Naked Lunch - Criterion Collection

Rating:
Summary: A truly unique cinematic experience
Review: This is easily my favorite movie of all time!!! It is a must see for anyone who enjoys W. Burroughs work. It is a surrealistic venture into the mind of this great writer/satirist.

Rating:
Summary: Out to Lunch
Review: If you're going to watch this film then you pretty much already know what you're in for. Take Cronenberg and Burroughs, mix them together and you've got yourself a pretty weird film. And it is weird, but it's also so much more. It deals with addiction like no other film has. Specifically how addiction effects the creative process. This is far from youre average nice Saturday night film viewing, but it's a real treat nontheless. Criterion has once again done an amazing job. I'd be surprised if there's ever a better release of the film.

Rating:
Summary: welcome to interzone!
Review: In my opinion, Cronenburgs best film, or at least that i've seen. Amazing movie, Peter Weller (robocop) does an awesome job too. One of those joints you pop in the player and are thinking about it a week after you've viewed it. Runaway to Interzone with talking typewriters, giant sea centipedes, and the innermost sanctum of paranoia, bizarre eroticism, delusion, hallucination, and beautifully depressing schizophrenia. It's something else. Tough movie to describe, definitely required viewing for anyone with oddball tastes like mine and a good respect for a true artists unique vision (in this case two artists, Cronenberg and Burroughs). p.s. (just don't ever try the William Tell party trick)

Rating:
Summary: A Nessisary Evil?
Review: I can't add very much to what has already been written about Naked Lunch. For me, its a test of sanity; a rite of initiation wherein one's hold on reality experiences a trail by perception shift.
I wonder what Cronenburg could do with books such as "Thus Spake Zarathustra", or "The Confessions of Aleister Crowley"?

Rating:
Summary: Homebrewer
Review: The idea of bringing the novel Naked Lunch to the screen is a monumental undertaking. It was a task that could only have been executed well by a truly innovative director like David Cronenberg. Instead of attempting a literal depiction of the book, which would be all but impossible due to its stream of consciousness style, Cronenberg instead paints us a picture of what it might have been like to have been in the head of William Burroughs while he was writing it. The film can be considered a surrealistic biography; elements of Burroughs's life are melded with images and characters from his novels. Peter Weller plays the part of William Lee, Burroughs's alter ego, perfectly; with the right degree of apathy, detachment, and despair. Burroughs himself commended Cronenberg and Wellers on the accuracy of their depiction of his ideas. The supporting cast is also wonderful, giving life to an array of colourful Burroughsian characters.

The plot is essentially as follows... William Lee, having long given up writing as "too dangerous", lives a comfortable if morose life as a pest exterminator. His wife Joan, however, introduces him to the pleasures of his bug powder, as a powerful narcotic. Soon, Bill's world begins to unravel; the narcotic squad is after him, and at the behest of a talking typewriter/cockroach, Bill and Joan play "William Tell", leaving Joan with a gunshot wound to the head. After shooting his wife, Bill escapes to the hallucinatory world of Interzone, where he begins writing reports; again at the request of the talking typewriter/cockroach. The reports he writes end up becoming the novel Naked Lunch.

This film certainly isn't for everyone's taste, but it is a must for any Burroughs fan, and for anyone interested in surrealist existentialism. Now go out and purchase a copy of Naked Lunch 'ASAP', they don't make movies like this anymore (you will need a nap after you watch this movie). Enjoy kiddies!



Rating:
Summary: Twisted psychotic genius or contrived gooey slop?
Review: ...What to make of Naked Lunch. Well having seen it for the very first time not too long ago, I have to say I'm at odds as to whether this film leans towards a sort of crazy genius, or some pretentious attempt at masking pornography with something truly "off the wall".

David Cronenberg is well renowned for creating challenging, sometimes confusing, but always mesmerising films. And that much is certainly true here. But while his fondness of goo, gore and visceral detail is usually liberally applied to a wider context and narrative, in Naked Lunch it literally forms the "meat" (for want of a better word) of the film. From start to finish, it seems like an exercise in excess. Talking fleshy holes that like to be rubbed, creatures with various <ahem> organs attached to their heads, lots and lots of squelching, talking typewriters that turn into said-creatures (usually bugs) and more metaphors, iconography and symbolism than you can throw a stick at. Which is all very nice for an exercise in directorial self indulgence, but what is it all about?

Peter "Robocop" Weller stars as William Lee (alongside Ian Holm and Roy Scheider) as a bug exterminator/drug addict/writer in 1950's America. He has a problem; namely, he ingests vast quantities of his own bug powder which in turn leads him to descend quite rapidly into a state of utter insanity, where the real world and his own imagined underworld of talking insects, spies, and carnal romance all blur into one drug induced tangle. Without ruining the film for anyone that might want to see it, Naked Lunch proceeds to dance around several themes in its own, disturbing way; drug usage, the uninhibited artistic and creative process, homosexuality, mans primitive desires, and the vast and uncharted regions of the human psyche so often stifled by the restraint imposed upon it by the social norm which is not, in itself, an original theme, but few films have dared to tackle it so directly and explicitly as this. Based on what I've read about the author of the book of the same name, William Borrough, the film would appear to be a combination of a retelling of his story as well as an interesting take on the state of his mind during its writing. All sounds pretty interesting.

But it's a hard one to call. On the one hand Naked Lunch hints at some deeper meaning, with some excellent (almost existentialist) dialogue, verging on freeform jazz poetry, peppered throughout. It seems most of the characters are on some sort of introspective journey, discovering their limits, fears and desires. This underlying theme does at least re-assure you that you haven't just been watching 111 minutes of wanton "grossness". But, this is also the films downside. Whatever plot or deeper meaning is concealed within the film is negated by the sheer crudity of it all. Added to this, the sight of a flimsy rubber model of a creature (looking suspiciously like the Facehugger from "Alien") composed entirely of a backside, and male and female "organs" getting friendly with Robocop's...sorry, Weller's rear doesn't exactly yell `Highbrow!'.

Perhaps this is an example of creativity run amok. Did David Cronenberg's weirdness get the better of him this time? Did he create something so intricate and baffling that to the outsider it ventures into the realms of simply being pretentious "art junk/pornography" decipherable only by him?

Or maybe that was the whole point. Uninhibited creativity doesn't conform. It doesn't explain itself to you. It exists purely as its creator intended it to, and as it intended to be conveyed by the creator.

Do you write the story, or does the story write you...a question you may ask yourself after viewing this film. Definitely not for those with a weak stomach or an aversion to explicit sexual content, Naked Lunch will at least get you thinking, for better or for worse. Just be well and truly prepared before you settle down to watch this one.


Rating:
Summary: simply put: a classic!
Review: I've read many reviews of Naked Lunch the movie, and people either love it or hate it. I personnally can't get enough of it. All the elements of this movie are excellent: the costumes, the acting, the dialogues (or most of the time, the monologues), the special effects... My only disappointment is they shot it in a studio instead of in Tangiers where it is supposed to take place. I understand it is a low budget movie so I'll just say, the movie could have been even greater if it was shot on location. The filming and lighting are very straight forward, put the colors in black and white and you could almost say it's from the 40's. The costumes reflect the 50's era. The music is produced by Ornette Coleman; it is a mix of sax-driven avant-garde jazz and oboe-driven traditional music from northern Morocco. But really, what I like about this movie are the dialogues. Peter Weller's Robocop face spits out line after line with almost no facial expressions. Which fits perfectly with the character he is playing.
I could go on and on about the little things that make this movie great, but i'll stop here.
The only real problem is the price of the DVD! which is pricier than what most of us pay for a mainstream movie.

Rating:
Summary: A very strange film.
Review: This review is for the Criteiron Collection DVD edition of the film.

This odd film is based on the even more weird novel of the same name by William S. Burroughs. The novel was said to be unfilmable even after this film was made.

The film is about a pest exterminator who becomes addicted to the insect poison he uses to kill the bugs. Mass hallucinations of giant bugs who talk and turn themselves into typewriters and back are a result. The hallucinations continue to a point where one cannot tell what is real and what is just in his head.

The film has impressive acting by Peter Weller and some interesting props including an Arabic script typewriter. The special effects of the film are also very ingenious and well done.

The DVD also has some good special features.

Disc one contains the film with optional audio commentary by director David Cronenberg and lead actor Peter Weller.

Disc 2 contains a British TV documentary about the film's production, an essay about the special effects used in the film and illustrations of the puppets and other props used in production. There is a photo gallery stills and marketing materials, a set of still photos of William S. Burroughs from a collection once owned by Allen Ginsberg, and an audio recording of Burroughs reading excerpts from the novel. For those who have not read the book, I caution that these selections contain some extremely graphic material that is pornographic even by today's standards . The audio segement alone would certainly get an NC-17 rating if the MPAA listened to it. One of the actors commented that if the film followed the book exactly, it would be banned in "every country of the world"

The box set also includes a 24 page booklet with essays about the film, the novel and William S. Burroughs.

This film is not recommended for everyone.

Rating:
Summary: Cohesive insanity from two master storytellers.
Review: This film is not a direct interpretation of Naked Lunch. Rather, it is a combination of the elements of the novel, as well as elements of Burroughs and his other works. In that respect, it is equal parts adaptation and original work. It is related to Naked Lunch in that it employs the same sort of disoriented, cut-up style. The film is laden with a great deal of content that is not in the book, but the included materials are very relevant creations.

The film tries and succeeds at being a metaphor for control and addiction; it involves how we allow ourselves to latch onto things to avoid knowing ourselves. Whether it is a direct drug or a more metaphorical addiction, we attach to and submit control of our behavior and consciousness to our addiction. The film manages to discuss these themes, amongst endless others involving politics, sexuality, philosophy, writing, the beats, linguistics, religion, biology, ethics, and epidemic, all the while managing to somehow avoid being overwhelming.

Elements of Burroughs and Cronenberg combine to produce a work of art that is seething with scathing dark humor and manages metaphors for metaphors without seeming to expend any extraneous effort whatsoever. Cronenberg's genius is very direct and visceral here, with his very distinct and rare ability to be original while paying respectful mind to the source material.

The film is a testament to the positive effects of film being a collaborative medium. In addition to the talents of Cronenberg, visuals are exceedingly rich, colorful, and pristine, due to Peter Suschitzky's beautiful cinematography. Carol Spier does wonderful work on production design, and Ornette Coleman composes an excellent, deliciously out of control score. It is a cohesive film with a cast and crew that manages to communicate a unique, artistic, and artistically intelligent vision.


Rating:
Summary: Don't Eat Your Lunch Before Watching!
Review: David Cronenberg film based on a William S. Burroughs novel. A mystery science fiction/horror satire with no real plot structure or theme worth pondering over.

The story follows the depraved life of a pest controller/writer who succumbs to the hallucinogenic effects of his pesticides. It's really more a coming-out-of-the-closet story disguised as bad science fiction/horror. This depraved farce is nothing but a sequence of homosexual/bestial innuendos from beginning to end. This story and film is an utterly grotesque composition that makes Fellini's 'Satyricon' seem like a Disney film.

The film merely enlightens the viewer as to how so-called 'artists' can display such bad taste under the guise of creativity. An average porno film has more creativity and plot than this worthless piece of self-flattery. I urge you to spare yourselves the agony I have had to endure watching this filth.