antonio and another on the Brooklyn Bridge in NYC), and both contain a succession of professional and amateur actors, WAKING LIFE differs in two major ways, apart from the visual. First, WAKING LIFE, despite the variety of character, primarily focuses on the concerns of one young man. Second, while episodic in structure, WAKING LIFE is structured by the constant questioning of the nature of waking reality versus dreaming reality. SLACKER was basically about nothing; WAKING LIFE is definitely about something. This movie is not for everyone. If you don't like ideas and talking about ideas, you might find this film tedious. It is animated, but it bears utterly no resemblance to a Disney movie. And it really doesn't have much of a plot. If you require a definite and involved plot, this movie won't be to your liking. For those who love extraordinary visual imagery and brilliant conversation about ideas, this movie will be a rare treat. Slight correction: one character in the movie says that Kierkegaard's last words were: "Sweep me up." This quote is, in fact, based on something Kierkegaard reputedly said a month or so before he died. He was at a gathering at someone's house when he collapsed physically. As people gathered around him, he quipped, "Let it lie. The maid will sweep it up in the morning." He soon entered a hospital and died a month later, apparently of a staph infection. I am not aware of any recorded final words.
Rating: 
Summary: Wished it had been better
Review: 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.
Rating:
Summary: Glorious
Review: "Waking Life" is so full of ideas, one flowing to the next, it really does feel like some sort of lucid dream. The animation adds to the overall vitality of the film. It jumps off the screen, challenging the viewer to wrestle with these questions, to take responsibility for his/her existence for at least a couple of hours. There is a sense of urgency bordering on desperation as the dream continues and the search for a center, for some kind of clear understanding begins to seem endless. There is so much here to absorb, you can really loose yourself completely in the film. At one point, we watch two men discussing the nature of film as an art form (I can't remember who they were) and then the perspective widens and we see that they are, themselves, on a movie screen in a theater with our main character as its sole occupant, which makes sense since it only exists in his mind - in his dream. Of course, we are also in a theater watching the film, adding another level to this already multi-layered context. After seeing this movie, I felt thoroughly invigorated. I wish there were more films like this.
Rating: 
Summary: This review reflects the film, not the DVD
Review: which I assume I'll review again once I buy it.
Waking Life is for the most part, a successful experiment, that is beautiful to watch unfold. I'm a pretty big Richard Linklater fan, from Slacker, Dazed and Confused, Before Sunrise, and even School of Rock (I've yet to see Tape or the Newton Boys, however). I like him, because he seems to have a real love for making movies. But also, he seems to have a love for life. Think about it, not counting School of Rock most of the movies above are about wandering (and wondering) and talking and learning, and living. I don't think this movie is pretentious because that would imply Linklater is trying to be something he's not-and he is not doing that. He genuinely cares and is interested by these ideas, and I think if you thought this movie was pretentious, you weren't watching it close enough.
Yes, the movie is fascinating to watch. Different animators were brought in for every scene, right? Well, it shows. Sometimes, the scenes have a strong abstract feeling (like the scene with Wiley and the red-headed woman) where the characters have rough geometric shapes and blank or abstract backgrounds. Sometimes, they're very realistic (like Ethan Hawke/Julie Delpy scene). All of it is great to watch, however.
The "plot" of this movie, is that Wiley Wiggins is in a dream from which he cannot wake up. He floats and flies (on occasion) from scene to scene, and each scene features someone talking to him about anything. However, he's not in every scene, so some of the movie (in my opinion) is even more abstract than that: it's just a film about dreaming and living, sometimes starring Wiggins. Follow? Good.
And now for the scenes themselves. Most are good, and sometimes even enthralling. The best scenes in my opinion are scenes that unravel like someone telling you a great story (the ones that immediately come to mind are the ones with Wiley and the two guys that explain to him how you know you're in a dream, and the one at the very end with Linklater himself). Some are a little long-winded but none are boring, if only because of the great animation.
The only scenes that give me trouble are the one with the prisoner planning revenge, and the scene with the bartender telling the man about how he almost got killed (which ends bizarrely). I just don't know what to make of them.
The worst part of the film is that, yes, you are basically watching people talk for about ninety minutes. Until the end scene with Linklater, it can be a tad grating (especially on a first viewing) towards the middle-end, but you'll keep watching. I think this movie uses the film medium to its extent...I mean, can you imagine reading the novelization of this movie? It strikes a balance between abstract but watchable. If I have another problem it's that I wish it could be a little more exciting, like if the stories being told were visualized, but that would mean changing the whole format of the movie and going for something more obvious.
This movie itself is like a dream. It leaves you feeling a little dazed at the end and you're not quite sure what to make of it. It sure is inventive though and unique, though. I like Waking Life because it's full of ideas and original thoughts, maybe too many of them, which is why it's not exactly a masterpiece but certainly not a movie to pass over like so many bad Hollywood pieces of junk. I like it because it's a movie that has too many ideas, instead of too few.
Rating: 
Summary: Beautiful but boring!!!
Review: Richard Linklater has made some good movies and I appreciate what he's trying to do here, but the film was downright excruciating to watch. I can't imagine anyone finding it interesting, but apparently, many do. Maybe Philosophy itself just bores me. I did think the animation was cool, and the Ethan Hawke, Julie Delpy Before Sunrise scene was inspired, otherwise, this film is better left on the shelf. It is definitely not for all tastes.
Rating:
Summary: Life is but a dream
Review: "Waking Life" completes (continues?) the walking-and-talking trilogy Richard Linklater started with "Slackers" and took up again with "Before Sunrise". It owes much to the form and content of those previous movies, borrowing "Slackers"s disjointed structure and "Before Sunrise"s unabashed romanticism. Only this time it's not a romance between a man and a woman, but between one man's sleeping and waking life. For me, initially, this was a tough film to engage with. The first third was terribly boring to sit through; at times it was a tough fight to keep my drooping eyes from closing for good. The friend I saw it with wasn't as lucky, for I caught her napping early on (she later admitted that the nap I saw was actually her third, and this was during the film's first half hour!). Frankly, this sleepiness should be expected, for the first "act" consists entirely of Wiley Wiggins encountering various random, verbose individuals, whom all ramble on about their great philosophical theories. Combine the droning nature of the dialogue, the very liquid backgrounds (the animation was beautiful, true, but very hypnotic; like watching the ocean on a breezy day), and a meandering anti-narrative, and you get a sleep inducing movie. This first third was like listening to someone's long, boring dream, an observation that Linklater, appearing near the end as himself, actually cops to. Kudos to him for admitting the inherent flaw in his movie (This flaw is also alluded to when Steven Soderbergh, in a brief cameo, tells an anecdote about how Billy Wilder described Louis Malle's upcoming $2.5 million dream-within-a-dream movie as a "$2.5 million loss"). However, even though the film is preachy, pretentious, long-winded, and droning at times, I give Linklater credit for including such off-beat discussion in his relatively mainstream movie. The movie takes a drastic turn around halfway through, when Wiggins' character experiences dream lucidity in a "Holy Moment". I'll not spoil how, for it was, for me, the most exhilarating moment of the movie. Needless to say, from this point on he is no longer a passive listener, but is allowed to engage the people he meets in thought provoking discussion. It picks up some much needed energy from this moment. The movie changes from being a series of boring lectures (reminded me of school!) to a series of fascinating social discourses (in one of the scenes that doesn't involve Wiggins, Ethan Hawke and Julie Delpy seemingly revive their "Before Sunrise" roles, going so far as to quote their prior selves regarding a discussion they had in that movie about the division of the soul as the world's population increases -- it's much more fascinating than the way I describe it here, trust me). The animation is impressive and necessary for the kind of movie this is (in an interview, Linklater admitted that if live-action characters spoke his trippy dialogue, the audience would be hard-pressed to believe; the animation allows him to go off on tangents, work through absurd trains of thought, and generally make as much or as little sense as he wanted, just as a real dream would). The visuals do take a while to get used to, though. In the beginning I found myself noticing the technique more than paying attention to the dialogue. If you let yourself, the minutiae that the artists include in the background can be quite engrossing. That being said, with a new toy like this a lot more could have been done, which would have been distracting. Linklater reins in his animators with a fine sense of restraint, not allowing them to go wild and fully exploit the animation to any extreme, but only go far enough to show a glimpse of its magnificent possibilities. I was grateful for this. "Waking Life" is a unique movie-going experience, at least for me. I left the theatre confused, disoriented, and mildly disappointed. It is only after 12 hours of reflection that I realize the particular genius here. I can't stop thinking about what it all means, and am truly glad that I saw the film.
Rating:
Summary: Talking Philosophy, Striking Images, Some Interesting Cameos
Review: 'Waking Life' would be more interesing, seen in the context of the up and down and up of the career of director Richard Linklater, one of the most innovative filmmakers in America. Before making this film, he experienced a very bitter taste of Hollywood and a commercial failure with 'The Newton Boys' which was attacked, or at best ignored, by the fans and critics alike. Then he went back to his indie origin, and this film is born.
[VIRTUALLY PLOTLESS] The film follows a young man's spiritaul journey, you can summerize. But more precisely, it comprises of a string of many digitally-animated images showing various people talking about life, or our existence. The traditional concept of story or characters are not needed, or just troublesome to enjoy this film.
Anyway, that's what many people say rightly. But the impressive part of the film is that it deals with a wide range of topics -- from Plato to Nietzsche. The real professor of philosophy appears (in digital animatation), and teaches a thing or two about one sect of pholosophy.
Two things must be remembered. First, this film was released immediately after the attack of September 11th, the moment we most needed something substantial even in films. And 'Waking Life' provided it to many people, a springboard to think about the meaning of life again. But some people thought otherwise; after all, they might say, Why watch, when you can read?
[MEMORABLE VISUALS] Why watch? The second merit os the film is this. Even the most sceptical would admit that the film's images are impressive in its own way, with the real-life hand-held camera's visuals which are digitally painted later. The results are nothing you have ever seen. But again, opinions may divide. Some say it's epoch-making; others say it's sea-sickness. I say both sides are right.
Steven Soderbergh appears as cameo, but it's very brief. You see many others (including Linklater himself as a Man at the pinball machine) but it is Ethan Hawke and Julie Delpy, the stars of the director's 'Before Sunrise' who would be most well-known to us. One inexplicable thing is that Linklater decided to let the couple show up together in bed, totally ruining the endearing feeling that they exuded in 'Before Sunrise.' This is unacceptable, for I fondly remember these likable characters in charming 'Before Sunrise.' Thank God that Linklater made the right sequel to their story in 'Before Sunset.'
The film is exactly what it is -- philosophical journey through the digitally painted world. And what would Linklater say about 'Waking Life' now, after the success of 'School of Rock'? I don't know, but the status of this film seems now secured, at least as visual innovation. It turned out not to my taste, that's why 3 stars, but it is still worth trying for once or more.
Rating:
Summary: What A Treat !!!
Review: Nothing like the ordinary movies out there, Waking Life makes you THINK. I loved it. My late husband loved it. It's original and funny and thought provoking. Put into cartoon mode, it first appears to be a stupid parody but you will be surprised. You may even see yourself in this delightful production. If not yourself, you'll at the very least recognize someone you KNOW.
If you want pure enjoyment with a touch of enlightenment, buy this movie for your library collection.
|
