Queer

I hadn't planned on seeing Queer in the movie theatre and was going to wait till it came to streaming but a friend wanted to see it so I went along. I'm actually glad that I did because it's a very interesting and beautiful film visually speaking. Like most Burroughs stories there will be characters involved in heavy drug use and so I was aware of that and kind of expecting much of the story to be told through a characters drug hazed/influenced/induced eyes. That can be tricky as much of the story is expressed via metaphors and odd/quirky/hard to decipher visuals. In Queer that all worked quite well and while I anticipated possibly leaving the theatre confused and wondering, I actually left satisfied. Trent Reznor produced all of the music and I think he did a bang-on job with most of the music really hitting the nail on the head for me emotionally. As for the performances, Craig turned in a very solid performance on a role that was a tricky one to pull off but I think he did indeed pull it off quite well. Jason Schwartzman was great and his character provided some much needed levity to this film. All of the remaining characters were all solid supporters and contributors. Guadagnino's direction was well executed and i will say seeing a few of his that he does have a special way of blending the camera, with the lighting, and the music so perfectly during the lighter and more tender moments of his films to really generate a vibe, yet without being too obvious soas to smother the moment. I do think the third part in the jungle could have benefitted from some prudent editing as I felt like it went on a bit too long, or maybe it didn't really need to take actually take place in a jungle at all? Something to consider. Queer is not an 'easy' film to watch and it will not be for everyone. Either way, I was pleasantly surprised by how effective, interesting, amd moving Queer was and consider it well worth checking out.

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.

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.

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 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.