Page 2 of 3 [ 35 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next


What did you think of it?
Awesome 53%  53%  [ 29 ]
Meh 24%  24%  [ 13 ]
Never seen it 11%  11%  [ 6 ]
Eggie wegs 13%  13%  [ 7 ]
Total votes : 55

0_equals_true
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Apr 2007
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,262
Location: London

13 Sep 2008, 4:51 pm

part it was filmed in an around a university I used to go to.



steelback
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 23 Dec 2006
Age: 49
Gender: Male
Posts: 346
Location: Windsor, Ontario, Canada

13 Sep 2008, 7:30 pm

I saw the movie in my university English class, because we were studying the book, so I got to learn about both versions, and I agree that I didn't like the change in the ending. Still, it was mostly true to the book, and seeing the violence made it easier to understand Alex.



Xelebes
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2008
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,686
Location: Edmonton, Alberta

13 Sep 2008, 7:48 pm

Quatermass wrote:
The novel is way better. Kubrick sexed it up too much with the naked statues and the phallic sculpture Alex brains the cat woman with. In the novel, he uses a bust of Beethoven. And that crappy synth music backing (whenever there isn't a classical piece of music). Not to mention Kubrick's refusal to put in the original ending of the novel (which he was apparently aware of, but didn't put in).

But the guy who plays Alex has him down. Malcolm McDowell, isn't it? He has just that right mix of a sardonic sense of humour and yet, well, 'innocence', of politics and consequences that Alex must have. Very horrorshow, as the nadsat vernacular puts it.


I personally loved the music of Wendy Carlos. It was put into the movie in attempt to clarify that the movie was sci-fi and not a thriller of some sort.



MadAme
Snowy Owl
Snowy Owl

User avatar

Joined: 14 Jul 2008
Age: 67
Gender: Female
Posts: 142
Location: At wits' end

16 Sep 2008, 1:00 pm

I loved the soundtrack and used to play it over and over.



Magliabechi
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 9 Oct 2007
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 307
Location: Britain

19 Sep 2008, 6:39 pm

I first saw at the cinema it when it was re-released in Britain after Kubricks' death- I thought it was brilliant and very disturbing.

Magliabechi.



Magnus
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Jul 2008
Age: 44
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,703
Location: Claremont, California

19 Sep 2008, 9:05 pm

I liked the movie, although it was very disturbing. I saw the play which was great. The book was good too. Some of the parts in the movie were just funny. I love how he listened to classical music and was twisted. But the message was about personal reformation. Right Right?


_________________
As long as man continues to be the ruthless destroyer of lower living beings he will never know health or peace. For as long as men massacre animals, they will kill each other.

-Pythagoras


Macbeth
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 May 2007
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,481
Location: UK Doncaster

20 Sep 2008, 9:02 pm

Good film. Suffers from the fact that the ultra-violence of the gangs is frankly .. a bit twee. Slightly beating up a tramp, breaking and entering, and rape. It pales in comparison to the real violence that blights the same streets these days, and thus has lost some of its impact.


_________________
"There is a time when the operation of the machine becomes so odious, makes you so sick at heart,
that you can't take part" [Mario Savo, 1964]


aguales
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 15 Nov 2007
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 377
Location: Houston, Texas, USA

29 Sep 2008, 12:35 am

When I first saw it it shocked me. I didn't know movies could be this dark and twisted. But it was so well done I could not help but marvel at it.



Fiat_Lux
Blue Jay
Blue Jay

User avatar

Joined: 9 Dec 2005
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 92
Location: Singularity

30 Sep 2008, 5:55 pm

I think that the film still has some ability to shock, given that it is nearly forty years old. I had read the book first because the film was banned shortly after its release in the UK. The book differs from the film and seemed to bring out the idea of choice better than the film did. That said, the cinematography was very good (like all Kubrick films) and Malcolm McDowell makes an excellent protagonist - vicious, amoral yet plausible.

My own view is that the film has much more to do with Britain in the 1970's than with the novel by Burgess. Upon the film's release, youths were noted dressing in codpice, leggings and indulging in bouts of 'ultraviolence'. However, my own memories of the time were of a generally violent, disordered social climate and the film was just reflecting that. Does anybody else who was in Britain during the early 1970's have a view on this?



Macbeth
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 May 2007
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,481
Location: UK Doncaster

30 Sep 2008, 6:34 pm

Fiat_Lux wrote:
I think that the film still has some ability to shock, given that it is nearly forty years old. I had read the book first because the film was banned shortly after its release in the UK. The book differs from the film and seemed to bring out the idea of choice better than the film did. That said, the cinematography was very good (like all Kubrick films) and Malcolm McDowell makes an excellent protagonist - vicious, amoral yet plausible.

My own view is that the film has much more to do with Britain in the 1970's than with the novel by Burgess. Upon the film's release, youths were noted dressing in codpice, leggings and indulging in bouts of 'ultraviolence'. However, my own memories of the time were of a generally violent, disordered social climate and the film was just reflecting that. Does anybody else who was in Britain during the early 1970's have a view on this?


We still have a generally violent and disordered social climate, though I believe the seventies variant was more anti-state than the current disaffected youth.


_________________
"There is a time when the operation of the machine becomes so odious, makes you so sick at heart,
that you can't take part" [Mario Savo, 1964]


markaudette
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Oct 2006
Gender: Male
Posts: 702
Location: Middle Tennessee, USA

01 Oct 2008, 3:20 am

A Clockwork Orange is still one of my most favorite movies.

I can watch it ten times in a row.

It's actually a very brilliantly made film.



Usagi1992
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Jan 2008
Age: 47
Gender: Male
Posts: 849

01 Oct 2008, 3:20 pm

Magnus wrote:
I liked the movie, although it was very disturbing. I saw the play which was great. The book was good too. Some of the parts in the movie were just funny. I love how he listened to classical music and was twisted. But the message was about personal reformation. Right Right?


*nods* Righty right. :P

Sometimes, it's better to choose to be evil, then to be forced to be good, which was the whole point of the book and movie.

But what many fans of the movie don't realize is that Kubrick went by the AMERICAN version of Burgess's novel, which omitted a chapter from the original British version; the last one, number 21.

In that missing chapter, Alex, now 18, and after being turned back to his free, 'evil' side, is seen leading a brand new gang of droogs. But one evening, he's hit with the thought of 'Is this it? Is this what life is all about?', and when asked by his droogs what he wanted to do tonight, he says 'Do what you want, I'm not feeling well', and goes to a bar instead. While there, he runs into one of his former droog friend, Pete, who is now 20 and happily married; they have a nice talk, discussing how wild they used to be.

After parting and walking home, Alex did something absolutely remarkable. He made the *choice* on his own, to give up his 'childish acts of ultra-violence', and began to envision a possible future where he settles down and has a wife and a son!

So in the end, he remembered what the Padre told him, about goodness being a chosen thing. 'If a man cannot choose, he ceases to be a man.'

Without that 21st chapter, the novel is just a morality fable; we never know that Alex, being the smart individual that he can be if he applied himself, could change his ways on his own, *without* help.

Sorry for all that rambling...I just LOVE that movie so much. )

Usagi1992



Brandon_M
Velociraptor
Velociraptor

User avatar

Joined: 2 Jun 2007
Age: 31
Gender: Male
Posts: 482
Location: Earth, where the weak are killed and eaten

01 Oct 2008, 8:45 pm

Usagi1992 wrote:
Magnus wrote:
I liked the movie, although it was very disturbing. I saw the play which was great. The book was good too. Some of the parts in the movie were just funny. I love how he listened to classical music and was twisted. But the message was about personal reformation. Right Right?


*nods* Righty right. :P

Sometimes, it's better to choose to be evil, then to be forced to be good, which was the whole point of the book and movie.

But what many fans of the movie don't realize is that Kubrick went by the AMERICAN version of Burgess's novel, which omitted a chapter from the original British version; the last one, number 21.

In that missing chapter, Alex, now 18, and after being turned back to his free, 'evil' side, is seen leading a brand new gang of droogs. But one evening, he's hit with the thought of 'Is this it? Is this what life is all about?', and when asked by his droogs what he wanted to do tonight, he says 'Do what you want, I'm not feeling well', and goes to a bar instead. While there, he runs into one of his former droog friend, Pete, who is now 20 and happily married; they have a nice talk, discussing how wild they used to be.

After parting and walking home, Alex did something absolutely remarkable. He made the *choice* on his own, to give up his 'childish acts of ultra-violence', and began to envision a possible future where he settles down and has a wife and a son!

So in the end, he remembered what the Padre told him, about goodness being a chosen thing. 'If a man cannot choose, he ceases to be a man.'

Without that 21st chapter, the novel is just a morality fable; we never know that Alex, being the smart individual that he can be if he applied himself, could change his ways on his own, *without* help.

Sorry for all that rambling...I just LOVE that movie so much. )

Usagi1992


Very interesting. I have yet to read the book and as refreshing as it is to see movies without a happy ending, it would've been more suitable for the film. However, Stanley Kubrick being the cynical pessimistic visionary that he was, probably wouldn't have included this ending anyway.



irishwhistle
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Sep 2006
Age: 47
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,357

02 Oct 2008, 2:01 am

I haven't seen and probably won't, because the more effective a movie is when described as "disturbing" the less I want to make it a part of my mind. I have always found that the most disturbing thoughts tend to circle around and come back to see how they make you feel this time. Or so it feels with me. I hate having an image force itself into my mind, and I've seen enough of that one to sense that it's just that sort, if only because of Malcolm MacDowall.

That's why chimed in even though I never saw it. Some say it has lost its impact. I'd hate to think people couldn't at least be moved by the horror of seeing someone murdered, no matter what music is accompanying it... But also, Malcolm MacDowall is just so beautifully terrifying to me, even when he plays a good guy! Have you ever seen an actor whose face just has that effect on you, anytime you see it? Morbid fascination. I know he probably, in real life, eats breakfast cereal or sits with friends and has drinks and chats in a friendly manner about football, or a book he just read, or his family, but trying to picture it... dude. I just see that face and think, no seriously, he must have a planet destroying laser somewhere or a dungeon lair filled with well-used chains and an iron maiden...

Ugh, sorry, been a dark night for me. I'll let you get back to your better informed discussion. :o


_________________
"Pack up my head, I'm goin' to Paris!" - P.W.

The world loves diversity... as long as it's pretty, makes them look smart and doesn't put them out in any way.

There's the road, and the road less traveled, and then there's MY road.


Usagi1992
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Jan 2008
Age: 47
Gender: Male
Posts: 849

02 Oct 2008, 2:19 pm

irishwhistle wrote:
But also, Malcolm MacDowall is just so beautifully terrifying to me, even when he plays a good guy! Have you ever seen an actor whose face just has that effect on you, anytime you see it? Morbid fascination.


Yep. Jack Nicholson is a perfect example of that! Even when playing a good guy, those eyebrows and that toothy grin of his, ALWAYS makes him look like he's up to no good! :twisted:

Anyways, in regards to McDowell, yes, there's wickedness, but also a hint of intelligence.

Trivia: Stanley Kubrick, prior to reading the novel "A Clockwork Orange", had seen McDowell's performance in the movie 'If...', and it stuck in Kubrick's mind so much, that he *couldn't* get Malcolm's face out of his mind when reading the character of Alex! That's when he decided, as most of the fans of the movie already know, that if he couldn't get Malcolm to play the lead in his movie adaptation, he wouldn't make it at all.

Just thought you'd like to know, heh. 8)