User reviews

The main reason is that the film was too abstract and seemed like a stream of consciousness. The general meaning is to explore the loneliness in the queer heart, the difficulty in establishing connections with others, the pain of not being able to love, and the complex emotions of depression. But the performance technique is very stream-of-consciousness, especially the last 20 minutes, which have almost no lines and are completely used to express the inner world of the male protagonist through various blurs, hallucinations, and abstract art forms. Although I understood what the director wanted to express, the form of expression may not be acceptable to the public, and I wanted to leave the scene at one point.

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.

The chemistry in this film is unreal.

What a beautiful film by Guadagnino about desire as something transcendental and, at the same time, a burden.

A film that beautifully captures a story rich in almost supernatural eroticism about bodies and touches.

I'm happy to see this film, but it's not for everyone, especially those who don't want to embrace all the narrative's curveballs.

With a mysterious ending and sex scenes that may seem exaggerated to some prudes, Guadagnino is one of the few greats working who hasn't given up on lust as an instrument in his stories, and that's beautiful.

Queer shows an extraordinary capture through sound design and hallucinatory representation of how sex is such a powerful experience for humans and a fundamental part of being human that it cannot be omitted from stories due to the public's complacency, Queer challenges you.

The art direction and photography are excellent, with beautiful scene composition and excellent acting. Daniel Craig can break your heart by doing very little and Queer seems to be just another stage on this new journey alongside Knives Out of someone who wants to be more than an iconic 007.

A genuinely beautiful film that, two days on, is still firmly on my mind. I haven't read the book, but now I know that I soon shall. The acting is excellent; the cinematography and the visuals are great; the direction is exquisite; and the plot and script are more than sound. I was completely enchanted, and enthralled, throughout. I didn't once wonder what the time was, or attempt to check my watch. On the contrary, I didn't want this film to end. It isn't a happy film, no, and it may not be entirely perfect, either (I'm rating it 9 rather than 10), but it really is a very good film that I can truthfully and heartily recommend. You may cry, but you, like me, will probably find it very moving and worthwhile, too. I agree with the Telegraph of London - they rated it 5/5. Rightly so, I say.

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.

"I'm not queer. I'm disembodied."

Incredibly faithful adaptation of William S Burroughs' QUEER gives way to a haunting, melancholic, surreal romance film that goes further than just being Carol for the boys with the focus on existentialism, addiction, communication, bodies, dreams, and memories. This reminds me more of Apichatpong Weerasethakul's haunting and magical realist films. On top of having a phenomenal score by Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross, with an unforgettable piano and woodwind theme motif ("Pure Love" track) and credits song "Vaster than Empires" that references Burroughs' memoirs ("How can a man who sees and feels be other than sad"). There are some other fantastic and anachronistic needle drops, particularly involving Nirvana and Verdana's "Puzzle". The fivesome team of Justin Kuritzkes, Luca Guadagnino, Sayombhu Mukdeeprom, Trent Reznor, and Atticus Ross deliver an even stronger best film of the year than Challengers, especially when it comes to emotional resonance. I was teary-eyed by the end, and the book never even took me there. The racist edges of Burroughs' characters are sanded off here but this is still about privileged American immigrants drifting about in '50s Mexico and some slurs are still casually thrown out of their mouths and a lot of the dialogue is lifted directly from the book. Jason Schwartzman as Joe in heavy makeup and fat suit as the chubby comedic relief almost steals the scenes he's in. Daniel Craig delivers an amazing Oscar-worthy performance but Drew Starkey as Eugene Allerton is no slouch either, and their aching body language speaks more than any of the words which are often mumbled anyway, particularly a recurring thing of their cuddles and the legs over each other, or how Craig's Lee touches the back and ribs. The dreams have some unforgettable imagery that bolsters the haunting atmosphere, along with the astral projections of his hands reaching out as externalisations of Lee's desires. There is a memorable naked dance in Ecuador when they're on ayahuasca (yage) that reaches Cronenbergian levels as their bodies meld into each other. The centipede signifies the danger of this obsessive romance that has Lee going into teen-like giddy silliness and awkwardness as he pursues a young man and requesting for him to be nice to him twice a week. The painstakingly detailed props and mise en scene add a lot to the character of the sets and locations, and there are some fantastic uses of miniatures (Lee's eye looks into a hotel and sees himself) and painted backdrops that speaks to the surrealist tendencies, along with the unforgettable practical effects when they're high and vomiting scrotums containing organs. There is so much love and pain instilled into this film that it is easily one of Guadagnino's best and also possibly my favourite film of 2024.

Luca Guadagnino's Queer attempts to translate William S. Burroughs' semi-autobiographical novel into cinema, but it stumbles along the way. The film boasts a visually stunning backdrop and a heartfelt performance by Daniel Craig, yet the disjointed narrative and indulgent pacing hold it back from greatness.

Craig imbues William Lee with vulnerability, but the obsessive fixation on Eugene Allerton, portrayed by Drew Starkey, lacks the depth needed for genuine emotional resonance. The chemistry between the leads is insufficient to spark the tension that the story hinges upon.

Guadagnino's signature aesthetic is unmistakable, with lush cinematography and a thoughtfully curated soundtrack. However, these elements cannot overcome a narrative weighed down by uneven pacing and heavy symbolism. The episodic structure struggles to maintain momentum, making certain scenes feel repetitive and aimless.

For fans of Guadagnino or experimental storytelling, Queer offers moments of visual and auditory delight, but it falls short of delivering an emotionally profound or memorable cinematic journey.

Rating: 7/10 - A visually rich yet emotionally distant adaptation.

I was drawn to this movie as a queer person myself and also due to the fact that it is an A24 film with a star studded cast. However, I think this film tried too hard to be something different and deep.

To start off, I had no idea what the characters were saying 75% of the time. I needed subtitles so badly, their accents were so difficult to understand. Additionally, the film lacks so much context, and when it does give some, it does so in such a -blink and you'll miss it- type of way.

Things just happen so quickly and inexplicably and I was left confused and unsettled for most of the movie. I feel like you really have to analyze things and apply meaning to the symbolism, and personally that's just not something I like to do TOO extensively when watching a movie. I go the theater to relax and have a good time, not sit there confused and forced to do mental jumping jacks for two hours. Perhaps it is a personal preference or maybe I am too dumb for this movie, but I did not enjoy it in the slightest.

The characters are not interesting and their development is not satisfying. There's no romance despite it focusing on a relationship for the most part. A good portion of the movie is composed of trippy dream-like sequences which are uncomfortable to watch. Overall I hated this movie and could not wait for it to be over. I paid $16 to watch this and regret it so much. In today's economy, I hate leaving the movie theater disappointed and longing for enjoyable cinema.

QUEER. This word has more than one meaning. The most widespread is "odd or strange." The second most common usage is "homosexual." Both meanings apply to this film, but the first meaning is probably more apt. This movie has far more in common with APOCALYPSE NOW than with BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN. The story concerns "Lee," a man in his early 50s in the 1950s. He's an American who has achieved a certain level of material success and is now living a relatively hedonistic expat life in Mexico. He is an alcoholic and is in the early stages of drug addiction. He spends his days and nights prowling the gay bars and having meaningless liaisons with men he has nothing in common with, except that they are homosexuals. It is an empty existence. What does he want? He wishes he knew. He cannot put it into words. He meets a younger man who seems to be bisexual (his companion in the bar scene is female), but they develop a relationship. It is not particularly satisfying to him. He wants more from the younger man than the younger man is willing to give. He finally talks him into accompanying him on a trip to the South American jungles to search for a plant containing a drug that allegedly will enable him to develop telepathic powers. He believes that this drug will enable him to understand what he wants without resorting to words. He is told that there is a female shaman in the jungle who can obtain the plant for him. The two men go into the jungle and do indeed find the woman, who, as played by Lesley Manville, is a ferocious force-a knife-wielding, gun-toting old gal who seems bloodthirsty. They at least partially win her trust, but she warns them against taking the drug. It will open a door that they will not be able to close.

I'm glad I saw this movie, but it's not for everybody. The ending is enigmatic and the gay sex scenes may be a little too specific for some people. It's not quite hard-core pornography, but, thanks mostly to sound effects, does come close. And the drug-induced hallucinations could be really upsetting to some people, too.

This film is gorgeous to look at; the art direction and cinematography are outstanding, with every scene beautifully composed. To me it was evocative of the paintings of Edward Hopper in its depiction of an objective isolation of the psyche. The acting is also outstanding. Daniel Craig can break your heart by doing very little. I predict that both he and Lesley Manville will get Oscar nominations-Manville may win in the Supporting Actress category. It wasn't until I saw her name on the end credits that I realized that this was the same actress who played the title role in MRS HARRIS GOES TO PARIS. This is a great performance.

I think this film will become a staple on the art house circuit. It certainly deserves more than one viewing.

Greetings again from the darkness. Some filmmakers have earned the benefit of the doubt to the point where each film they release is worthy of consideration. Luca Guadagnino is one such filmmaker. He first captured my attention with I AM LOVE (2009) and has since followed that with such interesting films as A BIGGER SPLASH (2015), CALL ME BY YOUR NAME (2017), SUSPIRIA (2018), BONES AND ALL (2022), and CHALLENGERS, his first film released in 2024. This time he and his CHALLENGERS screenwriter, Justin Kuritzkes, take on the 1985 William S Burroughs novella, "Queer", which was linked to his 1953 novel, "Junkie". Taking on the writing of William S Burroughs is challenging enough as a reader, much less as a filmmaker.

Daniel Craig stars as William Lee. If you are familiar with Burroughs' writing, then you are aware the character of William Lee shares many of the same personal attributes as Burroughs himself. He's a gay man who drinks too much, does hard drugs, and is quite sexually promiscuous. The film opens with Chapter 1: How do you like Mexico? Lee spends his time drinking non-stop and carousing for his next roll in the proverbial hay. He has a few fellow ex-pat friends, including Joe Guidry (Jason Schwartzman), but it's a certain cool cat that catches his eye. Eugene Allerton (Drew Starkey) is a young ex-soldier and Lee is quickly enamored.

The two hang out together, although Lee is never really certain if Eugene is gay or not since he spends much of his time playing chess with fellow bar patron, Mary (Andra Ursula). One night of passion between Lee and Eugene leads to Chapter 2: Travel Companions. The two men make their way to South America as their awkward relationship (and agreement) leads to more booze. Chapter 3: The Botanist in the Jungle is certainly one of the most bizarre segments of any movie this year, as the men hike deep in the jungle to connect with a doctor who has researched some 'vegetation' that may solve Lee's fascination/obsession with telepathy. There is no viable description for this segment, but kudos to anyone who recognizes Leslie Manville - the one who has a pet sloth and keeps a viper for home security.

The Epilogue picks up two years later, and it's here where Lee's long struggle with loneliness becomes most apparent. His time with Eugene provides home of a true, lasting relationship with something other than a tequila bottle or a heroin needle. Daniel Craig and Drew Starkey are both excellent here, and may each receive awards consideration. If your previous exposure to Mr. Craig is through the James Bond movies, you might find this role a bit surprising, but those who have followed his career are in the know.

Opening in theaters on December 6, 2024.

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.

In order to escape drug possession charges in the United States, the hero came to Mexico City and indulged himself. . . I also tried to write, but mostly wandered the streets, immersing myself in brothels, cockfights and bars. . . When he saw the lanky, bespectacled Eugene on the street, he was smitten. At first, their flirtatious glances were just a playful cat-and-mouse game. Lee's initial attempts at contact hit a wall, but Eugene gradually began to socialize with him in bars. But Eugene eventually left, and two years later, Lee returned to Mexico City, with these cryptic words lingering in a haunting coda, when the image of Eugene in his mind was pitted against Burroughs himself and Vollmer. That painful past is intertwined.

William Burroughs is one of the most unique and diverse writers in history as his works have created quite a lot of responses and perspectives for the past years. Directed by Luca Guadagnino, it's likely one of his most diverse work in some time as the general responses and reviews have been pretty mixed and polarizing amongst many. However as someone who has read many of Burroughs work, I fond this surrealist and disembodied style of a movie to be fantastic. It creates a weird, psychological and romantic story of self-loathing, depression and regret.

Guadagnino captures the atmosphere, production, camerawork, and sound designs perfectly, illustrating of what Burrough's intentions and style was on the approach of it's narrative. Crafting a painful and investing character study. The way the narrative and dialogue are directed felt nature, strange, psychedelic, yet meditating in many ways to the point it's quite unforgettable.

Daniel Craig, in my opinion, gave one of his best performances in his career. I have never seen Craig with this much range and energy as he had been in his career and it's impressive. Alongside with the other cast performances as well. With great structures and pacing, it never loses it's steam and completely understands the atmosphere, surroundings, character motives, and Burroughs perspective of his vision of romance, queer identity, depression, and hopeless.

Luca Guadagnino continues to stand out as one of the best Italian filmmakers in todays' time and I say, I would be interested to see Guadagnino take another approach to a Burroughs novel.

Well, movie is OK, im giving it 7/10 but question is, what was purpose of doing this movie. I understand the meaning of movie, and movie title, but what was main goal of movie, to open eyes, to feel something? The best part in this movie for me, was hope that i will see them travel around south america for more than 5 min, but i did not. Everything else was just depiction of what depressed washed queen dude could have done with some us $ in pocket and in 50s in Mexico city - and so did that. Beside that movie is just simple blend of drama, feel of melancholia (for some older viewers i guess) and poignant way to say hey, im depressed and dont know what to do in my life.

This is one of most boring and pretentious I have seen for years. Except for the sound track that tries to put some life in this otherwise contrived and obsolete story of an old gay men going through his depressing quest for a meaning to his life. Extremely slow paced, pseudo intellectual dialogs, caricatural depiction of gays in the 50's, the film appears like wanting to show how lost gay men were in these years.

Daniel Craig plays the anti héros. Drug addict, sexually impotent, he floats in a unreal world, desperate to find an anchor. He is sad and pathetic.

The film can be seen as the trash version of the famous Luchino Visconti's masterpiece Death in Venice. It could have been called Death in Mexico .

After the highly regarded Call me by your name, the director seems to err to produce a new work of value.

Queer: This film surprised me, I thought it was going to be about William Lee (Daniel Craig) hanging out in 1950s Mexico, drinking, injecting heroin and chasing after younger men. Well it was, but also much more. Touches of Magic Realism combine with dream and hallucination sequences to make this film just as esoteric as Naked Lunch. Naked Lunch was also written by William S. Buttoughs in which he was again represented by the character William Lee. In Queer, Lee has twin obsessions one being Eugene Allerton (Drew Starkey), who has just finished his military service and is also living in Mexico City, the second being finding yagé, a plant said to offer telepathic abilities to those who consume it. Though engaging in a relationship with Lee, Allerton is diffident towards him but agrees to go on an expedition into the amazon jungle to find the plant. There they meet the bizarre botanist Dr Cotter (Lesley Manville). A love story, a fantasy, a quest for a holy grail, a sort of Road Movie. Much drinking and drugging occurs along with Lee cruising before he hooks up with Allerton. There is a touch of David Lynch to some of the sequences along with what looks like two homages to 2001: A Space Odyssey. Directed by Luca Guadagnino from a screenplay by Justin Kuritzkes, based on the 1985 novella by William S. Burroughs. 8/10.

Were it not for the fact that it features an ex "007", I reckon this would be an almost instantly forgettable gay-themed drama that could easily be found on Dekkoo in a year to two. Anyway, Daniel Craig is the independently wealthy "Lee" and living in a Mexico City where in between tequila and heroine sessions, he tries to pick up young men. He's not a bad looker and so usually gets some entertainment (paid for, or otherwise) but then he spots an enigmatic young man who comes to their local bar to play chess with a red-headed woman. Intrigued, his usually effective introductions seem to fall on beautiful but disinterested eyes and ears, but he persists and soon manages to befriend student "Eugene" (Drew Starkey). Even though they drink and chat together, he still isn't sure if his new challenge is even eligible for some furious jogging. Indeed, the young man is so completely non-committal and tractable that it's impossible for him to be sure about almost anything about him. Napoleon brandy might help provide an answer, and it does - of sorts, but an extremely satisfactory one for the older man who is clearly becoming obsessed with a man who at best displays indifference to him. "Lee" isn't used to this sensation, but he simply has to have something more meaningful with this man. He cannot just be an another notch on the bedpost, and so he turns his mind to a trip round South America and to take a travelling companion. Why there? Well he's read of a secret plant that he believes both the KGB and CIA are using for it's famed telepathic powers. Perhaps if he finds it, he can reach into the very mind of his gorgeous antagonist? What the men do manage to find in the midst of the Ecuadorian jungle is Lesley Manville and at this point the wheels really came off for me. At the very end, the closing slide says "William S. Burroughs' Queer" as if Luca Guadagnino was saying to us - 'don't blame me". Sure there are some sex scenes, but they are all blink and you'll miss them (and in the trails anyway), so what are we actually left with? A story of an ageing drunk and a narcissistic young man playing a rather depressing form of "cat and mouse" meets "house"? To be fair, Craig delivers strongly indeed, but to what end? His character has nowhere to go, and his range of dependencies are neither attractive nor especially plausible as the second half of the story enters the surreal in quite a desperate way. Starkey has very few meaningful lines and so relies on his perfectly man-scaped appearance to present a persona that is easy on the eye but not remotely troubling for the brain, and that's largely in keeping with the whole story that just lacks substance. It's bizarrely unfulfilling on just about every front and really quite characteristically impotent. There's simply nothing natural about it and as tale of flawed humanity goes, well so what - I didn't care. It looks good, sounds good and has an altogether polished finish to it, but like a meringue there's little to delve into.

I approached the release of Queer with high expectations, hoping it would offer a profoundly moving and memorable cinematic experience. The casting of Daniel Craig in the role of a queer man was particularly intriguing. It signaled a departure from his iconic portrayal of the suave James Bond and presented an opportunity to showcase his versatility and depth as an actor. Unfortunately, the film fell far short of these aspirations.

The primary shortcoming of Queer lies in its lack of a cohesive narrative. Rather than delivering a structured and engaging story, the film feels more like a collection of loosely connected scenes. It focuses on an alcoholic gay writer living in Mexico City, a premise that had the potential to be a profound exploration of isolation, identity, and personal struggle. However, the execution is flawed, and this promising concept never fully materializes. A fragmented and disjointed storyline remains that fails to establish meaningful emotional or thematic connections.

This incoherent approach undermines the film's potential as a character study. Daniel Craig's performance, while earnest, is constrained by a screenplay that offers him little to work with. His portrayal is overshadowed by the directionless storytelling, leaving what could have been a bold and career-defining role unrealized. It is frustrating to see an actor of Craig's caliber unable to shine due to the limitations of the material.

Ultimately, Queer is a missed opportunity. Its fragmented narrative and inability to engage with its themes substantively result in a hollow and unfulfilling viewing experience. While the film flirts with the promise of emotional depth, it never follows through, leaving the audience questioning what they have just seen. Unfortunately, I cannot give this film more than three stars.

Queer seeks to expose the complicated relationship between men. Society tends to lump men in categories in constant failed efforts to attempt to figure them out. This film points out a few realities of the male species. In a nut shell men are far more complicated than they are given credit for. The film starts out rather predictably. It's a far cry from what we know director Luca's work to be. Don't expect another "Call Me By Your Name" or anything close to it. It's different and it will take you to a different time and place where men were not so easy to read. They still are not easy to read. The only difference is today, we tend to apply our own perceptions and misgivings to people who we truly know nothing about. And in a nutshell this is what this film is all about. Saying more about the film will only give away its secrets. This is a film you want to discover on your own hopefully without having read much about it. It is slow paced, yet very nuanced and beautiful to watch while getting progressively more engaging. I would have liked to have seen more coverage on the young guy but I get the intentions behind its ,at times, vague narrative. The film does explore quite beautifully and visually the way most of us would really like to get a glimpse at the true self of the person to whom we entrust our hearts to. For that alone, I. Believe, the film has achieved its purpose.

Luca Guadagnino channels David Lynch in this bizarre, winding adaptation of Burroughs' novella. Although very faithful to its source material, this film's length, anachronistic soundtrack and uneven pacing will test one's patience. It's not until fairly late, that it all starts to resemble the director's entrancing craft.

Daniel Craig is a puzzling choice for this protagonist and shockingly he pulls it off quite well. Whether in a state of banter or wonder or disgust, Craig is in top form here. His performance perfectly conveys the inner turmoil, isolation and loneliness that older gay men face. A complex man who is alternately fascinating and insufferable, Craig breathes life into him.

The film's first chapter feels the longest. But just when you think it's going to be entombed in a claustrophobic melodrama, we get a new journey in the second chapter and unspeakable but beautiful terror in the third chapter. Although the film can be dry and prosaic in the beginning, I would still take Guadagnino even when he gets off-message over many other directors. In the end, this is a thought-provoking and haunting piece of cinema. Recommended to open-minded viewers.

Daniel Craig stars as William Lee, an ex-pat queer junkie, living in Mexico, trying to go through the motions when he suddenly meets Eugene Allerton, a young ex-pat, played by Drew Starkey. Only one of them is invested in this relationship and it's Craig's character, while the other, Starkey's character, is only interested in showing his lack of interest for him but one begs the question: Why does he want to be with him exactly? Why not just leave? This is one of the main faults of the movie (it could very well be intentional) but why does Eugene waste his time with a person that he finds peculiar and weird? It is never shown to the audience.

The movie borrows the standard eyeing from the distance moment, like the iconic scene in the movie Carol. The moment when two people are seeing each other for the first time and then start an intimate relationship, which goes nowhere in this movie. The ending is incoherent and its choice is heavily questioned upon.

The performance of Daniel Craig and Leslie Manville are the best. Craig's monologues are very theater-esque and always interesting to see but they don't really have an audience. These two acted the hell out of this movie. But they acted for a movie that doesn't know what to be exactly.

The trailers were misleading in their view of portraying this relationship between the two leads as a great love story and frankly it's not that. It's not like Elio and Oliver's relationship in Call me by Your name at all but what is it trying to be exactly? Does this movie want to show us that love can be one sided and indifferent sometimes? This works but it was not what this movie advertised through the trailers.

The plot making a turning point right around the trip to South America could have been used as a moment to turn things around and let the two main characters reflect and talk with honesty and trust and care to one another but is cut abruptly, with the final stop being that peculiar ending.

This movie mainly exists because of Daniel Craig's involvement to it. Daniel Craig is the character indeed. His mannerisms, grand solo speeches and all those things are all William Lee but all his efforts were in vain. He has no one and he is all alone by the end.

I was quite curious to see this latest film by the maker of "Call Me By Your Name." Although interesting as a literary adaptation and rare "gay theme" movie with a big-name star, the film was problematic for me in a number of ways.

First the good: the carefully crafted visuals, both sets and backgrounds; the fearless portrayals of people with desperation always nipping at their heels; Daniel Craig's total commitment to his very unpalatable role; the incandescent hotness of Drew Starkey.

Next the not-so-good: the main defect here is that the film is too long. It overstays its welcome mainly through the accumulation of small excesses, the most prominent of which is the 5-minute scene devoted to Lee shooting up (should have been handled far more economically). The use of music is also problematic -- there are some weird choices and juxtapositions, and there is a tendency for the film to lean too hard on the music for support in certain portions, a sign that the underlying material could have been cut.

In between: Daniel Craig, as mentioned, gives his all to his role. But his role is exceedingly uncomfortable to watch... probably because it is so spot on. The intellectual posturing (often to impress a younger male), the arrogance of (at least some) wealth, the weird need to seem congenial in a transparently forced way, and of course his complete absorption in self destruction through drugs and booze. I'm reminded of James Fox's Tony in Joseph Losey's "The Servant" except here the addict only circles the drain and doesn't fall in.

In sum, I found this movie rather painful on several levels, but I'm glad I satisfied my curiosity and saw it through to the not-so-bitter end.

The casual cinemagoer will not be a happy camper after viewing Queer. However, you will find this worth a look if you are interested in one or more of the following: 1) Wm. S. Burroughs' life and writings; 2) The Beat generation in general; 3) The sociology of gay culture, especially the challenges faced by sexually active older gay men; 4) Artistic representations of addiction and psychedelic experience; 5) Art direction and production values in arthouse cinema; 6) Daniel Craig breaking the shackles of his Bond legacy in spectacular fashion; 7) The director of Call Me by Your Name tackling another, but highly different, gay relationship.

So, a lot of possibilities that you may be enticed. If you are a Burroughs afficianado, you will find the film largely faithful to the book. Craig captures the desperation of the Burroughs surrogate, Bill Lee, as he seeks physical connection with an assortment of largely disinterested young men in Mexico City of the 1950's.

Drew Starkey is Eugene Allerton, the enigmatic drifter upon whom Lee fixates. Is Allerton straight? Gay? Bi? An open minded sexual adventurer or perhaps even a calculating and skillful hustler? His shifting responses to Lee's advances are open to differing interpretations and provide much of the fascination of the narrative.

Based on Burroughs' actual experiences, we follow this ill-matched pair through their hot, then cold, then transactional couplings, leading to a surreal search through a South American jungle in pursuit of a legendary psychedelic plant.

The production is beautifully designed and a feast for the eyes, with realism eschewed for a hyper falsity that heightens the aura of a world as experienced by a dysfunctional addict and sexual adventurer. Craig looks suitably debased and obsessive, while his somewhat nerdy paramour vaguely resembles a young bespectacled Burroughs.

As events become increasingly surreal, some cinemagoers will be reminded of the enigmatic denouement of Kubrick's 2001, A Space Odyssey, but with the clean-cut astronauts replaced by the morally compromised habitues of Mexico City's demimonde. Whether this intrigues or frustrates the viewer will depend on one's personal cinematic expectations.

There will be many, who having seen this latest effort from director Luca Guadagnino, will wish they hadn't bothered. Others, like me, will look forward to a second or even third viewing of this challenging work.