I think lots of young gay men will feel this movie is too honest. Like Bruno, too close to the bone. These are very real queer men. Stuck in a time when they can't celebrate their true selves. And even the most liberated gay today should be able to identify with that.
@@LittleOscarFreak But didn't you identify with Allerton simultaneous revulsion and attraction for an older gay man who literally worshipped his youth? The pity handjob after orgasm? The attractiveness of Lee's wisdom? Had you not experienced any of these complex and very queer encounters?
@@LittleOscarFreakCertainly, Challengers was fun. And CMBYN had youthful joy from top to bottom. But maybe Luca wanted to do a much more serious movie this time. Also, the title of the movie is called Queer. So ' queer representation' should reasonably be expected to take center stage. And Burrows is an iconic gay author. Paying homage to those times and style is commendable, imho. Perhaps it might help understanding the epilogue to know that Burroughs actually shot his wife in the head during a drunken stupor "playing" William Tell. Which let to him fleeing the country he shot her in and traveling the world. And not doubt setting aflame his heroin addiction and bizarre writing style. I saw this movie with gays in their late 60's, who knew his work and found Queer to be extremely moving. But I also know plenty of young gays who have experienced this type of tragic longing from older gay men. It resonated for me in my youth when I wasn't sure exactly what I wanted. Sometimes movies can be made to capture the pain and agony of the queer experience. I think that's what Luca wanted to do here. Sure it wasn't "fun". But maybe at home on a rainy week, you can pause it and watch it over a period of days. This is the type of movie so rich with subtext and metaphor that rewatches will always bring out new perspectives. It's true. Each scene has it's own "vibe" as you say. Maybe once its intrinsic beauty seeps in, the unspoken plot points will begin to emerge.
@@Stress-Free-K I meant I don't need to see myself represented in a film in order to enjoy it. I really don't understand people when they say ''I didn't like this movie because I couldn't relate to any of the characters''...(not about this film, but in general)... like.. the definition of cinema is not 'relating to the characters you see on screen. I had no idea Burroughs shot his wife?!?!?! I'm going to look into this further hehe. I don't want to negate anybody's experience, I'm sure some gays are going to enjoy it. It's just not the kind of vibe I'm in the mood for when I want to watch a 'gay movie' haha let's just say it like that. And don't get me wrong, by 'fun' i don't mean to say fun and games and laughs, etc. I like to be DEVASTATED after a movie. There are not comedies in my top 25 films of all time, it's strictly drama haha. I mean 'fun' as in ''you felt things, and it moved you''. Maybe in this particular case, I think the Drew Starkey character didn't work for me, wasn't fleshed out enough. And Burroughs is such a mess that you kind of detach and don't really care. All this being said, everyone's comments on this video are kind of convincing me to give this film another chance. I'll give it a second go when it hits streaming.
@@LittleOscarFreak Well that's fair. I think its gonna be a classic top 10 gay film along with Brokeback and Moonlight, ect. It's Luca. He's a modern-day genius on film. The sound and camera dept.s kill it too, lately.
I beg to differ with most of your review. Clearly, you missed the point, and your review may be the most disappointing I've read or watched. I think this is an excellent movie in so many ways. It is well written, the acting (especially Daniel Craig and Drew Starkey) is superb. The cinematography and music are phenomenal. It definitely represents the lives and the psychology of gay men at two very different stages of self-acceptance in the early '50s. So, why is it so divisive? Why do some love it and some hate it? I think it has to do with a few things. First, there are people who are homophobes and hate queer movies. Not sure why they went (LOL--yes, I am pretty sure, at least). Second, it has a lot of metaphors in it. People's brains tend to be dichotomous as to whether they are linear thinkers and like movies in which everything is spelled out for them OR they are less concrete and more associative thinkers and like the many interpretations of metaphors. Of course, it's really a continuum, but these are the extremes. People at the first extreme (more concrete thinkers) would hate this movie and not understand its true meaning. Those at the other extreme probably would love it. As you say, it's the story of a gay man in middle-age (former military) who lives in Mexico. He's a drug addict, which likely represents the misery he experiences as a gay man in the '50s. He says he's in Mexico because his drug habit would get him imprisoned in the U.S. Remember, though, this was the era of McCarthyism, and his homosexuality also may have gotten him imprisoned--as a "communist"). So, he lives in Mexico and is seeking a meaningful gay relationship. Unfortunately, all he finds is superficial hook-ups. He sees and becomes infatuated with Eugene, a younger man who is struggling with his queer identity and is unable to accept it. Yet, he is drawn to Lee, the older man. This sets the stage for what is to occur. The part that I think really confuses people and is off-putting for them is Chapter 3 with the telepathy augmenting drug in South America. This is the metaphor for the struggle that Eugene is going through, knowing that he is attracted to men, specifically Lee, and denying his own homosexuality. Lee "hears" the thoughts of Eugene during their drug intoxication, "I AM NOT QUEER!" Ultimately, Eugene runs away in an effort to escape his sexuality. And Lee lives on alone, lonely, and grieving over the loss of Eugene, and dies a miserable death. Whie the movie has a bit of romance; it really is a tragedy of two gay men who are at very different stages of their lives and unable to connect in the early '50s. That is my assessment of the movie.
I agree with your entire analysis. The film is EXTREMELY well made. There's a LOT to love about it. But for me, ultimately, it bored me... What can I say? I have no problem with movies that don't have 'plots', I love hangout movies. But there was something about this that just didn't grip me. Thank god it was beautiful to look at hehe
This thin story will be milked to death for the bucks I guess 😂 why are two straight actors playing again gay characters? Aren’t there lots of great gay actors available? I’m gay but will not jump on any movie because it has a gay story played by straights, I will pass on that one thanks !
I was under the impression that Drew Starkey was gay in real life... but now that you mention it.... I haven't heard him mention it explicitly... ...That being said, I'm not on the 'only gays should play gay roles'. I think anyone can play anything, if scarcity of roles wasn't an issue for gay people, we wouldn't be talking about this. But I get it.
Baby, I'm a cinephile, if it's part of ''the conversation'' I see it. And I had no idea I wouldn't like Drew Starkey before I saw this movie. I was fully rooting for him. And I know that Daniel Craig is ''good'' he's just not a favorite of mine.
I have always found William es Burroughs to be an interesting person but not that huge fan of his writing I am familiar with the book however he was in the midst of the Beat Generation which I personally have always been drawn to an interested in I'm looking forward to seeing the movie I appreciated your review
I saw it today and I thought it was a stunning film! Daniel Craig was outstanding.Also, I really love the cinematography and the score. No, it didn't actually dive as deeply into Burrows as one might think but it didn't really need to. It is based closely from the book "Queer" and it is mainly a unrequited love story with shades of Burroghs. I really felt the pain and anguish at times that William Lee was going through but no one really talks much about Drew Starkey's performance which is understated and his characters is written as was he or wasn't he which made me think after the movie a lot about his character as well. I think he played it well and I didn't really think there was anything generic about him in the role.The only drawback I had was I think the movie could have been cut down for about 15 minutes less but excellent film and excellent performance I'm almost certain Daniel Craig will get an Oscar nomination
There's a lot going on especially with Daniel Craig's character I think reflects some things in the gay community even today I think most gay men want to find a connection and they just don't know how or they can't seem to find anyone that really knows how to make a connection, either beyond sex. William Lee wanted more he wanted to find that someone that he could do that with and he thought he had found that in the Allerton character but sadly in my opinion Allerton played too many games though I think Allerton started developing stronger feelings for him than he expected and it scared him away
@@michaelwirick1849 Yes, this is an interesting theme, and I'd love to have a film explore that in more detail, even though I appreciate that it can be brought up in a film ''about something else'', and again, I think in many ways it's a faithful adaptation of the book, just that... the book doesn't quite work and this movie suffers the same. But yes, beautiful to look out, Craig is nailing it, Starkey is there hehe, but ultimately there's another movie in there that could have been more exciting...
Yes, I think it's a faithful adaptation of the book, but the book is.... what it is... lol this isn't the movie people who haven't read the book are expecting it's going to be
This movie did not work for me. I wish Omar Apollo was shown more. This movie was kind of disoriented and distracted. Only curiosity this movie raised about the awesome locations.
What??? Have a look at your own setup and how you present yourself! A baseball cap was designed to serve a purpose on the baseball field, where sunglasses at the time were no good. Now you can choose between the two - when and where needed/appropriate. E.g. if you have little hair to protect your scalp, the cap may be your priority in harsh sun. That would rarely be indoors... But such a cap indoors, on a grown man, backwards, and in no way fitting with ANYTHING else in colour, design - or even your head....? And you critique a movie????
Damnnnn 😲 who hurt you? I'm sorry you don't like how I dress. You and my mom have that in common. She describes my 'little outfits' as clownesque, and to be honest, I'd rather look like a clown than a sheep who dresses like everyone else, haha. As for wearing baseball caps indoors... I don't know what to yell you... it's kind of a thing people do. Not sure how this has anything to do with me reviewing movies... Is that a job reserved for people in suits?
I haven't seen the film, but from the reviews I've read, Luca didn't do himself any favors with the jungle/drug scene. I would likely have been bored by it as well. Luca seems to like long-running films, which most audiences don't care for. On the other hand, I loved his work on Call Me By Your Name. But again, 15-or 20 minutes could have easily been cut from that movie -- such as the sex scene in the attic with Elio's girlfriend. Thanks for the good review. As someone else here stated, you saved me some money!
Yeah, I only saw Call Me By Your Name once in theatres and honestly, I remember being a little bit bored. Was never a bit fan of Armie Hammer, thought he was a bit miscast in that movie, so that might have had something to do with my enjoyment as well. Timmy and the peach did an excellent job, obviously.
@@LittleOscarFreak I agree about Hammer. While he's a good actor, he seemed to old and mature for Elio. Someone closer to his age would have been better.
@stevekrause5931 I didn't mean to come across unkind I just feel like a lot of people are dismissing this film based on this man's review clearly he did not like the movie but I think everyone has a right to their opinion I wish people would just see the film for themselves before they dismiss the movie without seeing it so I do apologize if it came across unkind
" I could not wait to get out of there (theatre)" HAHA
The coat was ON.
This review video was waaaay too long. She could have just said..'hated it' and ended it there.
I think lots of young gay men will feel this movie is too honest. Like Bruno, too close to the bone. These are very real queer men. Stuck in a time when they can't celebrate their true selves. And even the most liberated gay today should be able to identify with that.
I really don't need to identify with a movie or relate to any of the characters to enjoy it. I just need it to capture and keep my attention, hehe.
@@LittleOscarFreak But didn't you identify with Allerton simultaneous revulsion and attraction for an older gay man who literally worshipped his youth? The pity handjob after orgasm? The attractiveness of Lee's wisdom? Had you not experienced any of these complex and very queer encounters?
Gay men, not queer, GAY.
You are correct: it's definitely not a movie for gays. I am finding Luca less and less interesting with each movie he makes.
Every single gay archetype was depicted. And you still could not see yourself in any of them?
@@Stress-Free-K It's not necessarily about 'representation'... but just about being... fun? lol
@@LittleOscarFreakCertainly, Challengers was fun. And CMBYN had youthful joy from top to bottom. But maybe Luca wanted to do a much more serious movie this time.
Also, the title of the movie is called Queer. So ' queer representation' should reasonably be expected to take center stage. And Burrows is an iconic gay author. Paying homage to those times and style is commendable, imho.
Perhaps it might help understanding the epilogue to know that Burroughs actually shot his wife in the head during a drunken stupor "playing" William Tell. Which let to him fleeing the country he shot her in and traveling the world. And not doubt setting aflame his heroin addiction and bizarre writing style.
I saw this movie with gays in their late 60's, who knew his work and found Queer to be extremely moving. But I also know plenty of young gays who have experienced this type of tragic longing from older gay men.
It resonated for me in my youth when I wasn't sure exactly what I wanted. Sometimes movies can be made to capture the pain and agony of the queer experience. I think that's what Luca wanted to do here. Sure it wasn't "fun".
But maybe at home on a rainy week, you can pause it and watch it over a period of days. This is the type of movie so rich with subtext and metaphor that rewatches will always bring out new perspectives.
It's true. Each scene has it's own "vibe" as you say. Maybe once its intrinsic beauty seeps in, the unspoken plot points will begin to emerge.
@@Stress-Free-K I meant I don't need to see myself represented in a film in order to enjoy it. I really don't understand people when they say ''I didn't like this movie because I couldn't relate to any of the characters''...(not about this film, but in general)... like.. the definition of cinema is not 'relating to the characters you see on screen.
I had no idea Burroughs shot his wife?!?!?! I'm going to look into this further hehe.
I don't want to negate anybody's experience, I'm sure some gays are going to enjoy it. It's just not the kind of vibe I'm in the mood for when I want to watch a 'gay movie' haha let's just say it like that.
And don't get me wrong, by 'fun' i don't mean to say fun and games and laughs, etc. I like to be DEVASTATED after a movie. There are not comedies in my top 25 films of all time, it's strictly drama haha. I mean 'fun' as in ''you felt things, and it moved you''. Maybe in this particular case, I think the Drew Starkey character didn't work for me, wasn't fleshed out enough. And Burroughs is such a mess that you kind of detach and don't really care.
All this being said, everyone's comments on this video are kind of convincing me to give this film another chance. I'll give it a second go when it hits streaming.
@@LittleOscarFreak Well that's fair. I think its gonna be a classic top 10 gay film along with Brokeback and Moonlight, ect. It's Luca. He's a modern-day genius on film. The sound and camera dept.s kill it too, lately.
I beg to differ with most of your review. Clearly, you missed the point, and your review may be the most disappointing I've read or watched. I think this is an excellent movie in so many ways. It is well written, the acting (especially Daniel Craig and Drew Starkey) is superb. The cinematography and music are phenomenal. It definitely represents the lives and the psychology of gay men at two very different stages of self-acceptance in the early '50s. So, why is it so divisive? Why do some love it and some hate it? I think it has to do with a few things. First, there are people who are homophobes and hate queer movies. Not sure why they went (LOL--yes, I am pretty sure, at least). Second, it has a lot of metaphors in it. People's brains tend to be dichotomous as to whether they are linear thinkers and like movies in which everything is spelled out for them OR they are less concrete and more associative thinkers and like the many interpretations of metaphors. Of course, it's really a continuum, but these are the extremes. People at the first extreme (more concrete thinkers) would hate this movie and not understand its true meaning. Those at the other extreme probably would love it. As you say, it's the story of a gay man in middle-age (former military) who lives in Mexico. He's a drug addict, which likely represents the misery he experiences as a gay man in the '50s. He says he's in Mexico because his drug habit would get him imprisoned in the U.S. Remember, though, this was the era of McCarthyism, and his homosexuality also may have gotten him imprisoned--as a "communist"). So, he lives in Mexico and is seeking a meaningful gay relationship. Unfortunately, all he finds is superficial hook-ups. He sees and becomes infatuated with Eugene, a younger man who is struggling with his queer identity and is unable to accept it. Yet, he is drawn to Lee, the older man. This sets the stage for what is to occur. The part that I think really confuses people and is off-putting for them is Chapter 3 with the telepathy augmenting drug in South America. This is the metaphor for the struggle that Eugene is going through, knowing that he is attracted to men, specifically Lee, and denying his own homosexuality. Lee "hears" the thoughts of Eugene during their drug intoxication, "I AM NOT QUEER!" Ultimately, Eugene runs away in an effort to escape his sexuality. And Lee lives on alone, lonely, and grieving over the loss of Eugene, and dies a miserable death. Whie the movie has a bit of romance; it really is a tragedy of two gay men who are at very different stages of their lives and unable to connect in the early '50s. That is my assessment of the movie.
I agree with your entire analysis. The film is EXTREMELY well made. There's a LOT to love about it. But for me, ultimately, it bored me... What can I say? I have no problem with movies that don't have 'plots', I love hangout movies. But there was something about this that just didn't grip me. Thank god it was beautiful to look at hehe
This thin story will be milked to death for the bucks I guess 😂 why are two straight actors playing again gay characters? Aren’t there lots of great gay actors available? I’m gay but will not jump on any movie because it has a gay story played by straights, I will pass on that one thanks !
I was under the impression that Drew Starkey was gay in real life... but now that you mention it.... I haven't heard him mention it explicitly...
...That being said, I'm not on the 'only gays should play gay roles'. I think anyone can play anything, if scarcity of roles wasn't an issue for gay people, we wouldn't be talking about this. But I get it.
It's not a thin story at all there's a lot going on so if you want to go ahead and dismiss it without seeing it to each his own
WHY DO U EVEN WATCH IT IF U DONT LIKE DREW STARKY OR DAINEL IN THE FIRST PLACE
Baby, I'm a cinephile, if it's part of ''the conversation'' I see it. And I had no idea I wouldn't like Drew Starkey before I saw this movie. I was fully rooting for him. And I know that Daniel Craig is ''good'' he's just not a favorite of mine.
"...f*ck if I know..." ☠ I had a feeling based on the trailer... is this movie about anything? Thanks for saving me some $.
Hehe, the discourse will be intense, so you might wanna see it anyway just to be part of the conversation.
I have always found William es Burroughs to be an interesting person but not that huge fan of his writing I am familiar with the book however he was in the midst of the Beat Generation which I personally have always been drawn to an interested in I'm looking forward to seeing the movie I appreciated your review
The film doesn't dive as deep into Burroughs as you seem to be hoping, unfortunately. But tell us how you feel about it once you've seen it! 😀
I saw it today and I thought it was a stunning film! Daniel Craig was outstanding.Also, I really love the cinematography and the score. No, it didn't actually dive as deeply into Burrows as one might think but it didn't really need to. It is based closely from the book "Queer" and it is mainly a unrequited love story with shades of Burroghs. I really felt the pain and anguish at times that William Lee was going through but no one really talks much about Drew Starkey's performance which is understated and his characters is written as was he or wasn't he which made me think after the movie a lot about his character as well. I think he played it well and I didn't really think there was anything generic about him in the role.The only drawback I had was I think the movie could have been cut down for about 15 minutes less but excellent film and excellent performance I'm almost certain Daniel Craig will get an Oscar nomination
There's a lot going on especially with Daniel Craig's character I think reflects some things in the gay community even today I think most gay men want to find a connection and they just don't know how or they can't seem to find anyone that really knows how to make a connection, either beyond sex. William Lee wanted more he wanted to find that someone that he could do that with and he thought he had found that in the Allerton character but sadly in my opinion Allerton played too many games though I think Allerton started developing stronger feelings for him than he expected and it scared him away
@@michaelwirick1849 Yes, this is an interesting theme, and I'd love to have a film explore that in more detail, even though I appreciate that it can be brought up in a film ''about something else'', and again, I think in many ways it's a faithful adaptation of the book, just that... the book doesn't quite work and this movie suffers the same.
But yes, beautiful to look out, Craig is nailing it, Starkey is there hehe, but ultimately there's another movie in there that could have been more exciting...
Great resume, I thought the same thing about this so so movie.
Yes, I think it's a faithful adaptation of the book, but the book is.... what it is... lol
this isn't the movie people who haven't read the book are expecting it's going to be
This movie did not work for me. I wish Omar Apollo was shown more. This movie was kind of disoriented and distracted. Only curiosity this movie raised about the awesome locations.
Stay away from the book, it's even more disoriented and distracted hahaha.
What??? Have a look at your own setup and how you present yourself! A baseball cap was designed to serve a purpose on the baseball field, where sunglasses at the time were no good. Now you can choose between the two - when and where needed/appropriate. E.g. if you have little hair to protect your scalp, the cap may be your priority in harsh sun. That would rarely be indoors... But such a cap indoors, on a grown man, backwards, and in no way fitting with ANYTHING else in colour, design - or even your head....? And you critique a movie????
Damnnnn 😲 who hurt you?
I'm sorry you don't like how I dress. You and my mom have that in common. She describes my 'little outfits' as clownesque, and to be honest, I'd rather look like a clown than a sheep who dresses like everyone else, haha. As for wearing baseball caps indoors... I don't know what to yell you... it's kind of a thing people do.
Not sure how this has anything to do with me reviewing movies... Is that a job reserved for people in suits?
What are people supposed to wear to watch and critique a movie? I've cargo pants on right now, sorry.
I haven't seen the film, but from the reviews I've read, Luca didn't do himself any favors with the jungle/drug scene. I would likely have been bored by it as well. Luca seems to like long-running films, which most audiences don't care for. On the other hand, I loved his work on Call Me By Your Name. But again, 15-or 20 minutes could have easily been cut from that movie -- such as the sex scene in the attic with Elio's girlfriend. Thanks for the good review. As someone else here stated, you saved me some money!
Yeah, I only saw Call Me By Your Name once in theatres and honestly, I remember being a little bit bored. Was never a bit fan of Armie Hammer, thought he was a bit miscast in that movie, so that might have had something to do with my enjoyment as well. Timmy and the peach did an excellent job, obviously.
@@LittleOscarFreak I agree about Hammer. While he's a good actor, he seemed to old and mature for Elio. Someone closer to his age would have been better.
Just from reading what you wrote I would say it would have been over your head anyway so yeah you wouldn't have enjoyed it
Thanks for the kind words.
@stevekrause5931 I didn't mean to come across unkind I just feel like a lot of people are dismissing this film based on this man's review clearly he did not like the movie but I think everyone has a right to their opinion I wish people would just see the film for themselves before they dismiss the movie without seeing it so I do apologize if it came across unkind
the leg flair!^^
A little bit iconic.