Naked Lunch

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."

Naked Lunch_720p(480P)

source: Naked Lunch

Weird, often gruesome, both depressing and hilarious view of drug addiction leading to death for one and a writing career for the other. At the bottom is a cynical but true philosophy that those people who get ahead and find themselves unconsciously will the deaths of others to do so. Bugs, talking anuses and middle eastern noir are all part of the fun.

Cronenberg does a more than adequate job of filming the essence of Wm Burroughs writing with this full-tilt re-write of the title novel. Using perhaps the cut-up approach from Burroughs own trick bag, he constructs a film that touches all of the themes so well known to Burroughs readers. Peter Weller is scrupulously dead-on as Bill Lee and Judy Davis incredible as Joan, his wife. One seldom sees performances such as this in American Cinema. This is unflinchingly unflinching. On top of everything else, this film is deadpan funny as only (we though) Burroughs could be. Thanks for the Criterion Collection Special Edition. Oh yes!

This movie is incomprehensible, a cut above the absurd in a spiral of senseless moments. The protagonist is an insect exterminator who takes drugs for nine tenths of the movie and is drunk for the rest. He kills his wife and is contacted by an alien to be sent to the interzone with a typewriter that is also a giant insect. A quick trip to the Wikipedia page revealed to me that the movie is based on an autobiographical book written by William S. Burroughs who actually killed his wife, was on drugs for most of his life and had problems with his homosexuality. The plot of the movie is as confusing as the writer's life and for this reason it is difficult to understand even if you laugh a lot, especially for absolutely unexpected and akward moments.

OK, bear in mind that I haven't read the book.. Cronenberg said though, that a straight adaptation of Naked Lunch would firstly cost 40-50 million dollars to make, and two; it would be banned in every single country of the world. The movie is ultimately crazy too though. And I think its one the movies I've felt most stimulated by.. Its lovely. Amazing. If you like bizarre movies, and you like David Lynch's movies.. this is bullseye. Someone else quoted that the movie was depressing. I had that in mind while watching the movie, and I couldn't see any traces of that? I found the movie humorous more. Fantastic fantastic movie. Andreas

This is the worst film I've ever seen. Pointless, incomprehensible, and nauseating. I'm told that the author, William S. Burroughs (upon whose work this is based) was a paranoid schizophrenic drug addict. I could have guessed that just by watching five minutes of this garbage. I saw the movie at the cinema, and couldn't help noticing that in the first hour or so at least half a dozen people had got up and walked out. I wish I had. I stayed until the end in the hope that it might get better. It didn't. When it was all over, I didn't just want my money back, I wanted the two hours of my life back!

Based on a novel by W.Burroughs, a novel that it's partly auto-biographical as I read and directed by the master D.Cronenberg, it couldn't be otherwise. This is a surreal trip into Burroughs conciouss & sub-conciouss as realised by Cronenberg, a great original director. This is "insane" and if you're the type of movie fan that likes to make sense out of every movie, then don't bother to watch it. An original masterpiece, perfect colours, photography, weird sense of humour. And even if I dislike classical jazz, this music fits like a glove the movie's atmos-fear... A strong and delightful watching experience!

A boring bizarre film that was too hard to want to follow. I found sleeping it away 3 times(finally finishing it on the 4th) more enjoyable. An interesting story just not scripted well. It starts off great than slumps over shot dead by its own ambition to break its monotony. 4/10