Spectacular, Mind-Blowing, and Deranged Cornucopia of Masterful Artistry
Added 10/31/2009
I don't know how anyone could watch this film and assume there is no storyline, nothing interesting, or provocative, other than scenes that test the viewer's constitution. This has got to be the single best film I've ever seen in my life. I couldn't imagine any director but Cronenberg for this masterpiece. It simply crescendoes marvelously and uncontrollably toward the "end" without a single abrupt scene along the way, and Weller's performance is without peer. In a role that both reflects and repels the persona behind RoboCop to the extreme, Peter Weller deftly delivers the most stoic, elegant, and mysterious acting I have ever seen.
Now, anyone who is looking for a linear plotline should probably spend the next few days cutting up the original novel and trying to piece it together in the most logical way possible, because you are not going to get that in this movie. This is, as Burroughs puts it, only a tiny fraction of the book, but for the $35 I paid for it, I found it amazingly coherent. What's it about? A man who goes insane? Is that all? NO. This is a manifesto of Burroughs' life and work, filtered through the visual medium of film and the twisted genius of Cronenberg. The effect is astonishing. Absurd drug use, hallucinations, aliens, beetles, homoeroticism, and typewriters of every form under the sun. What this entails is an intimate, harrowing personal account of the creative process in the face of otherworldly circumstances. James Oroc proposes that Bill Lee's writing reports for interzone can be interpreted as Burroughs' solemn duty undertaken in the name of the psychedelic experience. I'll leave you with that, because with any more reductionist interpretation, the film might disintegrate before my very eyes.
6 stars.
0 out of 0 people found this helpful.
|
If you don't get it, you don't get it.
Added 7/27/2009
So. Here we have David Cronenberg's "Naked Lunch." I'm only writing this as a response to all the stuck up, conservative snobs who claim this as a piece of trash. Jeeze people, if you take the time to do a little research before you watch a movie, like checking out the trailer for instance, you can already get a good idea of whether or not this piece of entertainment would really be up your alley. I've seen the trailer, and it suggests as much as the movie actually travels. So you can complain about wasting 100+ minutes of your time, when it's just your own fault.
On to the actual movie. The film does a great job of putting you IN the story. Yes, it's one of those kinds of movies. Where you are, exactly, is some pseudo-fifties time period. All of the strange parts of the film are hallucinations by the main character, never is it implied that these are real, existing landmarks. The farther into the film you get, it's purposefully made more difficult to separate fact from fiction (in his mind.) Again, this movie does a great job of messing with your head on multiple levels. Especially the way it takes real experiences from the author (William S. Burroughs) and mixes them with these disturbing visions induced by a crazed lust for drugs and sex. I'm not a fan of everything David Cronenberg has done, and Videodrome was just sorta boring to me. But this film is probably the best of it's type, and definitely the most intelligent script I've seen in a while.
Warning: There is sex, death, drug use, and disturbing images/ideas. If you can't watch this all with a straight face and mature countenance, if you have to be stoned to watch films where you have to use the brain you don't have to make sense of anything, if you're a christian, conservative, republican, senior citizen, or all of the above, who feels the need to put yourself on a pedestal and only watch movies that remind you of that one time you never took a chance for the better in your life, than this film is not for you.
Except for the stoners, maybe. Sure, if you've got a huge bowl and 5 or 6 friends to share it with, pop this in. But only if you can enjoy it on it's own as well, otherwise you don't deserve the pleasure it bestows.
Acting: A+ (Everyone plays their part well)
Special Effects: A- (A+ for the time though)
Sounds/Music: A+ (Effectively quirky, creepy)
Story: A+ (A truly unique fusion of Autobiography and Science Fiction)
Overall: A+++
Once more. If you can put aside pretentiousness, and have an iron stomach, this is worth all your time and money. If not, stick to that disappointing Indiana Jones sequel.
1 out of 1 people found this helpful.
|
I really did not enjoy this item. Having never read the classic, I thought I could shortcut the process with the movie version. Although the delivery, pricing, etc. were all swell, I just couldn't get myself to benefit from whatever I was expecting of the story's contents. It' just too abstract and rambling for me.
0 out of 1 people found this helpful.
|
A really great movie. Just make sure you pay very close attention and follow the movie carefully.
0 out of 1 people found this helpful.
|
Creepy Goodness
Added 1/8/2009
Probably my runner up behind Kurosawa. Cronenberg's work is amazing. The tangibility of them is what hit's home for me. The schitzophrenic undertones don't hurt either.
0 out of 1 people found this helpful.
|
Spectacular, Mind-Blowing, and Deranged Cornucopia of Masterful Artistry
Added 10/31/2009
I don't know how anyone could watch this film and assume there is no storyline, nothing interesting, or provocative, other than scenes that test the viewer's constitution. This has got to be the single best film I've ever seen in my life. I couldn't imagine any director but Cronenberg for this masterpiece. It simply crescendoes marvelously and uncontrollably toward the "end" without a single abrupt scene along the way, and Weller's performance is without peer. In a role that both reflects and repels the persona behind RoboCop to the extreme, Peter Weller deftly delivers the most stoic, elegant, and mysterious acting I have ever seen.
Now, anyone who is looking for a linear plotline should probably spend the next few days cutting up the original novel and trying to piece it together in the most logical way possible, because you are not going to get that in this movie. This is, as Burroughs puts it, only a tiny fraction of the book, but for the $35 I paid for it, I found it amazingly coherent. What's it about? A man who goes insane? Is that all? NO. This is a manifesto of Burroughs' life and work, filtered through the visual medium of film and the twisted genius of Cronenberg. The effect is astonishing. Absurd drug use, hallucinations, aliens, beetles, homoeroticism, and typewriters of every form under the sun. What this entails is an intimate, harrowing personal account of the creative process in the face of otherworldly circumstances. James Oroc proposes that Bill Lee's writing reports for interzone can be interpreted as Burroughs' solemn duty undertaken in the name of the psychedelic experience. I'll leave you with that, because with any more reductionist interpretation, the film might disintegrate before my very eyes.
6 stars.
0 out of 0 people found this helpful.
|
If you don't get it, you don't get it.
Added 7/27/2009
So. Here we have David Cronenberg's "Naked Lunch." I'm only writing this as a response to all the stuck up, conservative snobs who claim this as a piece of trash. Jeeze people, if you take the time to do a little research before you watch a movie, like checking out the trailer for instance, you can already get a good idea of whether or not this piece of entertainment would really be up your alley. I've seen the trailer, and it suggests as much as the movie actually travels. So you can complain about wasting 100+ minutes of your time, when it's just your own fault.
On to the actual movie. The film does a great job of putting you IN the story. Yes, it's one of those kinds of movies. Where you are, exactly, is some pseudo-fifties time period. All of the strange parts of the film are hallucinations by the main character, never is it implied that these are real, existing landmarks. The farther into the film you get, it's purposefully made more difficult to separate fact from fiction (in his mind.) Again, this movie does a great job of messing with your head on multiple levels. Especially the way it takes real experiences from the author (William S. Burroughs) and mixes them with these disturbing visions induced by a crazed lust for drugs and sex. I'm not a fan of everything David Cronenberg has done, and Videodrome was just sorta boring to me. But this film is probably the best of it's type, and definitely the most intelligent script I've seen in a while.
Warning: There is sex, death, drug use, and disturbing images/ideas. If you can't watch this all with a straight face and mature countenance, if you have to be stoned to watch films where you have to use the brain you don't have to make sense of anything, if you're a christian, conservative, republican, senior citizen, or all of the above, who feels the need to put yourself on a pedestal and only watch movies that remind you of that one time you never took a chance for the better in your life, than this film is not for you.
Except for the stoners, maybe. Sure, if you've got a huge bowl and 5 or 6 friends to share it with, pop this in. But only if you can enjoy it on it's own as well, otherwise you don't deserve the pleasure it bestows.
Acting: A+ (Everyone plays their part well)
Special Effects: A- (A+ for the time though)
Sounds/Music: A+ (Effectively quirky, creepy)
Story: A+ (A truly unique fusion of Autobiography and Science Fiction)
Overall: A+++
Once more. If you can put aside pretentiousness, and have an iron stomach, this is worth all your time and money. If not, stick to that disappointing Indiana Jones sequel.
1 out of 1 people found this helpful.
|
I really did not enjoy this item. Having never read the classic, I thought I could shortcut the process with the movie version. Although the delivery, pricing, etc. were all swell, I just couldn't get myself to benefit from whatever I was expecting of the story's contents. It' just too abstract and rambling for me.
0 out of 1 people found this helpful.
|
