sign in
register
Naked Lunch
Naked Lunch
Your probable score
?
Naked Lunch

Naked Lunch

1991
Drama, Sci-fi
1h 55m
After developing an addiction to the substance he uses to kill bugs, an exterminator accidentally murders his wife and becomes involved in a secret government plot being orchestrated by giant bugs in an Islamic port town in Africa. (imdb)

Directed by:

David Cronenberg

Screenwriter:

David Cronenberg, William S. Burroughs

Starring:

Judy Davis, Ian Holm, Roy Scheider, Julian Sands, Julian Richings, Peter Weller, Nicholas Campbell, Monique Mercure, Robert A. Silverman, Sean McCann

Genres:

Drama, Sci-fi, Fantasy, Mystery

Countries:

Canada, Japan, UK

Languages:

English, Arabic
imdb IMDb
Update history
Suggest edit

Naked Lunch

1991
Drama, Sci-fi
1h 55m
Your probable score
Ratings & Reviews Cast Collections Similar Stats Trailer
Avg Percentile 58.52% from 2479 total ratings
Ratings & Reviews Cast Collections Similar Stats Trailer

Ratings & Reviews

(2505)
Compact view
clear
Compact view
Show
Sort
kojilessKojiless
Rated 28 Nov 2011
74
79th
The Peter-Weller-somehow-avoids-all-homosexual-encounters-despite-constantly-being-pressured-into-them-by-a-beetle-typewriter-that-speaks-from-a-giant-anus-under-its-wings movie. Two thumbs up!
Rated 28 Nov 2011
abunchofcatsABUNCHOFCATS
Rated 01 May 2009
96
98th
This is a wonderfully bizarre movie in almost every way. It's an almost nightmarish trip into the world of a mind gone mad. The effects are great and everything fits together to create this wonderful atmosphere of something going incredibly wrong, or is it right? The entire film is a masterpiece of delusion that leaves the viewer wondering just what happened and what was, and especially what wasn't, real.
Rated 01 May 2009
paxtonPaxton
Rated 11 Oct 2019
81
78th
I'd still type it.
Rated 11 Oct 2019
magbMagb
Rated 28 Mar 2010
70
39th
Naked Lunch the movie isn't really an adaptation of Naked Lunch the book. It's actually closer to being a depiction of Burroughs' life at the time of writing the book. I had mixed feelings about the book, although it was certainly fascinating, and I feel similarly about the movie. The movie shares in the book's deliberate lack of cohesion, but the end result in this case is that you're left feeling like something's missing. It's compelling, but not too satisfying.
Rated 28 Mar 2010
mattburgessmattburgess
Rated 19 May 2012
56
29th
One of Cronenberg's few failures, it just.. doesn't really work at all. There's no sense of delirium you would expect from a 'drug' film. It all feels empty, boring and phony, never really reaching 'fever dream' intensity, meandering on and on with the same blank smirk. also, Burroughs depicted as a bland eunuch who wants to fuck Judy Davis more then any of the boys? Huh? Awesome bug/orifice imagery but this is the first time with Cronenberg that I felt like "eh. Lynch could do this better".
Rated 19 May 2012
bownBown
Rated 29 Mar 2010
83
67th
Fun imagery, interesting story, tragic lead. No idea what was going on a lot of the time, but does it matter?
Rated 29 Mar 2010
frostyFrosty
Rated 06 Oct 2009
90
96th
A superb approach to adaptation that serves more as a companion to the text than an alternative version. Visually astounding with an excellent turn from Peter Weller.
Rated 06 Oct 2009
ronthedogronthedog
Rated 07 Aug 2008
94
98th
Rather than an adaptation of the novel, it is used as a vessel for many predominant themes in Burroughs' life and work as a whole: drugs, control, alienation and, by including the biographical elements, writing itself, all bound together by the accidental shooting by Burroughs of his own wife. Especially notable is the use of coherent narrative, entirely absent from the novel, the typewriter metaphor, the acting of Peter Weller, and the heterosexual emphasis. Absolutely Brilliant.
Rated 07 Aug 2008
saucyjacksaucyjack
Rated 04 Dec 2007
79
65th
Really hard to make something of this film, but visually, it's brilliant. Furthermore, Cronenberg's ability to produce a (somewhat) coherent film from the source material is a miracle on its own. A drug-addled descent into madness, Burrough's book of the same name is better experienced by admiring the rhetoric and taking in the atmosphere...As is this film.
Rated 04 Dec 2007
omgfridgeomgfridge
Rated 01 Apr 2019
9
91st
No context having unsuspecting family or friends walking on watching this would be one of most fun situations. Unique and completely bewildering. Effects still hold up and are just flat out disgusting. Love it.
Rated 01 Apr 2019
anomalyAnomaly
Rated 06 Oct 2011
81
77th
Bizarre and I certainly didn't understand it all (this film demands a rewatch) but I loved the surreal Cronenberg atmosphere, and that was enough for me. Weller's acting certainly helped, too.
Rated 06 Oct 2011
nathan_sNathan S
Rated 20 Jul 2008
4
74th
When I first saw this I hadn't read the novel, but I still liked it. After reading the book, I fell in love with the movie. Such an "unfilmable novel" couldn't have been adapted any better. Instead of trying to directly retell events described in the book, Cronenberg uses it in combination with elements from Burroughs' own life as general inspiration in exploring the process of writing and how "drug use relates to artistic endeavor," as one character puts it. A must-see for any fan of the book.
Rated 20 Jul 2008
purgatospurgatos
Rated 10 May 2008
86
84th
After watching this again, I liked it much more on my second go through. It's not a filming of Naked Lunch, so much as using the feel of that and Burroughs' other novels as a jumping off point. We get scenes from Naked Lunch and tributes to it and other novels, but it is very much a Cronenberg creation that owes itself to Burroughs. My favourite scene has got to be where Lee's friends visit him in the Zone and find out just what he's going through to write his novel.
Rated 10 May 2008
moribunnyMoribunny
Rated 14 Aug 2007
73
80th
American cinema's most ambitious work of narrative surrealism since Lynch's Eraserhead, Cronenberg's Naked Lunch (not so much based on Burroughs' as inspired by it) is nevertheless more like a long, drug-induced hallucinatory trip than an artistic juxtapositioning of reality's elements. In other words, it is very true to its subject matter. Naked Lunch is often unpleasant but seldom uninteresting.
Rated 14 Aug 2007
slackerishslackerish
Rated 14 Aug 2007
95
94th
An amazingly gripping flick. I give props to Cronenberg for taking some really tricky source material and making it into a completely different story that still feels like the novel. Also, be sure to pick up the Critereon DVD, simply for the fantastic commentary from Wellers and Cronenberg.
Rated 14 Aug 2007
ronin167Ronin167
Rated 14 Aug 2007
93
98th
Rather than trying to adapt Burrough's novel, Cronenberg has created a brilliant sidepiece to it. Strange, but worthwhile.
Rated 14 Aug 2007
kcknzkcknz
Rated 28 Aug 2018
24
5th
dark, surreal and unconscious novel adaptation by cronenberg. but if you can't create any ingenious connection or link between the real life and your surreal material, it becomes a huge nonsense for you. so, that's what happened to me. somehow, i couldn't concentrate on the film, and then it got boring. that was a seriously suffering experience. maybe i can give it a second chance in the future.
Rated 28 Aug 2018
lexlex
Rated 05 Feb 2015
90
80th
The story is Burroughs' life as well as his novel, but the film is entirely Cronenberg's and he directs it as a sort of twisted, surreal, experimental biopic with a wholly original noir-ish style. The plot is ridiculous and often incoherent, yes, but there is no doubt a strong purpose to it too as an exploration of Lee's/Burroughs' drug-fueled psyche in his personal quest for great writing and salvation. Decidedly disorienting but certainly not without purpose.
Rated 05 Feb 2015
randallodimRandallODim
Rated 14 Dec 2014
86
82nd
It's incredibly weird and disorienting, and I'm positive the plot is entirely impossible to fully understand outside of "Bill is tripping sack almost all the time". I also think it's a fantastic film.
Rated 14 Dec 2014
evranaevrana
Rated 10 Feb 2013
71
49th
If you wanna put someone off drugs in the most visually convincing way, this movie is for you. If you have someone you hate who is afraid of bugs and you wanna irk them, this movie is for you. If you wanna experience how music can be used subtly in movies to improve the atmosphere, this movie is for you. If you are squeamish and a sucker for coherence this movie is not for you.
Rated 10 Feb 2013
wetwillieswetwillies
Rated 18 Oct 2012
85
59th
The brilliant drugged out neo-noir visuals, the excellent performances and the humor are what made me enjoy Naked Lunch. Without those three elements, I'm pretty sure I would've hated it.
Rated 18 Oct 2012
noam_razNoam Raz
Rated 07 Jul 2012
87
93rd
I am a nice sweet guy , and even though I understand the attraction to drugs, I don't do them.
Rated 07 Jul 2012
cinesexualcinesexual
Rated 20 Feb 2012
95
92nd
As Jonathan Rosenbaum suggests, this cut-up of parts of Burroughs books is more a dialog between a heterosexual director and his impressions of a gay author. If you accept that, you can recognize the mastery of tone and performance on display here. The special effects are dated but the film retains its power, weirdness and comedy.
Rated 20 Feb 2012
fenixdownfenixdown
Rated 09 Dec 2011
65
24th
The Cronenberg parts were more entertaining than the Burroughs parts.
Rated 09 Dec 2011
mentaculusMentaculus
Rated 07 Dec 2011
83
79th
The power of Naked Lunch comes only if you are aware beforehand of Burroughs - his delirious writings and obsessions and past. And that can be a severe issue: If you're not, a bug with a talking anus holds virtually no appeal (understandably so). I was floored by the adept handling of a real tragedy - Burroughs' "accidental" shooting of his wife - by Cronenberg to a place of philosophical and narrative transcendance. In all this shit, that's truly remarkable.
Rated 07 Dec 2011
closefriendCloseFriend
Rated 03 Dec 2011
50
22nd
Cronenberg uses long passages of Burroughs' text and his infamous, career-defining uxoricide to tell a story that invokes the original work instead of adapting it. A lot of embryonic ideas are at play here. One can see Jodorowski's (content that is erotic but not overtly sexual) and Lynch's (unexpected emotions, sudden time jumps, characters who are more than one character) influences, but every time the film seems like it's about to have a point, it then contradicts itself, leaving only a mess.
Rated 03 Dec 2011
overratedoverrated
Rated 12 Aug 2010
90
97th
Cronenberg should go back and adapt some other Burroughs stuff; the Red Night trilogy would be twisted. Weller is fantastic in this.
Rated 12 Aug 2010
caimancaiman
Rated 17 Apr 2010
83
72nd
Wow. This was something else. I admit I knew nothing about William S. Burroughs before seeing this, so some of the real life parallels were lost on me. But then again, most of what happened in the movie was lost on me. This is one of those where I can definitely see that a second viewing is required. And I won't mind seeing it again, as there was a lot I liked about it. Weller's dry performance was great, as were the effects and overall weirdness.
Rated 17 Apr 2010
pigletPiglet
Rated 26 Jul 2009
72
68th
So out there it is hardly believable, actually it isn't. But as entertainment it's a fine look into the mind of someone on drugs.
Rated 26 Jul 2009
janusjanus
Rated 19 Dec 2008
80
77th
It's more of a distillation and repurposing of William S. Burroughs' life and work than a true adaptation of Naked Lunch in itself. The effects are sometimes a little lifeless, but they're nevertheless well-crafted, and the sheer audacity and pure strangeness carry the film well enough. Highly recommended for fans of similarly hallucinatory film trips such as Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas.
Rated 19 Dec 2008
optimusmikeOptimus_mike
Rated 27 Oct 2008
80
71st
Really got me into surrealism, thanks!
Rated 27 Oct 2008
kavuKavu
Rated 09 Oct 2008
83
79th
It's weird as hell but that's why I like it. Cronenberg does an excellent job in containing the weirdness. What an ending!
Rated 09 Oct 2008
cinematicespCinematicESP
Rated 04 Aug 2008
82
59th
One of Cronenberg's more captivating and... unique... films. Disturbingly fun the whole way through. It also feels like one of his most complete efforts. Definite vision.
Rated 04 Aug 2008
svankmajerSvankmajer
Rated 14 Aug 2007
99
93rd
No, it doesn't hold a candle for the book, but who cares?
Rated 14 Aug 2007
pilgermannpilgermann
Rated 27 Feb 2007
55
25th
I'm not very familiar with Burroughs' life and work, so this movie was a bit impenetrable (pun intended) for me. On a purely visceral level it's pretty effective, and I assume that the novel works similarly, but it makes for a vague narrative and unsympathetic characters. As strange as everything is in this film, I think it would've been stranger if more of the real world had been clashed with Interzone. Good metaphors about addiction, identity, and writing difficulties, I guess.
Rated 27 Feb 2007
thedenizenTheDenizen
Rated 28 Jan 2007
80
84th
Fucked up, but in the best possible way. I wouldn't mind going on a day trip to the Interzone, but I wouldn't want to stay.
Rated 28 Jan 2007
sfgse83rf3sfgse83rf3
Rated 04 Oct 2023
4
90th
Is this what it feels like to go insane?
Rated 04 Oct 2023
omniavanitasOmniaVanitas
Rated 20 May 2023
4
68th
You'll never look at typewriters the same again. Also, I hope you like the word "jism."
Rated 20 May 2023
jschlanskyJSchlansky
Rated 20 Jan 2023
83
83rd
Somehow ever weirder than I anticipated. This just might be Cronenberg's strangest film, and that is REALLY saying something
Rated 20 Jan 2023
redflagredflag
Rated 28 Aug 2022
92
64th
Wonderful adaptation that maintains the essence of the book while making significant departures from the text. Personally, I think the film could've gone to even more extreme depictions of Burrough's nightmarish Interzone and engaged in an even more nonlinear narrative. The best film about writers and writing I've seen.
Rated 28 Aug 2022
gabrielpGabriel_p
Rated 08 May 2022
75
56th
Would've loved for the story to be a tad more comprehensible, but the grossness of the special effects more than makes up for it.
Rated 08 May 2022
matthagenmatthagen
Rated 20 Aug 2021
41
20th
Fear and Loathing in North Africa. But it's drier and grosser.
Rated 20 Aug 2021
astrakhanastrakhan
Rated 04 Jan 2020
80
74th
I'm just happy that among all the straight-faced, normal movie-makers, there are people able and willing to get scenes shot featuring giant cockroaches doing weird things to each other.
Rated 04 Jan 2020
jj1986JJ1986
Rated 25 Feb 2018
60
54th
It's got great style.
Rated 25 Feb 2018
toddsaltertoddsalter
Rated 04 Sep 2016
1
0th
So boring. Was I supposed to "get it"?
Rated 04 Sep 2016
parexus2Parexus2
Rated 12 Apr 2016
74
40th
Naked Lunch is very memorable, incredibly slow yet extraordinarily weird and interesting. I love and hate it simultaneously.
Rated 12 Apr 2016
hellboy76hellboy76
Rated 07 Feb 2016
68
65th
A wonderful inspiration from Burroughs drug induced processes. If you are looking for coherency and closure, move along, but if you want a ride, just sit back and feel confused.
Rated 07 Feb 2016
sirstuckeySirStuckey
Rated 25 Jul 2015
30
7th
I don't get it.
Rated 25 Jul 2015
hsncrspywlhsncrspywl
Rated 05 Jul 2015
86
79th
A wonderful metatextual adaptation of the book, with wonderfully grotesque design and a chilling sense of alienation throughout. Exterminate All Rational Thought!
Rated 05 Jul 2015
thereeldealthereeldeal
Rated 20 Feb 2015
60
27th
The most shocking thing about Naked Lunch is how such an insanely weird movie ends up so incredibly boring. The 100% deadpan humor cannot survive for two hours, and the bizarre focus on constant exposition otherwise eventually make this a life-sucking watch. A real shame, as the aesthetics are fantastic, and for the first 40 minutes or so the film really seems like it's going to go to some fantastic places. It goes to one. And it never leaves. Ever.
Rated 20 Feb 2015
mrolivierMr.Olivier
Rated 16 Jan 2015
42
24th
A pretty impossible novel to adapt to film. Not sure whether or not it's a shame Cronenberg didn't try. Might have been a disaster, but this just disappointed.
Rated 16 Jan 2015
armilioArmilio
Rated 07 Jan 2015
50
10th
It's like Videodrome - Trip&symbolism - but less powerful. A boring mess, but probably because i don't use drugs, i must start some of these days and give it a second chance. Thumbs up for the fantastic asshole (literally) talking beatle. P.s: No, i didn't know Burrogh's life, and i think it's not good that i need to know it to appreciate a film. It's nerdy, like Marvel fans with plot-holes in Marvel movies,"read the comic!".
Rated 07 Jan 2015
salomaordsalomaord
Rated 02 Jan 2015
50
0th
David Cronenberg #4
Rated 02 Jan 2015
trixrabbiTrixRabbi
Rated 08 Nov 2014
67
24th
Roy Scheider, ladies and gentlemen!
Rated 08 Nov 2014
yiannosYiannos
Rated 08 Jul 2014
75
85th
Slow, strange, and moody quasi-adaptation of the novel mixed in with bits of the author's personal life and Cronenberg's obsession with the link between flesh and technology. Weller's deadpan performance is perfect, and the film manages to be surreal without relying on the usual gimmicks, while asking disturbing questions about the nature of desire and personal identity. It's also hilarious if you are in the right frame of mind.
Rated 08 Jul 2014
karamazovkaramazov.
Rated 08 Jul 2014
21
24th
Concur with user Matt Burgess' review. Also, I wonder if Roy Scheider as [supposedly] Dr. Benway is intended to represent Gysin ['cause, like, he looks like him], and if so what that would mean.
Rated 08 Jul 2014
rufamRufam
Rated 26 Apr 2014
65
42nd
An undeniably fascinating yet kinda disorienting surrealistic essay on drugs and the writing process. I will return to it after I become more acquainted with Burroughs' work, but Peter Weller sure does create a memorable character in "Bill" to guide us through Cronenberg's kinda hit-or-miss, nutty world.
Rated 26 Apr 2014
redactedredacted
Rated 24 Dec 2013
82
77th
Inhales the line between biopic and adaptation. The choice in life & book as a source could have taken many a turn, but this is an impossible result to conjure. Naked Lunch is lost between hallucinating, retelling, living and writing the words the film is set on, all of which are perched a top Cbergs varying anatomy orifice philosophies making for an experience that defies common notions of modern film funding. Speaking of, those colonial interiors are a highlight themselves.
Rated 24 Dec 2013
billyshearsBillyShears
Rated 01 Dec 2013
70
53rd
It's about as weird as being walked in watching it.
Rated 01 Dec 2013
glifosfatoglifosfato
Rated 23 Nov 2013
39
26th
meh.
Rated 23 Nov 2013
glm01glm01
Rated 07 Oct 2013
73
46th
72.500
Rated 07 Oct 2013
neonmanNeonman
Rated 02 Jul 2013
79
61st
One of the most beat films I've ever seen, and it also happens to include hallucinatory puppetry (which is usually a plus). I guess it could only take Cronenberg to conceive the book's adaptation/making-of.
Rated 02 Jul 2013
ecitizeneCitizen
Rated 11 Mar 2013
30
17th
This is a strange low budget science fiction movie about drug addiction and hallucinations. The movie is full of stupid cheap animations and lousy latex aliens. The story is sometimes incomprehensible, going from weird to bizarre to just plain stupid. By the end I had lost all interest and was totally bored with it. I gave many points for creativity and strangeness, but then took most of them away for stupidity.
Rated 11 Mar 2013
moraesfelipemoraesfelipe
Rated 19 Feb 2013
63
54th
In terms of production design, this must be Cronenberg's most impressive work -- typewriters with assholes, giant bugs and all sorts of grotesque monsters seem convincible --, but this is a film that, despite the tricky noir schemes -- and the dizzying alto sax notes --, presents mostly strange moods -- like any of his films --, but hardly rewarding characters. I guess the director would refine this kind of plot years later, with eXistenZ.
Rated 19 Feb 2013
eric_janeric-jan
Rated 28 Sep 2012
65
30th
A Love it or Hate it movie. Although I loved the originality, the acting, the cinematoraphy and the weirdness of this movie, it made me say "WTF" too many times for me to still think it's worth seeing again :D. It's just WEIRD AS HELL! It's a 'simple' story about drugs, bugs, typewriters, killing your wife (again) and homosexuality mixed and brewed in a big pot of weirdness. There is nothing to get, it's just plain craziness at its best.
Rated 28 Sep 2012
kleaklea
Rated 20 Sep 2012
39
34th
I dunno, might be better but I found myself wondering off & grabbing the laptop about 30 mins in to keep me entertained while it played
Rated 20 Sep 2012
mervtaylorMerv_Taylor
Rated 16 Jun 2012
93
84th
What the fuck
Rated 16 Jun 2012
publiusdPubliusD
Rated 30 Dec 2011
80
54th
A for effort.
Rated 30 Dec 2011
gnalkhereGnalkhere
Rated 28 Nov 2011
80
72nd
This is my dose of WTFery that I require. The hallucinated bug-rape scene was (despite being a rape) was my favorite, probably because of the sax on the soundtrack.
Rated 28 Nov 2011
nilkynarfynilkynarfy
Rated 01 Mar 2011
90
92nd
I never really followed Burroughs before seeing this movie, and only really checked it out because I like Cronenberg. Afterward, my interest was piqued enough to hit up my local secondhand music store and pick up a couple of Burroughs' albums/books on tape. I was stunned, never had I been so impressed by someone who stood for so little. Pure, druggy waves of apathy, loathing and bleakness. This movie nails that effectively, if not accurately, and it definitely makes for good postmodern viewing.
Rated 01 Mar 2011
prowlerprowler
Rated 09 Nov 2010
45
42nd
great visual style, but pretty uneven
Rated 09 Nov 2010
arichkerarichker
Rated 05 Nov 2010
93
67th
weird, and not always in a good way, this film is one of Cronenberg's...well, weirdest. Makes sense if you know the source material.
Rated 05 Nov 2010
johnsandwichJohnSandwich
Rated 05 Nov 2010
80
84th
rewatch 2022, very good
Rated 05 Nov 2010
talvitieTalvitie
Rated 09 Oct 2010
71
66th
This movie really needs more than one watching time. The quality of pictures and colors were ahead of it's time.
Rated 09 Oct 2010
johnny_geojohnny geo
Rated 27 Sep 2010
82
84th
this is not a movie, it's a haze
Rated 27 Sep 2010
pierretheronPierreTheron
Rated 27 Feb 2010
85
57th
It has its rough edges, but Naked Lunch has a ridiculous amount of charm. It's difficult not to love Lee's monotone voice and robotic ambulation throughout Lunch's bright and interesting environments. The surreal characters and events strewn throughout the film all imbue the piece with a very magical wonder, it's easy to get caught up in the strangeness of the whole affair. Some effects are poor, and the script can limp along at times, but it's just too damn charming to miss.
Rated 27 Feb 2010
mangoluver4umangoluver4u
Rated 21 Dec 2009
85
75th
Bugs everywhere also some wild crazy stuff. I enjoyed it
Rated 21 Dec 2009
zackrobatZackrobat
Rated 22 Aug 2009
100
96th
The main character, a hard-boiled recovering junkie, slips back into drug use and finds himself more and more in a hallucinatory state. His ability or desire to detect that state also begins to break down, and he gives himself over to an inner adventure that in part involves reporting on his experiences through writing. His author friends find his work brilliant, and encourage him to keep doing whatever he's doing. And this is close to how the real book "Naked Lunch" was originally written.
Rated 22 Aug 2009
gattGatt
Rated 19 Aug 2009
75
53rd
I watched this movie back to back with EraserHead when it first came out on vhs back in the day. I still remember my mind warping while looking at Roy Scheider with a pair of tits on the screen.
Rated 19 Aug 2009
anselmi86Anselmi86
Rated 12 Aug 2009
54
29th
Peter Weller's subdued performance is the best part of this sub-par film.
Rated 12 Aug 2009
freqflyerfreqflyer
Rated 31 Jul 2009
84
75th
B ZAAAAR.
Rated 31 Jul 2009
florvdeFlorVdE
Rated 09 May 2009
4
87th
Not exactly sure what it was, but it was pretty awesome.
Rated 09 May 2009
seryxaSeryxa
Rated 10 Apr 2009
25
43rd
Instead of the savagery and rampant homosexuality of the original, the film concerns the act of the book's creation, through the hallucinatory experiences of a writer, based on Burroughs, among the expatriate artistic community of Tangier. All that is carried over from the novel is the title and lack of narrative coherence.
Rated 10 Apr 2009
zangZang
Rated 24 Jan 2009
80
66th
Too wierd, or is that weird. It's hard to tell sometimes with this banana in my ear. The roaches that feast on it at night sing work songs as they take chunks of it away leaving me with that "got a song in my head" syndrome for the next day, but the songs are roach work melodies. One of them is about a bear and it's so catchy as to be "unbearable"! Haha. Yogurt.
Rated 24 Jan 2009
punchy_mcgooPunchy-McGoo
Rated 23 Jan 2009
64
38th
My wife loves this film. Of course, she used to do a lot of drugs too, so take that with a grain of salt.
Rated 23 Jan 2009
tearsofashtearsofash
Rated 21 Dec 2008
88
85th
I don't think I can look at a typewriter the same way ever again.
Rated 21 Dec 2008
biedronskiBiedronski
Rated 18 Dec 2008
68
41st
The book was wierd and confusing, the movie was wierd and confusing. Yet it was so wierd that I just couldn't look away. typewriter beetles, alien looking things with penis like objects growing off of it. I just... I just don't know what to think.
Rated 18 Dec 2008
vandelay1Vandelay1
Rated 09 Nov 2008
83
93rd
Great
Rated 09 Nov 2008
mohkoMohko
Rated 10 Oct 2008
80
83rd
Maybe the weirdest movie I've ever seen.
Rated 10 Oct 2008
luna6ixLuna6ix
Rated 10 Sep 2008
80
74th
at times the strangeness of this film seems to be going nowhere. it feels like it's weird for the sake of being weird and doesn't really benefit from some of the sheer absurdity. there are a few moments where the story and atmosphere are astonishingly beautiful.
Rated 10 Sep 2008
obdurateObdurate
Rated 26 Jul 2008
85
81st
Cronenberg takes a confusing novel, takes elements from it and flips it into something else. That's why this works. Adapting the novel for what it was would probably be a jumbled mess.
Rated 26 Jul 2008
kavkav
Rated 12 Jul 2008
62
39th
Unsatisfying.
Rated 12 Jul 2008
amerigoamerigo
Rated 09 Jul 2008
82
78th
Cronenberg takes a stab at a hallucinogenic yarn, but unfortunately he's a little off-center. The end result is a little rough around the edges, encapsulating both moments of cinematic sublimity and jarring sequences that--frankly--come off a little half-assed. If only Cronenberg went down the road of the Kafka high, this film may have eclipsed Fear & Loathing in Las Vegas. The second half of the film is quite simply a little undercooked. Still though, a great film, in its own right.
Rated 09 Jul 2008
spoonerspotspoonerspot
Rated 30 Mar 2008
77
45th
Another movie best seen under the influence.
Rated 30 Mar 2008
philipPhilip
Rated 25 Feb 2008
60
35th
I have never been able to watch this movie without falling asleep. I've tried trice.
Rated 25 Feb 2008
chadisdangerchadisdanger
Rated 02 Feb 2008
85
84th
Not so much a literary adaptation as a surreal, nearly free-form approximation of a writer's subconscious. Cronenberg's fearlessness and confidence in not only filming such outrageous material (a talking beetle-typewriter hybrid who serves as a field agent for a mysterious spy agency becomes downright mundane and likeable by the end!) but making it so integral to his thematic concerns is admirable. Intelligent, perverse and vital stuff.
Rated 02 Feb 2008
harlotbrainsharlotbrains
Rated 02 Feb 2008
75
69th
scary typewriters!!!
Rated 02 Feb 2008
tonydaltonydal
Rated 02 Jan 2008
50
15th
Decidedly wacky--and rather humorous in places; but ultimately pointless.
Rated 02 Jan 2008
manhattaManhatta
Rated 30 Dec 2007
70
42nd
An inspiring attempt at adaptation. A movie for people who love books, it's really best when listening to the great commentary track.
Rated 30 Dec 2007
muutanetmuutanet
Rated 28 Dec 2007
82
86th
Bizzarrre! But fun.
Rated 28 Dec 2007

Collections

Loading ...

Similar Titles

Loading ...

Statistics

Loading ...

Trailer

Loading ...