User Reviews (192)

Add a Review

  • Warning: Spoilers
    "Exterminate all rational thought. That is the conclusion I have come to." A product of the Beat Poetry generation, writer and drug addict William S. Burroughs' 1959 Naked Lunch novel's title takes it's name as described best by the author: "a frozen moment when everyone sees what is on the end of every fork". The book was notably banned in many places and deemed unfilmable until Canadian filmmaker David Cronenberg (Videodrome, The Fly) took the project into his own hands in 1991, adapting from Burroughs' other works as well to tell the story of this surreally strange science-fiction drama. Combining Howard Shore, known for his thunderous choir and full orchestra scores and Ornette Coleman's dizzy saxophone of free jazz together for the film's astounding score was certainly an audacious choice, as the notes sporadically swell and sway, seeming to add a hazy atmosphere to the drug-fueled ambiance of the picture. Peter Suschitzky's queasy green-and-gray-tinged cinematography only adds to the collision of varying sensibilities of a sickly uneasiness as well throughout. Did Cronenberg succeed at filming the unfilmable? Let's take a look.

    Peter Weller plays Bill Lee (a pseudonym of Burroughs and the name under which he published his first autobiographical novel Junky), a man of whom wants to write but exterminates insects to pay the bills. Bill sometimes hangs out with his nebbish writer friends, (of which Burroughs' modeled after fellow beat poet friends Jack Kerouac and Alan Ginsberg) Hank (Nicholas Campbell) and Martin (Michael Zelniker), of whom are both sleeping with Joan under Lee's very nose. Lee's wife, Joan, (Judy Davis), becomes addicted to Bill's bug powder dust, as she describes a shoot-up to feel like a "literary high"; a reference to Franz Kafka's 1915 short story 'The Metamorphosis'. He soon joins her in a world of unorthodox hallucinogens, involving meeting the kindly but sinister Dr. Benway (Roy Scheider), walking away with his first dose of the black meat he gives to Bill: a narcotic made from the flesh of the giant aquatic Brazilian centipede. When a party trick game known between Bill and Joan called the William Tell routine involving a liquor glass and a gun go awry, accidentally killing Joan, Bill flees to the Tangiers-like Interzone (Burroughs wrote Naked Lunch in the city Tangiers). Here in this Mediterranean location, he encounters talking insectoid typewriters, double agents, offbeat aesthetes, Mugwumps spouting and oozing from phallic appendages and plots within plots.

    Cronenberg's collaboration with the banned work of Burroughs between the realms of fiction and non-fiction allows the film itself to concern that nether region between the real and unreal as well, where the inspired and imaginative impetus for the creative process are not driven by drug-fueled hallucinations but are the product of it instead. With a fragmented touch of film noir realism, random routines and creepy-crawlies galore,'Naked Lunch' is a bizarre plunge into a narcotic delusion echoing that of a bitter cry from the bellows of the Earth. When combining both worlds regarding the exterminated species of the entomologic kingdom along with a few hits of insect powder, the thin line of what is tangible fades into a twisted oblivion, giving us a picture not for everyone but remains a good hit that still manages to shock and stun even today thanks to it's daring director, even with all of the bugs and the drugs.
  • An adventurous hallucination in a great terror. A pure Kafka high.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • xroo-737725 February 2023
    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.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • jandaba10 November 2005
    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.
  • This movie IS NUTS! But I live for it, anyway. Cronemberg is a god, but I got dizzy on this acid trip. This movie is really metaphoric, confusing, and abrasive. It definitely needs to be watched more than once and also needs to be studied.
  • 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.
  • A writer becomes addicted to bug powder, and accidentally kills his wife, who was also heavily addicted to the nocuous substance.

    I'll be honest, the recent, tragic death of the late Julian Sands brought me here, I always think of him when I watch this film, and he plays an important role in this curious tale.

    What appears on the surface as a film about bizarre alien creatures, strange drugs and a bizarre reality, is actually more profoundly about addiction, it has taken me many years to understand exactly what's going on.

    I do think the appeal of this film is slightly more 'niche' than general, it's not one with mass appeal, it will very likely frustrate the casual viewer, but I applaud the originality, and let's be honest, the source material is not what you'd call light reading.

    There is no way on Earth this film looks like it was made over thirty years ago, it still looks incredible, it defies time.

    I've gained an appreciation for this film in recent years.

    7/10.
  • An exterminator becomes addicted to the substance that he uses to kill bugs, and accidentally ends up murdering his own wife. This leads to him becoming involved in a secret government plot in a port town in North Africa, seemingly orchestrated by giant bugs.

    William S. Burroughs is one of those three influential writers known collectively as the Beat Generation (the other two being Allen Ginsberg and Jack Kerouac), and this film – and the book its adapted from – is one of the reasons why. Partly autobiographical, partly the absurdity of Burroughs imagination, 'Naked Lunch' is an excellent film.

    As you watch the film, it's difficult not to be taken aback by its sheer zaniness and surreal nature; however, it's fascinating to find out that, under those layers of fantasy, Burroughs is recounting stories from his own life. Drug addiction; the accidental murder of his wife; the need to escape from the glare of city life – these were all things that Burroughs endured himself and subsequently penned down. But in pure Burroughs fashion, the author adds some mutant bugs and a crazy plot to spice it up.

    And then you add Cronenberg to the equation, who himself is famed for his outrageous and sometimes ridiculous films. Cronenberg manages to bring Burroughs' vision to life in a very strong way, keeping the film moving at a frenetic pace and never really letting the viewer feel like they finally have a grasp of what is going on. At each turn, the film takes a new, unexpected twist, and we're all the better for it.

    But the best thing about the film is Paul Weller. Between typewriter-shaped cockroaches and insane hallucinogenic experiences, Weller somehow instils a level of gravitas. Maybe it's his everyman good looks, or his ability to seemingly move through every scene with a quiet presence, but Weller (as lead character Bill) makes you believe in the world. Through everything that he does, you stay on his side, and that gives this strange film it's emotional core.

    This is not Cronenberg's best film, I think, but 'Naked Lunch' definitely ranks up there as one of the better ones. The absurdity of it all had the potential to be off-putting; but bring together the intimacy of Burroughs' writing, the imaginative Cronenberg direction, and Weller's grounded performance, and you have a brilliantly made movie. Watch it.
  • The whole jazzy 90's intro credits definitely has a beatnik vibe to it. Wow, I was not expecting to see Roy Scheider in this movie lol. But it's cool to see him. Cronenberg really nails the 50's feel with all the aesthetic in the costumes and set pieces. I really liked Peter Weller's performance in this movie. Of course in great Cronenberg fashion, this movie is very bizarre, grotesque and weird. Something I've always respected about Cronenberg is that when he has an idea, he sees it through to the end. Doesn't matter how outlandish or bizarre it may be.

    Maybe Bill shooting his wife in the head was a metaphor for him freeing himself so that he can pursue his homosexual desires towards men. This is my theory since Bill is short for William and the character Bill is probably based on William S. Burroughs, the author who wrote the book, and he was gay. The report that he's having to type up is a metaphor he's created in his head as a way to keep a journal and log everything that's been going on in his life - everything that he's been thinking. That scene with all the people on typewriters at the cafe gave me a good idea for a meme lol. The fleshy face hugger creature with tentacles and the butt was one of the most disturbing and weirdest things I've seen in a Cronenberg movie.

    Anyone going into this movie without knowing anything about Burroughs, his background or the Beatnik Generation will probably be completely lost. And even if you know something about him, you'd probably be turned off by how weird it is. I can't relate with all the homosexual subject matter in the movie, but I kept watching. I kept watching to see if things would get weirder or if the story would get more interesting, and to try to piece together any metaphors or symbolism. The movie has strong hedonistic qualities to it, some of which were a turn off.

    Naked Lunch is basically a loose self biography of Burroughs experiences with drug addiction, homosexuality and history with his wife. It's not a necessarily pleasurable or enjoyable watch. Rather, it's more of a look inside the mind of a depraved and twisted man. It's a very well shot, well made movie that pays a lot of attention to detail. The cinematography and use of color is beautiful. It's quite a thought-provoking movie that has many scenes that stay in your mind, that you look back on. It scars the brain, which could be a good or bad thing depending on who you are. Unfortunately, the story was kind of all over the place and it's just too weird, it felt like a bad fever dream. I was kind of ready for the movie to be over once I got midway through. I'd only watch this movie again if I were in the right mindset and mood. It's definitely not a movie for everyone, not for most people. It's for a more niche crowd. But for those willing to take the plunge into the bizarre madness, I respect it.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    Naked Lunch starts in New York City in 1953 where Bill Lee (Peter Weller) works as a bug exterminator, however he is having some difficulty as someone is taking his bug powder that he uses to kill them. Bill finds out that his wife Joan (Judy Davis) is taking it & injecting herself with it, then strangely Bill is contacted by a large bug type creature that informs Bill he has to kill his wife Joan because she is an enemy agent. Bill flees New York City & ends up in Morocco with his insect type writer that he writes his reports on, from this point on things get even weirder for Bill & us...

    This Canadian, British & Japanese co-production was written & directed by David Cronenberg based on the controversial novel of the same name by William S. Burroughs, I am a fan of David Cronenberg & his work in general but I have to say that I think Naked Lunch is his least enjoyable film as far as I am concerned. Cronenberg's films are usually very visual & have deep meaning & are just great but Naked Lunch is a total mess that I personally didn't get & am not sure who it was meant to appeal to. Don't get me wrong films don't have to mean anything, they don't have to have deep life changing messages or be thought provoking but Naked Lunch is an almost unfathomable film. The basic plot as far as I can make out is that some bug exterminator starts getting high on his bug powder & then writes some bizarre book he titles Naked Lunch while having lots of bizarre hallucinations & starts to suffer from severe paranoia & concocts a strange world of his own in which he becomes some sort of spy or agent or something. For me a film has to be enjoyable & entertaining, if it isn't then what the hell is the point in watching it? Naked Lunch was neither enjoyable or entertaining to me so while some may love it & find all sorts of obscure meanings & parallels I thought it was just a meaningless mess with no direction or narrative & at almost two hours long it felt like it went on forever. While watching Naked Lunch I just kept thinking 'what the hell is going on' & once it had finished I was left thinking 'what the hell have I just spent two hours of my life watching', basically I was less than satisfied & left totally cold.

    The film is stylish & visually impressive as one would expect from Cronenberg, I can't help but feel that it's no coincidence that the orifice's that the bugs speak out of look like a talking anus. There's nothing in the way of horror or gore really, there are a few bug like creatures & a couple of sex scenes but this is surprisingly tame considering the source material & the director.

    The film has polished production values & looks nice enough, Naked Lunch was going to be shot in Tangier in Morocco but because of the war that broke out in Iraq it ended up being shot completely in Toronto in Ontario in Canada. Apparently Peter Weller turned down the lead role in Robocop 3 (1993) to star in this, Ian Holm, Julian Sands & Roy Scheider round off a good cast.

    Naked Lunch is a film that I didn't like at all, there just didn't seem to be any point or message or reason for it's existence. As a big Cronenberg fan I can say this is my least favourite of his films that I have seen, over long & meaningless pretty much sums Naked Lunch up for me.
  • 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
  • Warning: Spoilers
    "Naked Lunch" is a 1991 drama directed by David Cronenberg starring Peter Weller and Judy Davis. The last time I visited one of the director's films it was the terrifying "The Fly" with Goldblum and although I'm basically someone who can bear the look at blood, gore and other gross liquids, the film hit me right at the guts. From there on, I planned on watching his other famous films as well and thought I would continue with a film I already had in my shelf. The summary of the adaptation of beatnik author William S. Burroughs already sounded mental. I had no clue about what I was going to witness and it went increasingly more insane from minute to minute - as stupid as it may sound, I actually kinda liked it. Once you're drawn into the weird nature of the film you're able to appreciate the brilliance in all the madness. It features countless subtopics that are hinted through minimal details, but in general I'm sure that this film is about a struggling author who desperately tries to finish his novel and takes several drugs that give him hallucinations. But the most interesting thing though is that I really couldn't tell what scenes were part of reality, what were delusions and if the whole depicted conflict wasn't a nightmarish fantasy from the beginning. Not only could this be hinted by how the people treat insects in general (they make meat and drugs out of it), also how the film intentionally creates contradictions that are supposed to lead the viewer astray. Without giving away too much, like in one scene he appears to be a homophobic and in the other he's a homosexual encounter himself. It's paradoxes like this that give the film a particular surreal and even hypnotic touch to it. Additionally, let's not forget that it's a typical Cronenberg: the practical effects - from typewriter-bug hybrids to humanoid insects that are milked like cows - there's not a single practical effect that made me feel nauseous (mostly increased by my personal state of tiredness) and I was on the brink of throwing up again. In the same absurd manner the movie continues to depict one controversy after another. Lead by Weller, the cast gave performances that couldn't be any more laconic and intentionally showed little to no emotions in the first place. They take you on a delirious trip of controversies and both ethically and morally questionable decisions that will blow your mind with it's craziness. It wants to provoke, it wants to grab you by the brain and shake it and it definitely wants to make you wonder what the hell you're even watching. All in all, this film is a perfect collaboration between two masterminds. Cronenberg managed to successfully capture the the essence of Burroughs's deepest and most perverted thoughts and fantasies and bring it to the big screen. It's a picturesque and colorful nightmare that takes place in the damaged imagination of a drug addicted writer. It's absurd, it's absolutely gross and excessively grotesque. What they both created is the pedant to a nuclear bomb of bizarre vehemence that was ever shown on the silver screen. In the first place, I couldn't tell what I had to deal with, but the more time passes after the credits have rolled, the more I'm able to appreciate the art in it. It's not everyone's darling and hence the general low ratings. Nevertheless, I'd like to end the review by quoting Nelson Muntz: "I can think of two things wrong with that title..."
  • Not for all tastes. Writer-director David Cronenberg's appropriately-loose adaptation of William S. Burroughs' cult 1959 novel--his script inspired more by Burroughs' life than by his literature--this tale of a drug-addicted exterminator lost among perverted American expatriates in Tangier is satisfyingly grotesque for about an hour. Counseled (or rather, egged on) by demonic talking roaches, the exterminator takes to writing a book after accidentally killing his wife; fleeing New York City, he meets by chance his dead spouse's lookalike and her husband, a quietly menacing homosexual with a typewriter fetish. Not particularly well-made, though Cronenberg certainly gained the trust of his actors and succeeds in not making them look foolish. Begins intriguingly but gradually loses steam, the shock factor having worn off. Judy Davis connects with the audience in an extraordinarily immediate way, but Peter Weller is too laconic to carry the rest of the weight. *1/2 from ****
An error has occured. Please try again.