Daniel Craig is ‘transfixing and brilliant in sensational’ same-sex romance Queer as critics praise the explicit ‘masterpiece’ – but others slam it as ‘pretentious and unengaging’

Daniel Craig has been dubbed ‘transfixing’ and ‘brilliant’ by critics in the ‘sensational’ new same-sex romance Queer as the first wave of stellar reviews pour in for the hotly-anticipated film.

Based on William Burroughs’ semiautobiographical novella about obsessive lust, it stars Craig as American expat and war veteran William Lee, who has a romance with a younger man, Eugene Allerton (Drew Starkey), a drug addict and discharged Navy serviceman. 

It’s the second flick of the year to be directed by darling of the film world Luca Guadagnino, who brought us the tennis drama Challengers in April.

And most critics are already insisting that the film is living up to the hype after it premiered at Venice Film Festival on Tuesday, dubbing it as ‘mesmerizing’ as Craig ‘balances colorful affectation with raw hunger’.

Meanwhile, Venice Film Festival boss Alberto Barbera said he believes Daniel has given ‘the performance of a lifetime’ in Queer, and added he’d be surprised if we don’t see the British actor at the Academy Awards next year, which would mark the first ever Oscar nod for Craig. 

Based on William Burroughs’ semiautobiographical novella about obsessive lust, it stars Craig as American expat and war veteran William Lee, who has a romance with a younger man, Eugene Allerton (Drew Starkey), a drug addict and discharged Navy serviceman

However, there are some mixed reactions from other critics, with the film reportedly earning a mixture of boos and cheers at the end of the press screening in Venice and The Times slamming it as ‘completely devoid of overarching narrative form’.

The Telegraph critic Robbie Collin, who gave the film a whopping five stars, branded Craig as ‘superb’ in the ‘gorgeous’ new flick, adding that it puts ‘his James Bond to bed once and for all’.

He also praised director Luca Guadagnino for creating his most ‘pristine and plangent work yet’ and revealed that it features ‘three sexual encounters that are about as graphic as modern male movie stardom allows’. 

The critic wrote: ‘Craig is sensational in a role swimming in psychological complexity, which he marshals with rare intuition and grace. 

‘Queer doesn’t scrimp on provocation and pleasure, but it’s also a beautiful film about male loneliness, and the way a solitary life can so easily shade into a life sentence.’ 

Critics are already insisting that the film is living up to the hype after it premiered at Venice Film Festival on Tuesday, dubbing it as ‘mesmerizing’ as Craig ‘balances colorful affectation with raw hunger’ (pictured with co-star Drew Starkey)

Meanwhile, The Guardian’s Peter Bradshaw gave the film four out of five stars, gushing that Craig is ‘strangely magnificent’ in his character who is ‘needy, horny, and moody, like his Knives Out detective Benoit Blanc on steroids’.

He wrote: ‘Craig always commands the screen in his regulation honorary consul crumpled white suit, hat, glasses and a pistol that he bizarrely carries around openly holstered, a droll phallic symbol for this erotic cowboy who is very much a lover not a fighter. It is a really funny, open, generous performance.’

However, he noted that the only disadvantage is that Craig ‘upstages Starkey just a little,’ writing that his ‘mesmeric screen presence will draw our attention back to Lee, away from Gene and his ambiguous intentions and emotions. 

Adding: ‘Craig is so dominant that sometimes it seems that Gene is almost not worthy of him.’

The Daily Mail’s Brian Viner also gave the film four stars as he wrote: ‘Hats off to Daniel Craig. The 56-year-old star could hardly be trying harder, after those five James Bond films in 15 years, to shrug off the image of Ian Fleming’s ultra-heterosexual alpha-male super-spy.’

He also commended Lesley Manville’s performance as he added: ‘If Manville gets a Best Supporting nod when the Oscar nominations come round, I wouldn’t be the least bit surprised. Queer is worth seeing for her alone, but for plenty besides.’

The Hollywood Reporter’s David Rooney, described the film as ‘mesmerizing,’ and wrote:

‘While Craig makes this loquacious side of the character highly entertaining, he’s also superb at showing Lee’s unaccustomed self-exposure, his aching need for human contact increasing his vulnerability as his addiction to Eugene becomes chronic. 

‘With illuminating new self-knowledge comes crippling weakness, something Craig fully conveys in a ballsy performance covering a broad psychological and emotional spectrum.’

Meanwhile BBC Culture critic Nicholas Barber, gave the film three stars and joined the stellar praise for Craig, insisting that he ‘reminds us of what an exceptional actor he is’ in this film.

The Telegraph critic Robbie Collin, who gave the film a whopping five stars, branded Craig as ‘superb’ in the ‘gorgeous’ new flick, adding that it puts ‘his James Bond to bed once and for all’

Meanwhile, The Guardian’s Peter Bradshaw gave the film four out of five stars, gushing that Craig is ‘strangely magnificent’ in his character who is ‘needy, horny, and moody, like his Knives Out detective Benoit Blanc on steroids’

He wrote: ‘Craig is touchingly vulnerable as the frustrated and exhausted barfly who knows that he isn’t the man he once was, but who still has glints of his old panache. Stripping away all the confidence that armoured James Bond and Benoit Blanc.

‘Craig reminds us of what an exceptional actor he is, and his heartbreaking performance is enough to sustain the sad anti-romance between two ex-pats.’

IndieWire critic Ryan Lattanzio described the film as ‘profound and kaleidoscopic,’ claiming it is the director’s ‘most visually daring cinematic conquest yet’.

He wrote: ‘Craig’s brilliant performance is all inner torment he wears on the outside as a deeply lonely man doomed to an unrequited all-consuming love, funny and tragic in his inability to help himself.’

The critic also had praise for Starkey, and added: ‘The handsome Starkey, in his breakout screen role after TV’s ‘Outer Banks,’ haunts the screen as an adonis out of reach, tantalizingly inscrutable and embodying the sort of recognizable love object that may live only inside your head.’

Meanwhile, Metro critic Tori Brazier believe’s the 007 star’s Oscar talk is ‘well-deserved,’ but he does a lot of the film’s ‘heavy lifting’.

She argued: ‘Craig is fully committed to baring himself in this role – and the Oscar talk is well-deserved, as well as awards attention being almost inevitable, given how Hollywood can’t resist a bold transformation.

‘However, it can be argued that Craig is doing a lot of heavy lifting when it comes to Queer because, without him, the murkiness of its storyline – which becomes harder to penetrate’ 

The film’s leads posed alongside director Luca Guadagnino [centre]

On the more negative side of the reviews is The Times critic Kevin Maher, who wrote that the Bond star ‘successfully shakes off his hyper-macho past, but the William S Burroughs adaptation tries too hard to be hip’.

Giving the film just two stars, he penned: ‘It’s visually appealing, obviously, because Guadagnino does not make ugly films. But it’s difficult to convey how little, dramatically speaking, is happening here. 

‘Kuritzkes is slavishly faithful to the novel, minus the controversial sequence where Lee is pleasured by a gang of 12- to 14-year-old boys.’

However, he couldn’t help but speak highly of Craig, adding that he ‘delivers possibly his best screen performance’.

In agreement was The Evening Standard critic Jo-Ann Titmarsh, who also gave the flick two out of five stars.

He quipped: ‘The whorehouses, the filth and the cock fights that Burroughs writes about do not translate convincingly onto the screen. This film needs to be dirtier.

‘The highly choreographed dream sequences and drug taking also bore and drag the film into the realm of pretentiousness (although Lee’s first return to heroin is brilliant).

‘Despite Craig’s superb performance and the support of his superlative co-stars, the film just doesn’t engage the audience. This might be because of Burroughs’ writing, or the problem of depicting addictions and hallucinations.’