Benutzerrezensionen

If you're interested in the author of the book or the director of this film you have either already watched this film or you're waiting for the right time to watch it.

If you found this film by accident all you need to know to decide if its for you is that it is both the most homosexual and meta contextual film ever made and a solid contender for one of the most surreal films.

Do not recommend for family movie night unless you have ulterior motives or you're related to film/literature nerds.

In common with the writings of Burroughs this is innovative, inspiring and yet difficult. Difficult both to relate to and to fully sympathise, never mind the narrative flow that may or may not be there. I have to say the picture quality on my Blu-ray was stunning and once I had managed to remove the German subtitles as much a joy to watch as it was to listen to the wonderful soundtrack. It is just that this is so very strange and uncompromising in its celebration of homosexuality and drug taking that it can be an effort to stay with it. it was just about the only Cronenberg I had not seen and it was interesting to see, instead of machines and mechanisms merging into man, this was the other way around with machines becoming squishy. The animatronics were impressive and although the final set piece didn't work so well, the whole thing was well managed and I just wish I could have been more on board.

Movies in the last years have become more uniform, more streamlined, particularly in the US. As a result, the film market is full of sleek, entertaining movies that the whole world goes to see, but these movies have nothing but harmless baby teeth. Fortunately, people like Lynch or Cronenberg still do movies that may be considered defective by most people, but that bite into the flesh with pointy canines. The Naked Lunch has very sharp teeth indeed. It's supposed to be an adaptation from a William Burrough's book, which doesn't make sense anyway. It starts as the story of a failed writer whose wife becomes addicted to an insecticide powder... It goes downhill after this relatively sane and normal beginning. It's a ride, a drug-induced nightmare full of horribly funny visions (the sort of visions that artists used centuries ago to represent hell). Anuses talk. Aliens sip alcohol in bars. People get impaled. Typewriters turn into bugs. Liquids ooze. You may say it's flawed, or disgusting, or ridiculous, or boring. I saw it with someone who absolutely hated it. But the fact that this person still keeps talking about it 8 years after seeing it says a lot about the Naked Lunch, at a time when we tend to forget blockbusters a few hours after watching them. The Naked Lunch is here - in your mind - to stay.

Naked Lunch seems to be just totally incomprehensible upon first viewing. However, after watching it again, you start to understand more and more. Upon multiple viewings, you really get a feel for what's transpiring before your eyes. The ultimate message is that it is really just a metaphor for heroin addiction, even though it's so much more deeper than that. It's an intricate study of a man, William S. Burroughs, who was a heroin addict, and among other things one of the most significant Beat authors ever. The film delves deeply into the psyche of Burroughs and takes you on a trip in his mind and your own. There are touches of reality and many flashes of paranoia, and it is all done with style and grace. Seriously one of the best films about an author, Naked Lunch will certainly stand the test of time against other films which may seem at first entertaining, but lose their luster upon multiple viewings. Whereas, Naked Lunch, in my opinion, never will. 10 out of 10.

It's vey, very difficult to adapt the written works of the Beat Generation, especially a piece composed of wandering, surrealist vignettes like William S. Burrough's Naked Lunch. This film did so as well as anyone possibly could.

If you enjoy surrealism, but also like a good story, check this one out. Peter Wellers is amazing, Cronenberg is... well, he does his thing. You know what I mean. This film has a lot of my favorite movie quotes in it, and I'll never forget the repulsive yet entrancing visual effects. This is a must see for the Cronenberg fan and the viewer who likes to be surprised and low-key horrified.

"Exterminate all rational thought. This is the conclusion I have come to".

So says Bill Lee, the central character of David Cronenberg's adaptation of William Burroughs' bizarre novel "Naked Lunch". The film takes the novel, replaces the characters with Burroughs, his family, and his friends, and then gives them all the names of characters from the book anyway. Once you sort that conundrum out and stop thinking rationally you can begin to understand the film. But only begin. I don't think there is any way to fully understand "Naked Lunch".

Bill Lee is an exterminator who, along with his wife, has become addicted to bug repellent powder. One night, while on a bit of a bender, Bill accidentally shoots his wife, Joan, in the head during a game of William Tell. Following this, he uses the powder to go on a seemingly endless trip, ripe with sinister cabals, talking bugs, and journalistic endeavors.

What the film theorizes is that this is actually the tale of how Burroughs wrote the book "Naked Lunch". Indeed, Burroughs did shoot his wife the way Bill does in the movie, but one wonders if Burroughs actually went on the trip we see in the film. "Naked Lunch" is akin to "Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas" in it's over-the-top depiction of drug use as literary inspiration. "Naked Lunch" is actually a bit weirder to me than "Fear and Loathing", but I guess that's the same as saying one Queer Eye Guy is gayer than another. How can you be sure and, in the end, what's the difference? I'll skip over trying to compare Burroughs' trip to Dr. Thompson's. I think my brain would explode if I tried.

David Cronenberg, cinematic master of the macabre, struck gold with "Naked Lunch". Here we have one of Cronenberg's most fully realized fantasies. It's sick, disturbing, and confusing and, in these ways, it almost reaches the level of "VideoDrome", Cronenberg's true masterpiece and the most outright disturbing film I've ever seen. The creatures that Cronenberg dreamed up (based, of course, on Burroughs' warped ideas) are incredible. The seven-foot-tall Mugwumps (modeled after the physical appearance of Burroughs) creeped me out, and the half-beetle/half-typewriter creatures with talking sphincters are some of the grossest creatures I've ever seen on screen. These are things that Cronenberg delights in.

Peter Weller finally escaped from the shadow of "RoboCop" with this film. Ironically, the characters are similar. Both Robo and Bill Lee are monotone speaking, emotionless people. The difference being that Robo is made from forklift parts held together with duct tape and glue and Bill is human. Or at least I think he is. Nothing is certain in "Naked Lunch". Weller captures William Burroughs expertly. Judy Davis shows her range in the dual role of Joan Lee, Bill's wife, and Joan Frost, Bill's imagined lover. Joan Lee is drug-addled and loose; Joan Frost is uptight and needs to be taught how to be free. Davis makes the two women so different that it's almost impossible to tell it's the same actress in both parts.

If you like Burroughs, see this film. If you like Croneberg, see this film. If you want a simple, pleasant film...stay far away. :Naked Lunch" is a pornographically perverted look at the complexities of drug abuse and the difficulties of the writing process. I don't use the word pornographically lightly. This is as extreme a movie as I've ever seen, especially coming from the Hollywood system. It's icky, it's gross, it's disturbing. It's also a masterpiece.

When I saw "Naked Lunch", I was left with a feeling that I love to have after watching a movie: Every inch of my body was screaming "What the F- ?". Unfortunately, during the movie, it was a mixture of "What the F-" and *yawn*.

Even with the extremely interesting, puzzling, abstract and meaningful imagery, the movie is very slow at parts. Fortunately, every time I thought I was about to lose interest, something happened that grabbed me again.

The plot is very weird and hard to follow at times, and by the end of the movie I've got to admit that I had about 30% of the whole thing figured out. Which isn't much now, is it? But (for me, at least) part of the fun of solving these types of movies, is the following investigation and discussion with other viewers. So, after watching this movie and finding out it was based on a very personal novel by William Burroughs, I looked up some information about him. Let's just say, if you're going to watch this movie and don't know anything about William Burroughs, check up some information about him first, I was disappointed I didn't do this before watching the movie, because, the meaning and my appreciation for the movie skyrocketed after reading about him. When I say "based on a personal novel", I mean really personal.

The actors do a good job overall, although none of them really stand out from one-another. Music was pretty good and jazzy, which is always a plus! And this movie screams "jazz" all over. Photography is good, although also a bit boring at times, and very dark, which I'm pretty sure was on purpose, due to the main theme of the movie. Visual effects are great. Puppetry is amazingly well done (movies nowadays need more of this instead of CGI), provocative, often disgusting.

Overall, it's a very good movie that can be very interesting and thought provocative and (unfortunately) very boring at times.

7 out of 10.

Lots of people will hate this film, and some will love it.

The bottom line is, if you enjoy, respect, or feel that you understand the work of William S. Burroughs, you should see this film. If you don't know what I am talking about, you should probably not see this film.

The following pedantic and potentially inflammatory review, like this film, pulls no punches and makes no apologies for itself. Read on if you dare.

_________

If any three of the following conditions apply see Naked Lunch:

YOU

1. ...know what the term "visual metaphor" means.

2. ...are a Burroughs, Kerouac or Ginsburg fan.

2a. ...are not a fan, but know and respect Burroughs, Kerouac or Ginsburg

3. ...can't see how the book Naked Lunch could make a good film.

4. ... believe that Peter Weller is an underrated actor.

5. ...thought any of the following films were 'lightweight': Lost Highway, Mulholland Drive, Twin Peaks: Fire Walk With Me, The Last Wave, Heavenly Creatures, Dead Ringers.

6. ...have lived in the New York area for 15 or more years.

7. ...know the relationship between improvisational jazz, poetry, and modern art.

8. ...think you understand what Andy Warhol was trying to do.

9. ... are curious about what the process of writing a novel is like.

10. ...spend a lot of time arguing with inanimate objects.

11. ...without knowing the content of this film, can see a potential relationship between sexual ambivalence, guilt, paranoia, addiction, typewriters and over-sized talking insects.

You should NOT see this film if any of the following apply:

YOU

1. ...consider homosexual love to be evil, wrong, and something you can not sympathize with or understand.

2. ...use the phrase "he's on drugs" to explain behavior and ideas that do not make sense to you.

3. ...do not like or respect Burroughs, Kerouac or Ginsburg, and you know who they are.

4. have a concept of challenging literature as the latest John Irving novel (no offense to Mr Irving intended - he's easily as great as Burroughs, just sort of mainstream and pop).

5. ..like films which you can walk away from easily.

6. ...don't want to see any film which requires a second viewing to feel as if you've really got any of it.

7. ...view films strictly as a form of entertainment.

8. ...without knowing the content of this film, you can not imagine a potential relationship between sexual ambivalence, guilt, paranoia, addiction, typewriters and over-sized talking insects.

9. ...don't care to understand most of the following review.

10. ...consider ambiguity and loose ends in a film to be "plot holes" and consider any film which has them to be 'flawed'.

_________________

William S. Burroughs is widely regarded as one of America's greatest writers of fiction. A friend and mentor to Jack Kerouac and Alan Ginsburg, Burroughs helped to create the genres of 'beat' - American literary high modernism, and/or post-modernism. He provides highly tactile ironic, seductively repulsive descriptions of the everyday which are at once accurate, fragmented and surreal - in other words - Burroughs recreates the feeling and mood of his time and his experience with hermeneutic precision.

Cronenberg's Naked Lunch is an amalgamation of Cronenberg's interpretation and experience of reading Burroughs, Burroughs own life, and Burrough's legendary novel, Naked Lunch. There are six or more plots operating in six or more interacting layers throughout the film, and the action centers exclusively on Burrough's alter-ego, Bill Lee, as he attempts to discover the relationships between all of these plots. The plots I identify (and an interested viewer will generally be able to identify many more that this) are Burrough's relationship with Joan, Lee's relationship with Joan, Lee's drug addiction, Burrough's drug addiction, Lee's investigations into the secret society of drug trafficking at the edge of the world in Interzone, Burrough's struggle to create/discover himself. However, the theme of the film is more an issue of the Lee/Burroughs character trying and, in the end, failing, to make sense of the connections between these plots.

It is a very self-conscious, personal, brilliantly developed and visually intense film. Yet, despite its self-exposure and openness, the film maintains a certain distance from its audience, as if it has taken on the life given it by Cronenberg and Burroughs and established its own unique personality, which will keep its audience at a certain distance. To really appreciate this, you must watch the film at least a few times.

It is especially significant that Burroughs gave his approval for this project. Burroughs' writing is intensely personal and artistic, and his willingness to allow Cronenberg to position himself and his experience of Burrough's work within the film, and to decenter Naked Lunch is as powerful a testimony to Burrough's own integrity as an artist as it is to Cronenberg's vision.

Most of the people who acted in this film really wanted to be involved in it and it shows. Ian Holm and Roy Scheider are always great. Peter Weller, a big Burroughs fan and a severely underrated actor gives what may be the performance of his lifetime, Judy Davis and Julian Sands are both perfectly cast and powerful in their roles.

This films imagery is necessarily disturbing, disorienting, and, at times, quite comic. Very much in keeping with the feel of Burrough's work.

See it. You don't have to like it to respect it.

First of all, I can think of at least two things wrong with that title. Rest assured that there are no nude luncheons to be enjoyed in this movie; author William S. Burroughs described the title as referring to "a frozen moment when everyone sees what is on the end of every fork." Which doesn't really make it any clearer. The IMDb plot description gives some clue of the plot: "After developing an addiction to the substance he uses to kill bugs, an exterminator accidentally murders his wife and becomes involved in a secret government plot being orchestrated by giant bugs in an Islamic port town in Africa." David Cronenberg's adaptation weaves in autobiographical details of Burroughs' life, including his copious drug use, and the accidental shooting of his wife Joan Vollmer (reportedly during a botched game of "William Tell" with a loaded pistol).

The film thus combines the narrative of the novel "Naked Lunch" with a fictional story of its conception – kind of like 'Adaptation (2002),' only with crazy bug alien things which morph from one's typewriter. The main character is played by Peter Weller, an underrated stalwart of the 1980s whose credits include 'Robocop (1988)' and the cheesy action classic 'The Adventures of Buckaroo Banzai Across the 8th Dimension (1984).' I didn't make much sense of 'Naked Lunch,' but it did make me want to find out more about Burroughs and his work. The film is handsomely photographed and edited, not as dizzyingly manic as Terry Gilliam's similarly drug-soaked 'Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas (1998)' and less trashy than Cronenberg's 'Videodrome (1983).' I might have to track down the novel to read.

This is not an adaptation of William S. Burroughs' 1959 novel "Naked Lunch". Cronenberg uses elements from the works and the life of WSB and turns them into a very strange, appropriate tale. He does this quite well. Still, true to his subject, it's ultimately very boring, obscure and disgusting.

In the 1950s WSB wrote predominantly about his life as a drug addict - and about his lust for boys in South America and North Africa. It's quite drastic and depraved stuff, sometimes an actual horror story. He mixed reality with drug-induced hallucinations, peppering it with elements from the at that time still prevalent pulp fiction literature. In "Naked Lunch" WSB used the "cut-up technique" - the mostly random rearranged of text passages - to destroy every meaning that was still left, to turn his text into art, into the kind of literature professional critics liked. He did to literature what abstract expressionist, who dominated the art world in the 1950s, did to paintings. It was a street to nowhere, at that time labeled as "avantgarde".

Thankfully Cronenberg doesn't go there. He is doing the pulp fiction thing. On the surface, his film is about conspiracies, agents and aliens. The real story is the one of WSB's junkie life told in the world of his fever dreams as a drug addict.

The only reason why this film gets labeled as "Science Fiction" are the aliens, and these aliens are no aliens at all, they are demons. WSB was a true believer and practitioner of magic, and for many of such devotees UFOs and aliens are just explanations of demonic manifestations for a less religeous age. Cronenberg obviously did understand this. The two kinds of demons (aliens) are personifications of the two parts of the male anatomy WSB was fixated on.

A lot of thoughts went into the production of this movie. There are probably many allusions and innuendoes to discover, many symbols to decipher. But is it worth it? WSB as described by himself was a terrible human being, really the worst. Hating everybody, only living for his addictions, "accidentally" shooting his wife - yeah, that's the good life! Later on he actually wrote that this killing - that happened in 1951 in Mexico and for that he was never punished - did turn him into a writer. The movie promotes this idea in a way that's evil, demonic. The human sacrifice made him an author (Totally worth it!).

The book is not only much worse than the movie, having read it and knowing about WSB has a real negative impact on the perception of Cronenberg's work. It is no longer seen as being just strange and enigmatic. It's nothing less than repugnant. Sometimes art dies from knowledge.

The title sounds interesting - until it is explained by WSB himself: "naked lunch, a frozen moment when everyone sees what is on the end of every fork." It's nigh on impossible to talk more pretentious and silly than this. It gets worse than ridiculous: WSB repeatedly stated that he didn't love the drugs or their "kicks", he loved the addiction itself. Art for art's sake. Addiction for addiction's sake. He went through hell and he loved it, he felt right at home. And why not? After all, he wasn't a square or something. He was the avantgarde. Cronenberg's "Naked Lunch" is a movie from hell.

This film of 'Naked Lunch' is the first of Cronenberg's Trilogy

of filming three of the most challenging literary works of the

20th Century, and arguably the most difficult... as anyone who's

read Burroughs' 1959 novel can attest, in conventional terms it

is a book without a cohesive plot or even structure, largely

assembled from the paranoid rambling letters of the world's most

notorious drug addict. Cronenberg's approach to the material is

ingenious in that he attempts to fictionalize the circumstances

under which the book was written rather than trying to weave a

storyline from the mass of twisted plot threads which comprise

the text. The cast is impeccable, particularly Peter Weller and Judy Davis

as the leads, Ian holm as a psuedo-Paul Bowles, and Cronenberg

regulars Robert A. Silverman as Hans and Nicholas Campbell as

Kerouac-ish Hank. Julian Sands and Roy Scheider don't quite

infuse their roles with the ridiculousness of their counterparts

from the novel, but their cameos are brief and don't detract

from the overall effect. The overall effect being a hypnotic, schizophrenic blend of

biography and folklore, equal parts Cronenberg and Burroughs, a

self-tortured portrait of the creative process. To the

director's credit, he relies on the script (his own) and the

performances over visual trickery or stock travelogue scenery to

set the mood and propel the action. The astonishing soundtrack,

by the superb Howard Shore, underscores the drug-filled malaise

of this Tangerine dream perfectly... it lacks any musical sense

of time and therefore hangs over the proceedings like a

mysterious haze. Haunting, powerful cinema... but most

definitely not for everyone. Wise up the marks before laying

this on them.

Now this can be a difficult film to sit through for some and may even come off a bit slow. It's thought provoking and you really need to focus on the madness of this film in order to figure out what is going on when it comes to the story. I couldn't figure out entirely what was going on after watching it the first time and I was heavily paying attention. Now some people compare this to "Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas" which is a more popular film that revolves around the side effects of drugs. And basically is the more popular film between the two since it has Johnny Depp, it's more easy to follow despite the craziness and it's just more of a entertaining film overall. But I am gonna have to appreciate "Naked Lunch" and the ballsy directions David Cronenberg went with this flick. It's a very bizarre and weird movie all the way through, even when it comes to the characters and not just the premise and background of the story. The difficult part might be to differentiate what is hallucination and just fantasy and what is real. Even if some parts may appear like hallucinations it can be really happening just not how the protagonist views it as. The weirdness may start off overwhelming and you don't really get exactly what is going on, but as it progressed I got used to it fairly early on. Even if it feels like it's all over the place a lot of times. Since it has a lot of plots and layers going on at once. This isn't a movie I would watch again, but it's a weird trip that I can see why some people might appreciate and enjoy and others wouldn't. I personally think I liked it but just not immensely or anything like that. And also found it slow despite the strange imagery that actually really does connect with the story. But a movie driven by expression system, this one does quite a good job while blending in with the madness. It actually made me want to read the book this movie is based on, since I heard the book is even stranger. And since this is movie is based on a personal novel by William Burroughs made it more interesting as well.

7.3/10

I was really looking forward to this movie, based on the trailer and what I had heard about Burroughs' writing (never read it myself though). And with Cronenberg and a great lead player, how can one go wrong??

Well, I tried hard -- twice, in fact -- but just couldn't get interested in it enough to stay awake. Cronenberg's special effects were imaginative and well-done, but it just wasn't enough to carry it off. For me, at least.

I don't know what went wrong. I did lots of drugs in the 60s, I love Cronenberg's work and I really wanted to like this one. Maybe it's me, but don't get your hopes up on this one. See it when it's free.

I'm always dubious when books I love are made into movies. They never QUITE translate and something is always lost. The idea of filming 'Naked Lunch' is even more difficult than usual, because it isn't really a novel with a coherent, chronological narrative, more a sequence of surreal, absurdly dark and funny "skits". As such it would be impossible to make a successful movie out of the raw material Burroughs created. Luckily Cronenberg (and who would have been better equipped to make this?) has cannily blended scenes from the book with incidents inspired by William Burroughs real life, and made it work. Very well.

Fans of Burroughs are sure to be more satisfied with this than the more literal and less imaginative 'Beat'. Non-fans will hopefully be inspired to read Burroughs' work after watching this. Peter Weller is perfectly cast as Bill Lee, and the supporting cast are also fine. I like most of Cronenberg's output, and I would rate 'Naked Lunch' as one of his most successful movies, and the best depiction so far of the Beat sensibility.

I find it difficult to comment this movie, honestly. Without revealing anything, that is. This applies to comments only,as the evaluation would mostobviously be 10/10. You see, having read in one of the other comments here, that the movie contained an implication on heroin addiction, I expected to find something similar to "Requiem to a Dream" - a movie that leaves one single message and a bouquet of associated feelings in a viewer, with the message being DRUGS ARE BAD, in big friendly letters. I was wrong.

I guess those who enjoy psychedelic music will understand what I want to say better - this movie has a high. Not literally of course, but it does leave you in a different world, with lots of ideas, without any definite beginning or end. It is very, very weird, in the most positive, awesome meaning of the word. Definitely not another conformist movie with a moralistic message behind it. Which is a good thing, really, because we don't get a lot of that nowadays, and 1991 isn't that far away....

The only thing about it is that you either love it or hate it. Nothing in between.

I find it quite impossible to add anything without revealing the plot. Therefore the only thing I'm going to say is: watch it! Not the best movie in the world, but most certainly the strangest one, at least from my point of view.

If "Naked Lunch," the novel by William S. Burroughs, represents ultimate literary freedom (it would make the Marquis de Sade blush), David Cronenberg's "Naked Lunch" is a violent reaction to it. Freedom, not the book. The book is a beautiful work of art that exists outside the invented notions of law, religion, and reticence, just as much as it exists separate from past, present, or future. Any sense of guilt or shame experienced while reading the book is purely in the reader's mind, not on the page.

The movie is a different story. Since Burroughs wrote the book with an, er, "enhanced" mind, I figured I'd read it under the same conditions. So, maybe the plot in the movie is somewhere in the book, I just don't recall it. Anywho, the movie plot is a great springboard into the disparate shapes and pea soup- colored haze known as "Interzone." Cronenberg clearly is sharing his own experience of reading the book, mixing it with his knowledge of Beat history (including the world of Paul Bowles, the American ex-pat, living in Morocco, not an intimate part of the Beat generation) and his personal issues regarding sexuality. While Burroughs and his colleagues embraced homosexuality without much hesitation, Cronenberg isn't quite as comfortable with it, and makes it clear in his film. Not that Rev. Falwell or his ilk are putting it on their top 10 lists next to certain Mel Gibson or Charlton Heston projects. The movie is still sexy and seductive, mostly thanks to Weller, Davis, and, as always, the reliable Mr. Sands.

A lot of people have already covered all the bases on why the movie is good. Now I'd like to express why the 37 dollar price tag is worth it.

Firstly, the finest and most movie enhancing directer commentary ever made. Cronenberg and Weller are entertaining and informative, and they left me wanting to watch the movie again, equipped with a deeper understanding of this classic film. You also get a whole second disk of special features including hundreds of photos from the movie and of Burroughs and friends,The making of the movie, and Naked lunch read by Burroughs himself in all its obscene glory. This DVD is a class act and truly it is how any great movie should be treated.

Criterion also uses the finest in today's technology to restore and transfer the original masters to DVD. They went as far as to consult the director for his approval. The sound is also perfected to crystal clarity.

In conclusion... You aren't getting ripped off for 37 dollars. In fact, you are getting such an amazing deal it's beyond words.

David Cronenberg films the unfilmable. Though almost nothing like the book the title get's it's name from it's nonetheless an excellent film about the life and works of author William S. Burroughs. Like "I'm Not There", "Naked Lunch" takes a fragment...(read more)ed persona and mixes autobiography into fiction, and cuts them together. So it helps to know a few things about William S. Burroughs before going on.

Things like he "accidentally", shot and killed his wife in Mexico while tryng drunkenly to perform this films William Tell Routine, an event which would start Burroughs in his writing career(William and "Tell" being a strange coincidence for a writer named William), he was addicted to various drugs until his death in his 80's, heroin longer than any, did once work as an exterminator, spent a good deal of time in Tangiers and North Africa, was monotone voiced and always sharply dressed, though the film shows him as more bi-sexual than gay(he did have children), but was overwhelmingly gay(read a few of his books and you will get the overwhelming part). Was also an expert marksman, a gun enthusiast, and afraid/obsessed of centipedes. His friends in the film(who help get his book published) are supposed to be young versions of beat writers Jack Kerouc and Alan Ginsberg. If you look closely you can see that several different places are built out of the same sets, as the protagonist Bill Lee, doesn't really go anywhere, but into his head. (Oh the murder aspect of the Burroughs story is also basis of another film from 2000 with Kiefer Southerland as Burroughs, called "Beat", but it's not so great.)

But does any of that really explain why the type writers are insects who speak out of their assholes? Well the asshole story in the car ride, is a "routine' he used to do at dinner parties, as well as the asshole in general being both for Burroughs as a gay man a place of desire(or desires not spoken) and a social symbol of everything in life we avoid or would rather not say. As for what the title "Naked Lunch" means, it's the point during a meal when one looks down their fork and realizes what it is they've been consuming and eating all this time, where the true nature of the meal is revealed(not that this get's discussed in the movie)

Without any of that information and before I started reading Burroughs, I had no idea what was going on, in this movie save something about drug addiction, sexual identity confusion, and paranoia (which it is too) afterwords though I was amazed at how much David Cronenberg was able to bring together. It's not really an adaptation of "Naled Lunch" the book, but a Burroughs inspired film about Burroughs, that uses the techniques, preoccupations, and ideas of the author and his life to tell a Burroughs story. Because any type of literal adaptation of the book would probably be banned in every country on Earth...well maybe not Japan where incidentally you can buy the insect/asshole type writer (Who can say Christmas wish?)

So yeah if you like "wierd movies" you'll like this, if you like William S. Burroughs or David Cronenberg you should like it, everyone else though, approach with caution, even for "drug" cinema, there really isn't anything like this

It's 1953 NYC. Bill Lee (Peter Weller) is a former drug addict who has gone straight as an exterminator. He discovers his wife Joan (Judy Davis) is stealing his insecticide to get high. Bill is arrested by narcotic cops. They show him a talking bug who tells him that his wife is an agent of the Interzone Incorporated and she's not even human. He kills the bug and escape. He's directed to Dr. Benway (Roy Scheider) to get off the bug powder. He accidentally shoots Joan and kills her but she doesn't bleed. He falls further and further into a drug-induced surreal world. He imagines going to Interzone to start writing reports.

This is a movie beyond strange. This is not a movie for following the plot. This is a series of disturbing visuals to feel. It is weirdness without compromise. Peter Weller's stone-faced acting probably is the most daring choice. A drug movie usually has the protagonist going completely manic. I can definitely understand critics who find this movie unwatchable. It is one of the most unique visions ever.

The 9th Cronenberg film I've seen and the only one I struggled to make it 20 minutes in. The awful jazz "music" was a turnoff, as was the seediness and glorification of the overrated writer who inspired this. Go ahead and try it if you are a big Croney fan, definitely if you are a Burroughs fan due to already having a damaged brain, but otherwise steer clear. Don't say I didn't warn you!

Films about writers and the creative process are not generally action-packed, but this unusual piece has plenty of incident. The action takes place largely inside the mind of "William Lee" (William S. Burroughs) whose first book "Junkie: Confessions of an Unredeemed Drug Addict" dealt with his struggle against heroin addiction. "The Naked Lunch", set in the early 1950s, could be described as telling how that book came to be written. Lee does it tough. After "drying out" he has a job as a pest exterminator, killing cockroaches with powder from a cannister. He discovers that his wife Joan, still an addict, is shooting up with the bug powder and having sex openly with two of his literary friends, Hank and Martin. He then manages to kill her accidentally with his pistol ("I guess it's about time for our William Tell routine"). He flees the country and washes up in "Interzone" (Tangier - then an "international" city).

He tries to write but suffers from frequent hallucinations. He imagines his typewriter is a giant speaking bug whose mission is to act as his "Interzone" spyforce controller. He becomes involved with another expatriate literary couple, Tom and Joan Frost, and imagines that Tom is trying to kill his wife. Naturally he seduces the wife. Then he discovers he has a taste for gay sex, very easily indulged in locally, where there is a gorgeous willing boy such as Kiki ready to slide off the nearest bar stool. There is competition though from various other slimy types, including a rich gay predatory Swiss expatriate, Yves.

Somehow, the book gets written, and Hank and Martin show up just as Lee bottoms out in psychotic despair. They help him piece it together and head off back to New York, leaving Lee to "Interzone" and his hallucinations.

It takes a bit of discipline to watch this film - never has the creative process looked quite so destructive of the writer. Yet the whole thing has a lightness of touch about it. Lee never quite goes right over the edge and is able to observe himself with a certain amount of ironic detachment. At the same time, it is clear that the death of his wife has affected him deeply, both in terms of loss and guilt. The typewriter bugs are a cute touch. Burroughs was the grandson of the founder of the Burroughs office machinery empire, the man who patented the first practical adding machine - the mechanical bug runs in the family it seems. Abusive psychiatry also gets a send up.

As Lee, Peter Weller has a face as impassive as a homicide cop almost regardless of the turmoil within (after all, he made the role of Robocop his own). But he is a "tough guy" on the point of melt-down. Judy Davis, looking just right, plays with plenty of conviction both Joans (who in Lee's fevered brain are the same person). Ian Holm is good as Tom, the nasty older writer who is quite happy to lend his wife for sexual purposes but woe betide the man who damages his precious Arabic typewriter. Julian Peters as Yves radiated menace but overall was a bit of a cardboard-cutout, not helped by his dress and appearance, which seemed to have come straight from "Brideshead Revisited" (Sebastian in Morocco).

David Cronenberg as a director has certainly got a reputation for weird films ("The Fly", "Crash") but this offering is relatively restrained It was something of a pity that "Interzone" was a studio set somewhere (Canada?) but this is low-budget stuff after all. Unlike the bugs in "Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas", these ones have a story to tell, though it's a painful one. Like Hunter Thompson, Burroughs was a great prose writer and the film has plenty of good lines. No-one could view heroin addiction with equanimity after seeing this film, but there is no moralising. As bug agent Clark Nova put it in the film:

"Just remember this. All agents defect, and all resisters sell out. That's the sad truth, Bill. And a writer? A writer lives the sad truth like anyone else. The only difference is, he files a report on it."