Did say before that David Cronenberg may not quite be on a possible list of favourite directors. Only started seeing his work (as of now have seen most of it),starting with 'Dead Ringers' which to me is one of his best, fairly recently, but a vast majority have at least interested and are good to outstanding. A few didn't work for me, 'Cosmopolis' being one example, but don't consider any of his work unwatchable. If compiling though a list of the most fascinating and unique directors, he would almost certainly be on it and very high up the more work seen of his.

'Naked Lunch' is one of his book translated to film adaptations, and like with 'Cosmopolis' (made over 20 years later but saw that before this) the source material is extremely difficult to adapt, very close to unadaptable/unfilmable. Cronenberg does take a noble job though and his unlike anything seen before tackling of challenging subjects with the ability to disturb and make one feel uncomfortable is evident throughout 'Naked Lunch'. Do not consider this one of Cronenberg's very best personally and it is more a film to admire and appreciate rather than enjoy or be entertained by, when one is not being disgusted or confused by it like a good number are. What is meant by that last bit is that 'Naked Lunch' is a polarising film and doesn't work for everybody, and can completely understand it.

Of all my years of watching films and also reviewing them, 'Naked Lunch' is up there with the weirdest (it does out-strange 'Crash' in my opinion),most perplexing and not easy to review ones. It is also up there with the most fascinating, most disturbing and most unique. Hope that makes sense and it captures the spirit of the source material spot-on, though the source material does have more punch.

It is an easy film to criticise. The momentum is not always there, making for some draggy, almost uneventful, stretches. The script felt underwritten, like there was so much focus on getting the atmosphere right and paying as much attention to the writing.

Also found that other Cronenberg films have more of an emotional core and gripped me much more, that's a big reason why 'Dead Ringers' and especially 'The Fly' really clicked with me and why they are both considered by me as one of his best. Had a similar problem with 'Crash', but this fares a little better because the source material and atmosphere is not as clinical or as cold. Sometimes the bizarreness is overdone, with it making even less sense the more the film progresses, something that has put those who disliked it off.

However, there is a lot to admire here in 'Naked Lunch'. As with a vast majority of Cronenberg films (one of the exceptions being 'Shivers', which was his first feature film),'Naked Lunch' looks great, with photography that is both beautiful, almost dream-like in places, and harrowing, when at its most harrowing it really hits hard. Absolutely loved the opening credits sequence, Cronenberg always delivers in this aspect. A lot of effort clearly went into the design of it visually, it is beautiful to watch while also being very creepy. For me, composer Howard Shore's (Cronenberg's composer of choice who scored most of his films) partnership with Cronenberg is one of the best and most consistent composer-director collaborations, his score for 'The Fly' is quite special. He provides the right amount of unsettlement here and the featuring of Ornette Coleman was inspired.

Cronenberg directs more than admirably and his style is so well suited to the material, so much so one can say only he could adapt such a difficult book to adapt. His direction is far from clinical or tame and doesn't tone or dull down the source material, if not having quite as much punch. At the same time, it while not subtle is not heavy-handed. The atmosphere is quite captivating, a wonderfully strange hallucinatory ride that disturbs in an increasingly nightmarish way. Harrowing stuff but also intriguing and made me think. The special effects are excellent and when the bugs do appear they do terrify, especially the typewriter one. Despite never getting to know the characters or care for them, that doesn't stop Cronenberg from drawing great performances from especially the intensely laconic Peter Weller and an equally excellent Judy Davis.

Overall, weird but also fascinating. 6.5/10

It's 1953 NYC. Bill Lee (Peter Weller) is a former drug addict who has gone straight as an exterminator. He discovers his wife Joan (Judy Davis) is stealing his insecticide to get high. Bill is arrested by narcotic cops. They show him a talking bug who tells him that his wife is an agent of the Interzone Incorporated and she's not even human. He kills the bug and escape. He's directed to Dr. Benway (Roy Scheider) to get off the bug powder. He accidentally shoots Joan and kills her but she doesn't bleed. He falls further and further into a drug-induced surreal world. He imagines going to Interzone to start writing reports.

This is a movie beyond strange. This is not a movie for following the plot. This is a series of disturbing visuals to feel. It is weirdness without compromise. Peter Weller's stone-faced acting probably is the most daring choice. A drug movie usually has the protagonist going completely manic. I can definitely understand critics who find this movie unwatchable. It is one of the most unique visions ever.

Perhaps too surrealistic for my provincial taste, this just left me cold and disgusted by its hideous use of revolting visuals to represent all sorts of symbolic repression. "Robo Cop" Peter Weller is a rather dour exterminator with writing ambitions whose wife finds herself addicted to his particular kind of bug spray. She takes him on a trip which results in his going on the run for her murder and facing psychological retribution for his latent and often poetic attempts to avoid his homosexuality. This brings him from gay old New York to exotic and perverted Morocco where the bug powder is overflowing and young boys seem available on every street corner...inside the Casbah.

Disgusting but often fascinating visually, this was mesmerizing for its avant garde performances especially Weller, Judy Davis (in multiple roles),Roy Schneider and Ian Holm. A very pretty Julian Sands is enticing as one of Weller's possible liaisons. But every time I get drawn into the underlying themes, I find myself turning away every time a huge bug appears, especially one which appears to talk through its anus. The most revolting moment happens when Weller comes across Sands ravishing the sweet young street boy inside a cage, seemingly devouring him like a preying mantis.

Whether an analogy of the dangers of drug use or perverted sexuality, this takes time to grab the average audience not expecting such an emotionally exhausting pseudo film noir. During my days working at a video store, I knew that David Cronenberg's movies would be a feast for the eyes yet psychologically challenging, and having avoided this one for years I prove myself to be right. It's ironic that living in New York I have no problem killing a bug even with my bare hand, but watching what goes on in this film just left me repulsed.

Watching this while studying the work of the remarkable Judy Davis, I noticed how much even at this point in her career that she resembles Judy Garland when she was immortalized playing her in a brilliant television movie. But this is closer to her black comedy of the same time, "Barton Fink", and well I could get through that film with no issue, it took all the patience in the world for me to make it through the end of this. I did get a kick out of one strangle looking creature which reminded me of "The Tingler".