Review of Naked Lunch (1991) by Thomas T — 15 Jun 2009

I liked this a lot more when I first saw it, but after watching it again recently, I was not as impressed. Still, every Burroughs reader should see it at least once, and it is MUCH much better than that movie where Kiefer Sutherland plays our Grand Iconoclast.

So many people have said (almost verbatim): "I liked it, but it was not a faithful adaptation of the book... even Cronenberg admitted that it would be impossible to do it accurately". Where the hell do people read these things? Because it seems like they didn't read the book, or see the movie at that, or that they are not even thinking about it but repeating something some one heard some one else say! It was NOT an adaptation of the book, but a surrealistic account of how Burroughs came to write "Naked Lunch", one in which Cronenberg took every artistic liberty possible.

If any thing, it was an adaptation of the introduction. Kind of like writing/directing a biopic when you're on lots of drugs! Bug powder and Mugwump jizz!!