$2.50 Reviews: A Clockwork Orange (1971)

[Marter]

<color=darkred>Previous Review: <url=http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/326.398904-2-50-Reviews-Bruno-2009>BrünoNext Review: <url=http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/326.399032-2-50-Reviews-Almost-Famous-2000>Almost Famous
$2.50 Reviews
A Clockwork Orange
http://i10.servimg.com/u/f10/16/09/70/40/poster48.jpg

A Clockwork Orange is a very difficult film to enjoy. Not appreciate, which I most certainly did, but like. It is set in the future, a place that looks as if we finally gave up and let the interior designers have their way with the world. It features a protagonist who is so cruel, so unlikable, that when the film starts to want us to care about him, it's very difficult to. He's not sympathetic in the least, but we're to be convinced that he is by the time all is said and done. It's also very violent, featuring several scenes that make you want to turn away.

[Img_Inline width="275" height="180" Caption="" align="left"]http://i10.servimg.com/u/f10/16/09/70/40/a-cloc10.jpg[/Img_Inline]

How does one enjoy A Clockwork Orange? I kept wondering that for the majority of its running time. I suppose it is funny, at times, with Malcolm McDowell's narration always being pleasant to listen to, but I kept feeling as if it needed a little ray of sunshine to penetrate its dark core. So sad, so upsetting, and while that's not bad in and of itself, it grows tiresome after sitting through it for over two hours. Sure, it's a mostly accurate translation of an equally dark novel, and it'll make you think a bit after it finishes, but if you're hoping to enjoy your time watching a movie, look elsewhere.

McDowell both narrates and is the lead actor, playing a teenager named Alex whose idea of fun is to either get into violent altercations with his peers, or going on raping sprees. If either is done to a song of Beethoven's, Alex is most pleased. The law does not hinder them, the police have no idea who they are (they wear masks, you see), and they have not a care in the world.

Alex's group has tensions, sure, but he always knows that he's the leader. Why? Because the camera distorts everyone but him, so that we know he's the lead. Stanley Kubrick, who wrote the screenplay and directed the film, uses wide-angle lenses frequently here, portraying Alex as the only sane person in this dystopic world, even though it's very likely completely the opposite. This is a crazy person with no regard for his fellow man, and yet we're supposed to root for him. Sorry, but I couldn't do it.

[Img_Inline width="275" height="180" Caption="" align="right"]http://i10.servimg.com/u/f10/16/09/70/40/a-cloc11.jpg[/Img_Inline]

While I don't want to spoil later portions of the film, reform eventually comes to Alex, and we have to see the ramifications of that. It's not by choice, to put it bluntly, and we begin to question whether it's fair for someone to change someone's nature. Alex sees a vulnerable person, and he wants to inflict harm on them. Is it right for someone to physically prevent him from acting upon those urges? We see the pain that this treatment causes Alex, and we're supposed to sympathize with him.

So, A Clockwork Orange gives you a lot to think about. It'll stick with you, due to the violent images, the amount of detail that went into each scene, or the themes that it deals with while it plays. It is a good movie. It's not all that fun to watch, but it's important in its own right and it'll most certainly be worth your time if you decide that you can handle it. It is not, however, for everyone, and if you're looking for light entertainment for the night, this is most certainly not the movie for you.

There is some irony involved in later scenes that made me laugh, and some of McDowell's narration is hilarious, but for most of the time, this is a drab drama that needed some more cheeriness. Granted, that might have ruined the tone, and I can see why some form of comedy wasn't included, but when we're dealing with someone who is delusional, it wouldn't be too hard to make the film more of a dark comedy. Maybe a second viewing would make me appreciate that part of the film more; there's certainly enough there to warrant multiple viewings.

[Img_Inline width="275" height="180" Caption="" align="left"]http://i10.servimg.com/u/f10/16/09/70/40/a-cloc12.jpg[/Img_Inline]

Actually, that problem might not have been with the film, but with me. I don't find someone singing "Singing in the Rain" while proceeding to rape someone particularly funny, but perhaps the intention was to make that comedic. I guess I just have a different sense of humor, or maybe a few morals. I think that I just might not have gotten the film's sense of humor, and that's fine. Other people will, and they'll like it more, while another group of people will find it even more depraved than I did, and hate A Clockwork Orange as a result.

If there's a driving force behind why A Clockwork Orange ultimately works, and you're completely ignorant of the talent behind the camera, it's Malcolm McDowell. Stanley Kubrick is known for being a perfectionist, and some of the things that McDowell has to get right -- over and over again, presumably -- are insane. The film opens with a shot of Alex's face, and continues to zoom out for a good two minutes, with Alex not blinking. How hard is that? Try not blinking for two minutes right now. Once you can do that, try doing something else like drinking some milk while not being able to blink.

A Clockwork Orange is a good movie, one that makes you think and appreciate it for the majority of its running time and for some time afterward. Is it enjoyable? No, but it's not exactly supposed to be. It gives us some insight into the mind of a person who is driven solely by his instincts to fight and rape, and then shows us what happens to him once those instincts are impeded. It has a driving performance by Malcolm McDowell, is made with great skill, and is dark and not at all enjoyable to watch.

<color=D6D9DA>_________________________________________________________________________________

If you are a fan of my reviews, and want to boost my ego receive notifications when new reviews are posted, please join/visit this <url=http://www.escapistmagazine.com/groups/view/2-50-Reviews>user group.
For an archive of all my previous movie reviews, please go <url=http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/326.284075-2-50-Reviews-Archive>here.

 

[gorfias]

The core of Kubrick's work is that all humans are organic machines. We're organic machines that follow our assigned tasks (2001) or orders which can cause malfunctions (Full Metal Jacket)or machines that screw (Eyes Wide Shut). Here, the conceit is "A Clock Work Orange": society programs us for good or ill.

Alex is part of the machine. He rapes and destroys because, in the dystopia he is from, that is how he is (unintentionally) programmed. He is later reprogrammed more to societies liking but that too goes awry. He later, at the end, cannot help but be what he is programmed to be and it is chilling.

I don't agree with Kubrick. I think human beings are more than a sum of neuron's firing in response to external stimuli, but this movie was done brilliantly and worth watching if you love films and film making. The man made pond scene where Alex asserts himself is worth the price of admission.

BTW: Trivia: they guy carrying the cripled man in a wheel chair? That is Darth Vader minus the costume

 

[Beffudled Sheep_v1legacy]

*Before reading review, sees cover*
"Being the adventures of a young man whose principle interests are rape-"

.. . What?

*Reads entire review after*
... . What?

OT: This is personally me alone, but what kind of director makes a movie where the protagonist(s) go raping people with comedic music playing and we're suppose to eventually sympathize with these characters? That's horse crap ... I mean- personally I have gripes about rape (for I see it worse then murder but now it's not the time to debate about that) and this movie shows rape in a manner like it's nothing and we should root for the guys because of redemption forced at the end.

.. No, sorry .. but I would talk to the director and ask what the heck was he thinking.

Then again, people can see dark novels differently and our protagonists are obviously not good people at all. But again, if you make a movie and want us to care- don't make the protagonists sick and have them rape people. Just, no. No. Come now... seriously. Sorry ranting a bit, but this movie is going on my 'Forget' list which means i'll pretend it never existed.

The movie, while mostly a faithful adaptation of the book, actually is much lighter than the book. The book is many times darker and more depraved especially with the rape. A beautifully directed and acted film regardless of the events portrayed. Don't limit yourself buddy, the scenes are graphic but certainly not as graphic as a real rape or other more "hardcore" depictions.

OT: I'm not sure I see where you're coming from with the whole comedy aspect. I always viewed the parts you described as an attempt at comedy as scenes to further illustrate the depravity of the young man and his crew.
But I agree that it certainly isn't for everyone, hell it certainly isn't even for the majority.

Have you read the book? Just curious because I want to know what you thought of the differences between the film and the book. A couple are large but most are minor.

 

[teebeeohh]

I am not sure you(as the viewer) are supposed to find the comedic moments funny, they are meant to convey the joy the characters are feeling. So basically if you found them to be funny you are terrible, terrible human being.
I also think this is the worst Kubrick movie to go in unprepared, while most of his movies will just bore the unprepared this one can be really disturbing

 

[gorfias]

I always viewed the parts you described as an attempt at comedy as scenes to further illustrate the depravity of the young man and his crew.

Agreed. They're laughing it up as they brutalize the writer's wife. We, in our seats, 40 years later, still squirm viewing this evil.

I am not sure you(as the viewer) are supposed to find the comedic moments funny, they are meant to convey the joy the characters are feeling. So basically if you found them to be funny you are terrible, terrible human being.
I also think this is the worst Kubrick movie to go in unprepared, while most of his movies will just bore the unprepared this one can be really disturbing

Yeah, again, this stuff isn't funny, but important for the reasons you state. And these friends of Alex's are as much a part of the machine as is Alex. They are acting as their "programming" intended. Their "inputs" are changed later (given jobs). But Kubrick continues his conceit of humans being sort of organic machines, simple responding to stimuli and programming. I wonder if the book had a similar theme?

There are documentaries about this thing. Fascinating in many ways. My aunt agreed that it was brilliantly made, but the subject matter was too awful for her to view.

Interesting how the business model has changed. Nowadays, blockbusters better make their money in a couple of weeks. Back in the day, this would have been one movie among many that needs to make its money back over time. I understand all involved were very disappointed when they had to pull this out of theaters after just about one year.

 

[Rblade]

it's stanley kubric, it's going to be bizarre. This movie isn't intended to be funny, or make light of the situation. He clearly displays everyone in the movie as evil, everyone. It's about a question whether the end justifies the means, and if you can justify changing a person even if that person is evil. If you don't wanna watch it fine, but don't condemn it because of it's less then subtle portrail. Music if very important to the movie, it's one of the most important themes, it should be treated like that not like a way to liven up horrible actions.

 

[KelDG]

Why do people feel the need to "root" for someone? We are not meant to root for Alex.

This is not the story of an underdog baseball player trying hard to hit the big time, or whatever version of this boring cliché Hollywood are churning out at the moment. This film runs so much deeper than wanting someone to "win".

If you watch this the same way you would go watch the expendables you are going to have a bad time. If you review this the same way you would review a generic #hollywood by the numbers film you are going to miss the point of it completely.

 

[PsychedelicDiamond]

I don't think scenes like the "Singing in the rain" one are supposed to be funny to us. In fact i'm pretty sure they're meant to be just as awkward as they are. It's their purpose to create a sense of disconnect between Alex and his viewers. The viewer ist supposed to realize that his idea of fun is or rather should be completely unrelatable to us. I didn't sympathize with Ales, even when he got his treatment i did, however, feel sorry for him. While he's a deeply immoral character his will was completely destroyed by an inhumane procedure. The movies point seemed to be that breaking a mans will is a worse crime than any act of violence could ever be... and while one doesn't necessarily have to agree with that point it's at least perfectly valid.

 

[Virmire]

We AREN'T supposed to root for Alex, we are supposed to hate him, as well as the rest of the characters in the film, nor is it meant to be overly funny, the 'humor' in it is just a show of the sadism of the cast, their glee at the pain of others. Alex isn't a protagonist in the traditional sense, nor is he truly an anti-hero, as he is deprived of all heroic attributes whatsoever. Films like these deal with the lowness of humanity, the depths we can sink to, which is appealing to some to see; to see the dark side of humanity. Take films like American Psycho, for example, take away the mild humor in that, and you have the same idea; a sick twisted individual who enjoys torturing the innocent.

 

[Vkmies]

Ah, my favourite film of all time! If you actually found this for 2.50, you are one lucky man. I absolutely love this movie, changed my life in more ways than one. So beautifully made in every aspect, such an experience.
In my opinion this is the highlight of the art of film, the very peak of movie-making history. By far the best Kubrick film.

*Before reading review, sees cover*
"Being the adventures of a young man whose principle interests are rape-"

.. . What?

*Reads entire review after*
... . What?

OT: This is personally me alone, but what kind of director makes a movie where the protagonist(s) go raping people with comedic music playing and we're suppose to eventually sympathize with these characters? That's horse crap ... I mean- personally I have gripes about rape (for I see it worse then murder but now it's not the time to debate about that) and this movie shows rape in a manner like it's nothing and we should root for the guys because of redemption forced at the end.

.. No, sorry .. but I would talk to the director and ask what the heck was he thinking.

Then again, people can see dark novels differently and our protagonists are obviously not good people at all. But again, if you make a movie and want us to care- don't make the protagonists sick and have them rape people. Just, no. No. Come now... seriously. Sorry ranting a bit, but this movie is going on my 'Forget' list which means i'll pretend it never existed.

Oh you!

I see where you are coming from, man, I really do. I don't go showing this film to everyone. It's definitely an acquired taste and if you don't want to see the things, I totally get it, BUT (Going for my own little rant here, hope you don't mind! ) I do recommend the film to absolutely everyone.

First of all: Protagonist does not always mean hero, especially in this case. The audience is not there to root for Alex. The audience is not there to be entertained. Alex is not to be made relatable or loveable. You are there to see a man grow. You are there to make hard moral choices in your head. Alex gets brainwashed into experiencing horrible pain if he even thinks about attacking someone or doing a crime. In the beginning of the film, you are there to see what kind of a monster Alex is. He rapes, steals and kills just for fun. The main reason for his existence is music and violence.

In the latter half of the film you are there to think. Alex is brainwashed. He wont do anyone any harm anymore, he wont commit crimes, you could argue that he is a better person now. But he lost his freedom to think, freedom to make his own decisions. He is nothing but a puppet now, his thoughts molded by men in suits. It symbolic of cencorship and propaganda. Can you use these morally questionable tactics, if in the end, crime rate lowers?

The ending can be happy or sad, depending on what conclusion you came to during the latter half of the film. That's the point of the film really. You wouldn't be able to get that through if you made the main character likeable or nice. That would ruin it completely. And of course it's perfect from a technical standpoint. The lighting, teh acting and oh dear god, the music and editing. It all works fantastically and even if you don't like watching the movie, because of what's going on, you will surely appreciate the editing and direction by Stanley and friends.

 

[Vkmies]

*Before reading review, sees cover*
"Being the adventures of a young man whose principle interests are rape-"

.. . What?

*Reads entire review after*
... . What?

OT: This is personally me alone, but what kind of director makes a movie where the protagonist(s) go raping people with comedic music playing and we're suppose to eventually sympathize with these characters? That's horse crap ... I mean- personally I have gripes about rape (for I see it worse then murder but now it's not the time to debate about that) and this movie shows rape in a manner like it's nothing and we should root for the guys because of redemption forced at the end.

.. No, sorry .. but I would talk to the director and ask what the heck was he thinking.

Then again, people can see dark novels differently and our protagonists are obviously not good people at all. But again, if you make a movie and want us to care- don't make the protagonists sick and have them rape people. Just, no. No. Come now... seriously. Sorry ranting a bit, but this movie is going on my 'Forget' list which means i'll pretend it never existed.

The movie, while mostly a faithful adaptation of the book, actually is much lighter than the book. The book is many times darker and more depraved especially with the rape. A beautifully directed and acted film regardless of the events portrayed. Don't limit yourself buddy, the scenes are graphic but certainly not as graphic as a real rape or other more "hardcore" depictions.

OT: I'm not sure I see where you're coming from with the whole comedy aspect. I always viewed the parts you described as an attempt at comedy as scenes to further illustrate the depravity of the young man and his crew.
But I agree that it certainly isn't for everyone, hell it certainly isn't even for the majority.

Have you read the book? Just curious because I want to know what you thought of the differences between the film and the book. A couple are large but most are minor.

Oh man, it has been too long since I read the book. Obviously, I wouldn't know about OP, but I remember loving the book almost as much as I do the movie, but I seem to have forgotten a lot of it during the years. Obviously the ending is different, and the made up accent takes a much larger seat in the book, but for the life of me, that's all I can currently remember from the book!

Don't know if I am just in a weird place of mind, or if it really has been that long since I read the book. Can you help me remember some of the bigger differences? I don't have the book anymore, but now all these things I can't remember are killing me.

 

[Beffudled Sheep_v1legacy]

*Before reading review, sees cover*
"Being the adventures of a young man whose principle interests are rape-"

.. . What?

*Reads entire review after*
... . What?

OT: This is personally me alone, but what kind of director makes a movie where the protagonist(s) go raping people with comedic music playing and we're suppose to eventually sympathize with these characters? That's horse crap ... I mean- personally I have gripes about rape (for I see it worse then murder but now it's not the time to debate about that) and this movie shows rape in a manner like it's nothing and we should root for the guys because of redemption forced at the end.

.. No, sorry .. but I would talk to the director and ask what the heck was he thinking.

Then again, people can see dark novels differently and our protagonists are obviously not good people at all. But again, if you make a movie and want us to care- don't make the protagonists sick and have them rape people. Just, no. No. Come now... seriously. Sorry ranting a bit, but this movie is going on my 'Forget' list which means i'll pretend it never existed.

The movie, while mostly a faithful adaptation of the book, actually is much lighter than the book. The book is many times darker and more depraved especially with the rape. A beautifully directed and acted film regardless of the events portrayed. Don't limit yourself buddy, the scenes are graphic but certainly not as graphic as a real rape or other more "hardcore" depictions.

OT: I'm not sure I see where you're coming from with the whole comedy aspect. I always viewed the parts you described as an attempt at comedy as scenes to further illustrate the depravity of the young man and his crew.
But I agree that it certainly isn't for everyone, hell it certainly isn't even for the majority.

Have you read the book? Just curious because I want to know what you thought of the differences between the film and the book. A couple are large but most are minor.

Oh man, it has been too long since I read the book. Obviously, I wouldn't know about OP, but I remember loving the book almost as much as I do the movie, but I seem to have forgotten a lot of it during the years. Obviously the ending is different, and the made up accent takes a much larger seat in the book, but for the life of me, that's all I can currently remember from the book!

Don't know if I am just in a weird place of mind, or if it really has been that long since I read the book. Can you help me remember some of the bigger differences? I don't have the book anymore, but now all these things I can't remember are killing me.

Well one of the biggest differences I noticed was

Spoiler

the scene where he picks up the two teen girls in the music store. In the film they're teens and they have consensual sex (repeatedly). In the book however the girls are 10 and he gets them drunk and repeatedly rapes them. Then of course you have the book's ending where Alex is an adult with a new baby on his hands and he is seeing the world much like Pete was when he "matured".

 

[Casual Shinji]

The Singing in the Rain scene was not meant for comedic effect at all. It was taking a cheery song about being in love and having it be casually sung by a man commiting rape while in a state of joyfull glee. Not only does this amplify the effect of the scene for the audience, it also mentally scarred the husband as we see later when he hears it sung again - by the same person no less - and goes fucking crazy.

We see the same happen to Alex, when hearing Beethoven's 9th Symphony produces the same feelings of nauseous pain as being confronted with violence and sex, due to it being the score during one of the "therapy" clips. It's like a Pavlov effect.

A Clockwork Orange, like most of Kubrick's movies, is one you have to meet halfway. It's not a movie you're going to sit down and watch just for the heck of it.

 

[Vkmies]

*Before reading review, sees cover*
"Being the adventures of a young man whose principle interests are rape-"

.. . What?

*Reads entire review after*
... . What?

OT: This is personally me alone, but what kind of director makes a movie where the protagonist(s) go raping people with comedic music playing and we're suppose to eventually sympathize with these characters? That's horse crap ... I mean- personally I have gripes about rape (for I see it worse then murder but now it's not the time to debate about that) and this movie shows rape in a manner like it's nothing and we should root for the guys because of redemption forced at the end.

.. No, sorry .. but I would talk to the director and ask what the heck was he thinking.

Then again, people can see dark novels differently and our protagonists are obviously not good people at all. But again, if you make a movie and want us to care- don't make the protagonists sick and have them rape people. Just, no. No. Come now... seriously. Sorry ranting a bit, but this movie is going on my 'Forget' list which means i'll pretend it never existed.

The movie, while mostly a faithful adaptation of the book, actually is much lighter than the book. The book is many times darker and more depraved especially with the rape. A beautifully directed and acted film regardless of the events portrayed. Don't limit yourself buddy, the scenes are graphic but certainly not as graphic as a real rape or other more "hardcore" depictions.

OT: I'm not sure I see where you're coming from with the whole comedy aspect. I always viewed the parts you described as an attempt at comedy as scenes to further illustrate the depravity of the young man and his crew.
But I agree that it certainly isn't for everyone, hell it certainly isn't even for the majority.

Have you read the book? Just curious because I want to know what you thought of the differences between the film and the book. A couple are large but most are minor.

Oh man, it has been too long since I read the book. Obviously, I wouldn't know about OP, but I remember loving the book almost as much as I do the movie, but I seem to have forgotten a lot of it during the years. Obviously the ending is different, and the made up accent takes a much larger seat in the book, but for the life of me, that's all I can currently remember from the book!

Don't know if I am just in a weird place of mind, or if it really has been that long since I read the book. Can you help me remember some of the bigger differences? I don't have the book anymore, but now all these things I can't remember are killing me.

Well one of the biggest differences I noticed was

Spoiler

the scene where he picks up the two teen girls in the music store. In the film they're teens and they have consensual sex (repeatedly). In the book however the girls are 10 and he gets them drunk and repeatedly rapes them. Then of course you have the book's ending where Alex is an adult with a new baby on his hands and he is seeing the world much like Pete was when he "matured".

§


Oh yeaaah! Thanks a lot for refreshing my memory, man! I really need to get that darn book and read it again. I remember there being more nods to Alex doing things to much younger girls... Oh, and if I remember correctly, the movie never gave away how old Alex was, but to me at least, Malcom McDowell looked like he was in his 20's during the movie! In the book, Alex is like 16, right?

 

[knight steel]

HA One of my favorite movies of all time glad to see more people are finding out about [in my whole drama class i was the only one to have seen it].
It's a movie were you think about it and appreciate the making of it and enjoy it for these merit's which can make it hard for some to enjoy.
With that being said everyone [and i mean everyone] should at least watch the film once if for no other reason than to have a wider understanding of film making ^_^ .

 

[launchpadmcqwak]

I like the film, too be honest OP i dont think you understood it.

 

[knight steel]

*Before reading review, sees cover*
"Being the adventures of a young man whose principle interests are rape-"

.. . What?

*Reads entire review after*
... . What?

OT: This is personally me alone, but what kind of director makes a movie where the protagonist(s) go raping people with comedic music playing and we're suppose to eventually sympathize with these characters? That's horse crap ... I mean- personally I have gripes about rape (for I see it worse then murder but now it's not the time to debate about that) and this movie shows rape in a manner like it's nothing and we should root for the guys because of redemption forced at the end.

.. No, sorry .. but I would talk to the director and ask what the heck was he thinking.

Then again, people can see dark novels differently and our protagonists are obviously not good people at all. But again, if you make a movie and want us to care- don't make the protagonists sick and have them rape people. Just, no. No. Come now... seriously. Sorry ranting a bit, but this movie is going on my 'Forget' list which means i'll pretend it never existed.

Oh don't be like that my good chap, there is nothing wrong with a good old bit of violent rape in the mourning to calm one's soul and spirit!
For how would we then my little drooge know if we were fully alive unless we participate in this most carnal and primal act born of our feelings?

 

[Grouchy Imp_v1legacy]

Ah, my favourite film of all time! If you actually found this for 2.50, you are one lucky man. I absolutely love this movie, changed my life in more ways than one. So beautifully made in every aspect, such an experience.
In my opinion this is the highlight of the art of film, the very peak of movie-making history. By far the best Kubrick film.

*Before reading review, sees cover*
"Being the adventures of a young man whose principle interests are rape-"

.. . What?

*Reads entire review after*
... . What?

OT: This is personally me alone, but what kind of director makes a movie where the protagonist(s) go raping people with comedic music playing and we're suppose to eventually sympathize with these characters? That's horse crap ... I mean- personally I have gripes about rape (for I see it worse then murder but now it's not the time to debate about that) and this movie shows rape in a manner like it's nothing and we should root for the guys because of redemption forced at the end.

.. No, sorry .. but I would talk to the director and ask what the heck was he thinking.

Then again, people can see dark novels differently and our protagonists are obviously not good people at all. But again, if you make a movie and want us to care- don't make the protagonists sick and have them rape people. Just, no. No. Come now... seriously. Sorry ranting a bit, but this movie is going on my 'Forget' list which means i'll pretend it never existed.

Oh you!

I see where you are coming from, man, I really do. I don't go showing this film to everyone. It's definitely an acquired taste and if you don't want to see the things, I totally get it, BUT (Going for my own little rant here, hope you don't mind! ) I do recommend the film to absolutely everyone.

First of all: Protagonist does not always mean hero, especially in this case. The audience is not there to root for Alex. The audience is not there to be entertained. Alex is not to be made relatable or loveable. You are there to see a man grow. You are there to make hard moral choices in your head. Alex gets brainwashed into experiencing horrible pain if he even thinks about attacking someone or doing a crime. In the beginning of the film, you are there to see what kind of a monster Alex is. He rapes, steals and kills just for fun. The main reason for his existence is music and violence.

In the latter half of the film you are there to think. Alex is brainwashed. He wont do anyone any harm anymore, he wont commit crimes, you could argue that he is a better person now. But he lost his freedom to think, freedom to make his own decisions. He is nothing but a puppet now, his thoughts molded by men in suits. It symbolic of cencorship and propaganda. Can you use these morally questionable tactics, if in the end, crime rate lowers?

The ending can be happy or sad, depending on what conclusion you came to during the latter half of the film. That's the point of the film really. You wouldn't be able to get that through if you made the main character likeable or nice. That would ruin it completely. And of course it's perfect from a technical standpoint. The lighting, teh acting and oh dear god, the music and editing. It all works fantastically and even if you don't like watching the movie, because of what's going on, you will surely appreciate the editing and direction by Stanley and friends.

Pretty much what I was going to say. Err ... I've got very little to add. Due to the uncomfortable subject matter I wouldn't say it my favourite film to sit and watch, but in terms of it's challenging take on moral issues and the overall excellence of production I would say that it is without doubt the finest example of film-making I've seen.

 

[Korenith]

*Before reading review, sees cover*
"Being the adventures of a young man whose principle interests are rape-"

.. . What?

*Reads entire review after*
... . What?

OT: This is personally me alone, but what kind of director makes a movie where the protagonist(s) go raping people with comedic music playing and we're suppose to eventually sympathize with these characters? That's horse crap ... I mean- personally I have gripes about rape (for I see it worse then murder but now it's not the time to debate about that) and this movie shows rape in a manner like it's nothing and we should root for the guys because of redemption forced at the end.

.. No, sorry .. but I would talk to the director and ask what the heck was he thinking.

Then again, people can see dark novels differently and our protagonists are obviously not good people at all. But again, if you make a movie and want us to care- don't make the protagonists sick and have them rape people. Just, no. No. Come now... seriously. Sorry ranting a bit, but this movie is going on my 'Forget' list which means i'll pretend it never existed.

It sounds like you're basing your opinion on the review without having seen the movie which is a mistake because I (like a lot of people on this thread) think the OP has entirely missed the point of the film. You're not supposed to like Alex at all. You're supposed to think he's the worst kind of scum. It's more a question of whether what happens to him afterwards is justified (you I'm guessing would think yes). A "does the ends justify the means" sort of question which would lose all meaning if he were a nice guy caught up in bad things as so many movie protagonists because then it provides an obvious and easy answer.