A Clockwork Orange

Rating:
Summary: 2 stars for this dvd package, 5000 stars for the movie
Review: first, the good stuff. the film and sound transfer is quite good. put it on the big screen, crank up the home theater and enjoy ludwig van and a little ultraviolence.

now, unfortunately, the bad. we all know that a clockwork orange is a fantastic movie. a disturbing movie. a somewhat hilarious movie at times. there's no denying or doubting that. the problem that i have is with the packaging and presentation given to this and all the "stanley kubrick collection" videos. first of all, there is a box set of these videos available, at no discernable discount. secondly, in typical warner fashion, the stanley kubrick collection is all packaged in the cheap, cardboard, snap-spine cases that i, and many people i know, have come to detest. there are no special features of note, other than the typical trailer throw in, although there is a short documentary on the shining, and one or two cast biographies sprinkled here or there.

honestly though, come on, films like a clockwork orange, full metal jacket, dr. strangelove, 2001: a space oddessey, and the shining deserve much better treatment than crappy cardboard cases and menus that look like they were developed by 9th grade computer classes. my girlfriend works in film post-production, took ONE three hour class in dvd construction and can make better menus than these on our home computer, WITHOUT editing software. these films desperately needed a bit more of a reverential touch than they got, and the shoddy workmanship displayed on these and many of warner's dvd releases is shameful. had kubrick, detail nut that he was, been alive for the release of these films on dvd, you can d*mn sure bet the quality would have been much better.

the least they could have done with this kind of cheap packaging was put them out at a bargain price.

Rating:
Summary: "Right, right, right?"
Review: I should mention right off that this movie is either loved or hated by any who see it. There is no middle-ground here. Being one of the former persuasion, I believe that all great art provokes reaction, whether positive or negative. I consider this film to be "Art." Stanley Kubrick's masterpiece of "A Clockwork Orange" by Anthony Burgess is extremely provocative. There are scenes here without any dialogue that simply scream for your attention, such as lewd graffiti drawn on the wall as a character passes by; or the outrageous costumes that all the bizarre characters wear. Elements like this Stanley Kubrick inserted for extra punch, provoking reaction. As a side note, do not read the novel before watching the film. I saw the movie first, then read the novel, and it really does help to fully understand all the slang Anthony Burgess created solely for the novel. I lent the book to a friend who hadn't seen the film, and to say the least, he had a difficult time digesting the strange material. Even by today's movie standards there are some shocking scenes that would probably garner this film a modern day rating of NC-17. However, this is a brilliant satire, and I highly recommend this film for anyone who despises conventional Hollywood slop. I also highly recommend the novel, for it is equally brilliant. Take it easy.

Rating:
Summary: Beyond classic
Review: This film is everything but polite. It shows horrible acts of violence, rape, murder, and gang warfare. Yet it is all set sweetly against fluffy classical pieces, such as Rossini's "Thieving Magpie" and Beethoven's 9th Symphony, and in complete contradiction, against the ruins of a futuristic society in which there is absolute chaos. Alex, the main character, is thrust into experimental rehabilitation after being tried for murder, and it eventually leads to his destruction.
This film is sheer brilliance. Taken from Anthony Burgess's novel, it captivates us in the most horrifying way and brings us to a place we would hate to live in. It will disturb you, make you cringe, make you stare at the screen and wonder, "What the hell is going on?" But it will also make you think, and also make you wish with all your power that you will never have to experience any element of the movie. And you will not be able to turn it off.

Rating:
Summary: Still a classic...
Review: ...Maybe even a timeless classic. One thing for sure though. Make very sure you're getting the digitally re-mastered DVD version and not the mono-stereo version with faded image.

Rating:
Summary: Kubrick's Genius
Review: Kubrick's genius was to bring to life Anthony Burgess's mixed-up world where mother wears a leather mini-dress while junior dabbles in a bit of the old ultraviolence.

[DW]

Rating:
Summary: If you haven't seen this fim, your not a true punker
Review: This film is inspired by Anthony Burgess's classic novel and it's also been inspire buy dozens of punkers. This film is directed by Stanley Kubrick which if you seen most of his films you can see that there's a lot of pauses, meaning not a lot of talk in a scene. This film takes place in England and it is about this gang leader who goes to jail by accidentally killing a girl. It's very gruesome the way he accidentally kills her so it's hard to explain. The government has an experiment where they could make criminals not kill anymore. He goes on the chance so he can get out of jail. When he does and goes back home all of his enemies kick his ass and he can't do anything about it. This film can be very disturbing for people. The only draw back for me was the graphic nudeness, it was just too much for me. One of the memorable scenes are when Alex (gang leader) rapes a girl while singing "I'm singing in the rain". Also there's got to be a special addition one day though. This film is a definite must for all punkers.

Rating:
Summary: Viddy Well, O My Brothers and Sisters. Viddy Well.
Review: Stanley Kubrick's 1971 adaptation of the classic Anthony Burgess novel A CLOCKWORK ORANGE is a thriller for thinkers. That is, it is a frightening but compelling SF-ish flick that, like the novel, is wrapped around deep socio-political and philosophical subtext. It warns about the dangers of blithe, government-dictated social conformity, yet it also cautions against allowing citizens to indulge in so much freedom that society becomes unsafe and anarchic. In other words, it forces viewers to ponder the question of just how far citizens of a society can have their free will restricted before they cease to be truly free...or truly human.

Set in an England of the "near" future, A CLOCKWORK ORANGE paints a picture of a British dystopia that, in some respects, is more horrific and more depressing--and in retrospect, closer to the reality of the 3+ decades that have passed since its release--than the Oceania of Orwell's 1984. Malcolm McDowell stars as Alex de Large, a teenage ruffian who nightly roams the streets of his hometown with a gang of other sadistic young hoodlums (his "droogs") and engages in acts of "ultra-violence" (i.e., robbery, rape, pummelings, murder, etc.). Other such gangs of thugs also roam the streets at night, so going outside after dark is a dangerous prospect for the average citizen.

Following a botched burglary and murder, Alex is temporarily blinded and left behind by his craven droogs. Young Alex is arrested for the murder when the police arive, and soon after he is found guilty and sentenced to a lengthy prison term. But he thinks he has secured his quick ticket to freedom when he is accepted into a program that promises to "cure" his violent propensities and, upon successful completion of the program, nullify his prison sentence. Unbeknownst to Alex, though, is that the procedure is based on Pavlovian conditioning techniques, meaning that Alex won't be "cured" so much as he will be brainwashed into autonomically behaving like a respectable, law-abiding citizen.

Due to the nature of the film's subject matter--and, of course, to help drive home its subtextual message--A CLOCKWORK ORANGE contains many disturbing and violent scenes, including the depiction of a beating and rape during which Alex "kicks" out his rendition of "Singing in the Rain." Some viewers, especially those not normally inclined towards watching horror or crime dramas, have a difficult time looking past the violence and delving into the film's subtext. For those folks, it might be easier to emotionally and intellectually grasp the theme of Kubrick's film if they FIRST read Burgess' novel. (For most viewers, though, enjoyment of the movie does not require familiarity with the novel.)

A CLOCKWORK ORANGE is fairly loyal to the source material, though Burgess' complete work includes a final chapter that is not depicted in the film. Supposedly this is because Kubrick only had access to the American edition of the book--this despite the fact that he was an American expatriate living in England--in which the last chapter had been removed because Burgess' American editors considered it inconsistent with the rest of the novel. Literary purists, who will often make value judgments about a film based on its adherence to the printed source, will probably be put off by Kubrick's purportedly inadvertent omission. However, as with any other well-made film, it should be judged solely on its own merits.

With A CLOCKWORK ORANGE, Kubrick questions the perceptions of freedom and the concepts of crime and punishment in Western society. The film is a truculent and thought-provoking socio-political satire that, after more than three decades, still retains its ability to shock viewers into philosophical rumination. Of course, Kubrick's excellent script and tight direction contribute to the film's success in eliciting such a reaction, but so does Malcolm McDowell's energetic and compelling performance as Alex, that rare protagonist who is equally reprehensible and pitiable.

All in all, A CLOCKWORK ORANGE is an excellent and still-relevant classic that belongs in the collection of any serious lover of great movies.

Rating:
Summary: Horrible Horrible Movie
Review: I can honesty say that this is by far the worst movie i have ever seen. Maybe because i didn't really understand it, but i thought it was boring, didn't like the concept, the acting, directing, or anything else about this movie. I am not a hard person to please when it comes to movies, especially classics wise (like One Flew Over the Cookoos Nest), but this movie just didn't do it for me. I heard good things about this movie from friends, so i rented it and was VERY VERY disappointed, and i don't think i could even watch it again without pulling my hair out consistently until the finish.

Rating:
Summary: possibly the best movie ever
Review: please do listen to all the great reviews here and give this a watch(you'll probably need to watch it more than once though).
this is brilliant stuff.

Rating:
Summary: Humanity and Violence.
Review: I wrote this review mainly because most I have read seem to fall short of describing what the film is really about. Plenty has been written about the various symbols in the film, and about its brilliant use of music. I'll leave those oft discussed elements to the many other reviewers of the film. I prefer to focus on the main theme of the film, as I see it often misunderstood and even more often ignored altogether. I don't see it as being about Alex, or about a futuristic police state, or about a violent criminal getting what he deserves, or about society victimizing rebellious youth. I see the movie as a conceptual exploration of violence.

Clearly, we are not meant to sympathize with Alex. We're meant to focus on the violence as a concept. Even the cult of young (mostly) men who are enthused by the violence in the film, are focused on just that - the violence. Not Alex.

Everyone in the film except for the female sex objects shares a similar callous disregard for life and utter lack of any transcendent morality. Alex and his droogs are the obvious example. So are the psychiatrist and the prison workers. However, one other notable example in the film is the State.

The politicians are notable, because they not only callously use Alex as a tool to achieve their ignoble ends, but they also use violence itself. Historical context is important here. In modern times it has become commonplace for politicians to employ fear as a tactic to achieve ends, and fear of violence is probably the fear most often used. The film was made in 1971, when politicians - most successfully at the time was Nixon - exploited fear of communism and fear of crime. Nixon was the "law and order" president. Violence had erupted in urban areas in the form of riots. Fear of communism had driven the country toward the Vietnam war, and violent protests in the country had erupted as a result of fear of Vietnam. Fear of violence begat fear and violence, which only begat more of the same. Violence in the film is, among other things, a tool for the State. More precisely, the people's fear of violence is their tool.

Alex's victims' response to the violence enacted upon them is a overwhelming desire for revenge. I see this as a fundamental aspect of the film. Everyone, under the right circumstances, is capable of an utter disregard for life, humanity, and any principles that hold the two in high regard. Their revenge on Alex is simply another manifestation of the violence that people are capable of. The bums, his former droogs, the crippled writer - all of them not only become violent, but they REVEL in their violence. Just as Alex did.

Alex's punishment is nothing less than the loss of his own free will, and indeed the ability to act according the most fundamental impulse of all life - self preservation. He is rendered utterly defenseless and sent out into the same world full of violence that he came from. Alex has is very humanity stripped from him. Who could deserve such a punishment? If we hold as a principle the idea that society should not mete out punishment that is "cruel and unusual", we should rethink any impulse we have to think Alex deserves such sanction. What could be more cruel and unusual than being forced to live as a non-human?

Or, a more frightening question, are we really as civilized as we pretend we are? Do we really believe in our hearts that the human form of life a uniquely moral one? If we think Alex deserves his punishment, do we really believe in human dignity? Is it possible that a people who would see Alex punished in this way are every bit as nihilistic as Alex himself?

To that set of questions, there is a flip side. If we think Alex doesn't deserve such punishment, what does this say about us? Clearly, Alex never feels any real remorse for his crimes. Furthermore, at the end of the film we understand that since he's been "fixed", and since he immediately indulges in not only Beethoven's 9th once more but also sexual fantasies, he has reverted right back into the being he was before, violence and all. Is this a good thing? Can we afford to be so principled in our defense of humanity that we're willing to suffer Alex's inhumanity?

This, I think, leads to the central question of the film: Are violence and human nature inextricably linked? This is a theme in Kubrick's other films. Kubrick is often concerned with the dark side of human nature. In 2001 we see the evolution of mankind itself rooted in violence and self interest. We see a vision of mankind in which he seems to have transcended such earthly baseness, and set off into space in an effort to innovate, explore and understand his universe. Noble pursuits. Yet, in that very endeavor man has spawned a creation (Hal) and inadvertently imbued it with the same capacity for cold violence. Hal's nature, it's need for self-preservation, seems linked to the humanity it was designed to mimic. Violence and human nature are further explored in films like Dr. Strangelove and Full Metal Jacket.

A Clockwork Orange seems to explore the very concept of human violence. It seems to imply that perhaps the only way to rid ourselves of the violence which has plagued us throughout history, and which we fear so terribly, is to deny man his own free will. The way we define the words "humanity" and "inhumane" demonstrate that we regard our nature as being intrinsically non-violent. This is basically a pessimistic film, at its core forcing us to face a thought we may least want to. Namely, that violence is a basic part of what makes us human.