Queer

It's too long, and it meanders most dully. I have no idea how it would appear to anyone who knows nothing of Burroughs, or what they might enjoy about it. I have to state that I don't like looking at Daniel Craig - some faces are repellent, and the idea that he might be considered attractive is alien to me. I had Dirk Bogarde's performance in Death In Venice in my head throughout, in a way completely unflattering to the ex-Bond. His performance has no nuances. He is incapable of portraying lust, or pleasure, or jealousy; you know he is feeling those because of an action rather than his demeanour. He also fails to be a convincing junkie, as shivering is not enough. Where is the craving that inspires others to murder? Drew Starkey as the object of his affections is similarly flat and unemotional. I wanted a parallel hunger for them both from Craig, instead of which I felt he quite liked them, compared to the tedium of the rest of his life. The best actor in it, by far, is Lesley Manville, who whilst playing the apogee of her usual type, is perfect. The book was unfinished when published, and I found this ending touching and satisfying in a way that the rest of the film lacked.

Daniel Craig is clearly making an effort to put down some markers with his post Bond choices. I don't blame him, it's such a suffocating role. The polar opposite, here he's William, a gay American in 1950s Mexico. A very William S. Burroughs premise, who wrote the generally autobiographical book this is based on. It's not Naked Lunch, but it does have an unsettling vibe. Not helped by unusual needle drops from Nirvana, Prince and New Order that just don't fit. William is lonely... and horny. So really, William is frustrated. That is until he meets Eugene (Drew Starkey) and they bond over war stories in the dry heat that drips from the screen. William is infatuated, but doesn't know if the younger Eugene is, or if he's even queer. It doesn't help that William has a self-deprecating, unconfident nature, although vast amounts of cheap booze and cigarettes seem to help. It's an awkward love/lust story, with a lob-sided feeling that William is destined to be hurt. Panama hats, linen suits, glass coke bottles and rusting Cadillacs driving down sunburnt dusty streets, past the daytime drinkers. There's a sordid, lazy, quietly hedonistic tone. Where time is largely irrelevant. The perfect place for William to wallow in a heroin stupor as Eugene leads him on, encourages him, pushes him away. Things don't change much as William tries to whisk Eugene away on a trip to Ecuador, but he does at least have him to himself. William's on a mission though, to source a plant that produces the drug Yage (nope me neither), that's said to give the user a telepathic experience. Here the music does get interesting. Scored by Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross, although still oddly modern, it depicts perfectly William's obsessive and destructive nature. One that leads him deep into the jungle to find Dr Cotter (Lesley Manville). Who helps both William and Eugene discover things that they already knew. It's all very striking, but I'm not sure that's enough. Craig is pretty fantastic, but Queer did lose me toward the end, even though I'm a big fan of some Lynchian style surrealism. Ultimately I think Burroughs is just better on the page, but this is still an interesting adaptation.

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.

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.