This movie is about a protagonist who is a murdering rapist, yet for some reason you are sorta kinda rooting for him. What the fuck? A Clockwork Orange literally makes me uncomfortable in the opening 30min or so. The terrible things Alex does are excruciating to watch through, especially when he belts out "Singing in the Rain". Then after that, you are just following his punishment and for some reason hoping for his release from jail.

Outside of the story, the camera work is great as always. Also, I love the musical choices. Both standard Beethoven and electronic Beethoven are always wonderful. But on top of that you get some nice horse racing music to enhance an, un, entertaining scene. The future 70s design is pretty great as well. Gotta get me one of those coffee tables they have in the opening shot.

It really bothers me that I am sorta kinda on Alex's side, and that is why I think this is an amazing film. The fact that Kubrick makes you feel wrong is astounding. Him and Malcolm McDowell just really know how to work together. The fact that Alex is so charming and funny is a big part of what does this. When you know he's still a terrible person at the end, you still end up laughing at his manipulative interaction with the politician feeding him. Why the hell am I laughing that a robbing, murdering, rapist eating food pompously?

If you hate this movie, you're probably a better, moraler person than me.

Been occasionally watching this masterpiece since adolescence, each time getting a different impression. Hence, I'll develop clearer on my last one. I consider this movie to represent the tensions in society regarding how crime and societal response should work (and who's responsible for this, with the appearance of symbolic figures as the State, the Church, intellectuals, family), as much for punishment or rehabilitation. Whether a criminal could be rehabilitated, whether society would actually and eventually accept and trust the rehabilitated criminal, re-integrate him after succeeding in his "treatment", and the ethical limits of such a treatment.

[spoiler] First time I watched this movie, I interpreted the Ludovico technique as a dystopian element to precisely make satire to criticize the rehabilitation through personal meaning and choice the jail priest argued for (I'm agnostic). In other words, society gave up trust in rehabilitation through moral development of the individual and overpassed his will through psychological conditioning.

Yet now I consider this technique in a more neutral light, as the utilitarian solution showing itself as more optimal than the moral-ingraing one. This in light of considering poor real life rehabilitation results for the second, which I'd adjudicate in real life not only to individual but social circumstances. Oddly enough, I sensed the movie shows how society rejected the individual in spite of his scientific rehabilitation.[/spoiler]

In summary, this movie made me reflect on the diverse set of beliefs regarding crime as a phenomenon tensioned between a deterministic cynicism on human moral development, and a free will idealistic notion that people can rectify themselves by choice. I personally consider a criminal results from the complex interaction of both ends, and in spite of humanity being nowadays particularly close to impressive capacity of societal moral order and control through technology and cultural evolution, we're still by no means attacking the root but the symptoms of crime, which I still advocate for.

It said a few think about society but nothing new. I know people are evil. I know institutions can be hypocritical, experimental and evil. I know about gang mentality. What's left? The only interesting moment was the family dynamic after Alex was released and that only lasted one scene. Alex wasn't even a complex character like he could have been. He goes from sick to cured to victim with nothing interesting in terms of actual personality - oh but he likes beethoven, yeah great. This is structured more like a fairy tale than a movie for grown ups. This movie seems to have the view that the hypocrisy of power and violence is genuinely interesting and clever enough to base an entire movie on. Clever social predication? Hardly. Maybe about a degenerate society but many movies predict that as a usual plot idea. I'm sure people don't care as much in those cases. What about all the wrong predictions? Where are all the posh talking kids listening to beethoven and raping? What was the logic behond that anyway?? Why does the future still look like the 70s?
What bugs me is the arty veneer to try and give some intellectualism. Beneath the flesh, boundary pushing violence for the time and nonsensical classical music (especially the edgy Nazi beethoven scene), it's a very basic story. It's not Alex or the violence that bothers me but the fact it's shallow and overrated

I'd like to preface this review by saying that I know this movie does not deserve a 2. In a world devoid of morals and of ethics regarding filmmaking and the making of art, I would give it a 10, but we live in a world where the mere existence of such an atrociously sinful film means that quite a bit of sin was committed during it's making.

While those who are not religious may strongly disagree with me and I too may look back on this review and wince, I simply do not believe that the message this movie sends was worth depicting brutal, sadistic, and graphic rape. I both am grateful and regret the fact that I have seen this film and I feel dirty having watched it and rightfully so.

Much of the material Kubrick presents on screen during this film amounts to little more than sadistic porn. Nudity is gratuitous and I violence is painted over with disturbingly artistic flair. What Kubrick misses the opportunity to do is to allow the audience's imagination to fill in the blanks instead of forcing people to carry out the acts on screen. The book this film is based on succeeds in that it is horrifying without needing people to act it out.

I realize that this is a terrible review, but for your sake and for the sake of others who will have to live with your mind after this film, urdge you to not watch this. They say it is a masterpiece and it is - but it is one that requires prolonged exposure to the worst of humanity in ways that are simply unjustifiable.

I had this film on my watch list for several years now. Let me state this up front: this movie isn't for everyone. Parts of it are upsetting (especially in the first half) and much of it is confusing. Having said that, it is easily one of the most unique films that I have ever seen.

As per usual I wont spend time recapping the story line. I had read many different thoughts on "Orange" before viewing it and it was apparent that there isn't much middle ground on this one. You either really liked it or you really, really didn't like it.

There is a clear message in the movie that I also won't give away here. I will say this: the message is even more true today than it was back then. It took a while for that message to come out as the first third of the movie was steeped in lawlessness and selfishness that was used to set up the rest of the movie.

We had quite the lengthy discussion about the film after viewing it but I'm not sure how much of it would translate here. I love when something sticks with me for a few days so that in itself is probably a sign that I enjoyed it. The acting was tremendous (especially Malcolm McDowell) and I also really enjoyed getting a feel for the other minor themes that were in the movie.

(I just read this back to myself - this was a pretty crappy review. Sorry, there was just too much in the film to do it justice here. I could have picked anyone of the topics and talked about it for several paragraphs)