Queer

Daniel Craig did a good job in his role and the scenery/asthetic was pretty cool. Beautifully filmed, but you're always going to get that with a Luca film. It was quite off-putting by how slow and languid it was. Well-acted, well written, but just boring.

Synopsis: 1950. William Lee, an American expat in Mexico City, spends his days almost entirely alone, except for a few contacts with other members of the small American community. His encounter with Eugene Allerton, an expat former soldier, new to the city, shows him, for the first time, that it might be finally possible to establish an intimate connection with somebody.

I was deeply moved by Call Me by Your Name; suffice to say, it left a lasting impact on me. As a heterosexual myself, I never anticipated that a love story between two individuals of the same sex could resonate so profoundly. It opened a doorway for me and inspired me to delve deeper into other LGBTQ stories.

Regrettably, I cannot extend the same level of admiration to "Queer."

While the performances by Craig and Starkey are commendable, their characters or rather the storytelling at core did not resonate with me. Intricacies of the relationship too failed to evoke the kind of emotional response I was expecting.

However, the final thirty minutes of the film provides an extraordinary experience, offering a sense of catharsis that is quite experimental, even for a filmmaker like Luca Guadagnino, who often deviates from traditional narratives.

Though I loved 'Call me by your name', and definitely love Daniel Craig in a lot of movies this one is different and not in a good way. It actually took me quite some time to finish it, for me it felt it took way to long and at times lost my interest completely.

The way they tell the story and use metaphors for a lot of things, just didnt do it for me with this movie.

Some parts of the story are to long and boring imo and just dont grab me the way they should. And a lot of times it feels a bit weird, strange or a bit to typical.

The good thing about this is the performance of Daniel Craig and Drew Starkey.

I'm all for using movies to evoke some type of emotion but this movie took that quite literally by combining random images with random music and hoping we feel what the director felt. There's almost no connection between anything. It's like the writer took a bunch of pills, got high, and wrote the script. Then the director and the whole cast smoked a ton of weed and then made this. Whatever this is.

Trust me, I know very well what the director was going for. I'm gay. I know all about the queer culture, how lonely it is, and how we all long for a lasting connection with someone much younger and hotter than us. This movie makes that very clear. And I love that it explored that. But why was it necessary to get high to do that?? The whole thing feels like a hallucination trip. There is minimal dialog. There are looooooong scenes with no dialog at all. Sometimes for 5-10 minutes. We're just staying on a close up of someone's face or watching them perform an action but ultimately nothing is happening on screen except for some subtle movement which is just not enough to keep you engaged or interested.

Thank god I watched this at home and I could fast forward. Many times I skipped forward 20-30 seconds and it was STILL the same exact shot on screen. That's crazy!! That's not movie making. That's not a masterpiece. You're not being some kind of genius by boring us to death. You can't just play an upbeat tempo song for 5 minutes and show us one shot and think that will do the trick.

As far as the acting goes... I can't believe Daniel Craig did this. I'm talking full nudity, full on gay sex, tons of making out... the whole 9 yards.

The Mexico setting was a complete miss in this one. It did not fit the theme at all. The sets were ridiculous. They were very well made but just completely wrong for this movie.

I was a huge fan of Call me By Your Name but I think this might have been the last Luca movie I'll ever see. At least for a while. My time was completely wasted.

I have never seen 'Naked Lunch' (1991) but I found myself frequently thinking of it during the 2024 London Film Festival screening of 'Queer': probably to be expected, as William S Burroughs provided the source material for both films.

In 1950s' México, William Lee, an American writer on the wrong side of... forty? Fifty? Spends his days getting drunk, shooting up and having casual sex with other men. One day muscular, smart young hunk Eugene walks into the bar and Lee is smitten. But what does Eugene himself want? Plus there is that telepathic drug to think about...

I am not sure what, stylistically, director Luca Guadagnino is trying to achieve with this film. The sets are decorated almost exclusively in block colours - dull reds and olive greens, for example - and have that vaguely unrealistic, clean, Technicolour look that made me think the intention is to homage the films of the era in which the film is set. But if that is the case, why the decidedly un-1950s rock- and techno soundtrack?

Daniel Craig (is it my imagination or is he beginning to look like Sid James?) is hamstrung in the lead role by constantly having to declaim nonsense speeches in an accent clearly not his own. Drew Starkey is able to give a subtler performance as the manipulative Eugene, and certainly looks the preppy part. Lesley Manville is unrecognisable as a doctor living in the South American jungle - well done to the make-up team!

This is the kind of film that strikes me as being more about arty style than storytelling substance. It was okay to see once, but I shall not be watching it again.