Read Negative User Reviews for A Clockwork Orange

3

AkashVijayJan 22, 2015

I was really on the wrong side of this film. But I've given A Clockwork Orange more than a fair chance. To me, it just doesn't work - not just narratively, it doesn't even work thematically. It's essentially meant to be this very ambitiousI was really on the wrong side of this film. But I've given A Clockwork Orange more than a fair chance. To me, it just doesn't work - not just narratively, it doesn't even work thematically. It's essentially meant to be this very ambitious and intimate character study that reflects the flaws in the society and the present thinking etc etc. But the problem is, Kubrick never breaks into the psychology of the central character through the course of the film. He did so brilliantly in Eyes Wide Shut but here, I felt like a distant observer. I hated Alex from start to finish and I don't think it was meant to be that way. Even in Raging Bull, a film with the most despicable central character imaginable, eventually drew sympathy. That's because we got to know why LaMotta did what he did and it's done so powerfully. His penchant for self-destruction was just an exaggerated version of what everyone goes through - hurt oneself for causing pain to others. A Clockwork Orange doesn't even aim at the sort of depth.
But film does develop some ideas through the first 2 Acts but at the very end, it throws it all out of the window. Ambiguous endings work very beautifully with films like 2001 but here it felt like Kubrick himself couldn't make up his mind about the social norms. So then why make an entire movie about it?… Expand

1 of 1 users found this helpful10

All this user's reviews

3

Morty_McFlayNov 30, 2019

This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. I don’t understand the appeal of this film. I mean, sure, it has a good look, as all Kubrick films do. He knows how to put together a production and show it off. The acting’s fine, I guess. But... what was this movie? I thought maybe I just didn’t “get it,” but after further research it turns out that I did get it, I just didn’t like it. “Hey, this guy beats people up and rapes them! Ooh, they’re curing him. He’s cured!” And then the movie ends with him doing it again. That’s the whole movie, and I don’t understand why it exists. I don’t know why this film is so well regarded aside from it being a Kubrick film.… Expand

1 of 1 users found this helpful10

All this user's reviews

0

FilipeNetoMay 13, 2018

I never liked this movie. It's based on a book I have not read yet, I've never found it for sale, so I can not judge if it was true to the book. However, most people seem to have a consensual opinion that this movie is brilliant and one ofI never liked this movie. It's based on a book I have not read yet, I've never found it for sale, so I can not judge if it was true to the book. However, most people seem to have a consensual opinion that this movie is brilliant and one of the best ever made. It's a nuisance movie in its very nature, as it tackles too brutal themes. It basically speaks of extreme violence and the possible ways to control it through brainwashing and absolute control over people. It's a world that no one really wants to see. If violence is something we condemn, extreme violence is disgusting. The total conditioning of a person reminds us of the times of slavery and the man as object. These are ideas that our civilization, at great cost, has learned to hate, but we all won with it. These themes would make an excellent movie and this movie would have been great if it did not overdo it all through barbarically graphic and unnecessary scenes! And the film gets worse as it shows to the public plentiful bursting and destruction, accompanied - surprise, or perhaps not - by scenes of nudity and almost explicit sex. Stanley Kubrick filled the vast majority of his films with generous doses of blood and semen. He has always seemed obsessed with all this, and I am sure that Freud would make a rather interesting analysis of that, so why would it be different in his "magnum opus"? In the midst of all this monument to madness, we must recognize that the film tackles a complex subject and has an interesting history, although it is so abject that it ends up not worth the effort to watch. Perhaps in the future someone with courage will remake this movie in a more restrained manner, without exaggerate. We also emphasized Malcolm McDowell's excellent performance. The actor, still relatively young, went to the limit, accepting things that I, in his shoes, would not accept, and manage to maintained the interpretive level and shine. For this, he deserves congratulations.

From the point of view of detail and technique, its possible that this is one of the best films ever made. But we are too shocked to notice and appreciate. And the truth is that cinema is not only technique. The audience does not fill the theater to admire the way the camera moves, the color and light of cinematography, the quality of characterization. The essence of any movie is the story told and, in this case, it's the story of a nightmare. Does the conception of a cinematographic work of art need, necessarily, to shock or cause erections? In the past, art was beauty and perfection, and I still think of art in that way. Does art now have to be deformed, sexual, pornographic and bloody? Is this art the pale reflection of our barbaric society or is merely the reflection of the apparently distorted mind of its creator?… Expand

10 of 12 users found this helpful102

All this user's reviews

0

KlebartDec 20, 2019

Movie is over-hyped. Perhaps by 70's standards it's OK, but that's an extremely low bar. When compared to movies before and after it doesn't stand up. Pass on this one.

10 of 14 users found this helpful104

All this user's reviews

0

ElmacroNov 24, 2016

No entiendo el por que de la sobrevaloración de esta película, el gran Stanley Kubrick ha quitado otras joyas mas pulidas que esta película pero son películas infravaloradas en frente a esta película.

10 of 19 users found this helpful109

All this user's reviews

2

SarahC.Apr 27, 2006

Compared to the novel by Anthony Burgess, which in my opinion is an absolute masterpiece, this film sucked for lack of a better word. It was disgusting and captured nothing that Burgess intended to portray in his novel. BOO HISS, go read the Compared to the novel by Anthony Burgess, which in my opinion is an absolute masterpiece, this film sucked for lack of a better word. It was disgusting and captured nothing that Burgess intended to portray in his novel. BOO HISS, go read the book if you've only seen the movie because it did it absolutely NO justice.… Expand

5 of 10 users found this helpful

1

HugeonplutoFeb 20, 2021

This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. This is a film. A film that wants you to sympathize with a murderer and a rapist. A film that tries to justify criminal behavior. A film that tries to make a deep statement about society, but fails on every level.

But, or course, people love to pretend that's not the case. They pretend that it has some "deep meaning." That "meaning" is constantly thrown in your face every time you dare commit the sin of criticizing it.

What is that "meaning?"

Let's go through the plot and find out.

The film opens up showing us Alex DeLarge and his four "Droogs." They're in a bar called the "Korova," which serves milk laced with drugs. They drink the milk and then start a night of debauchery. First, they beat up an old drunk man. Then, they beat up a rival gang in a fight straight out of a WWE match. After that, they drive to a house in the country owned by Frank Alexander, cripples him, and then rapes his wife. Keep in mind, we're supposed to sympathize with this character.

After that, They go back to the "Kodova" where a woman sings some of Beethoven's 9'th. He strikes one of his droogs for jeering, stirring tension in the group. After that, he decides to call it a night. After Alex gets back to his apartment, he listens to Beethoven and masturbates to the thoughts of death and destruction. Again, we're supposed to sympathize with this guy.

The next day, his probation officer comes to his house for a visit. Afterwards, he meets two women at a record shop and has sex with them at his apartment. When night comes, he meets his droogs in the lobby of his apartment building. One of them challenges Alex, but Alex asserts authority by attacking him. He later decides to rob a rich cat-lady. While robbing the house, he encounters her, and ends up killing her. He tries to escape, but his droogs turn on him and smash his face with a milk bottle, and he gets arrested shortly afterwards. Any sane person would be cheering at this point, but again, the film tries to make you feel sorry for the guy.

Flash forward two years, and Alex, now in prison, is chosen to be part of an experiment. The experiment consists of being strapped in a chair, having your eyelids forced permanently open, being injected with drugs, and finally being forced to watch things you would normally like. During the experiment, he watches movie after movie of death, destruction, sex, and violence. All of this causes him to feel ill at the thought of sex and violence. To add insult to injury, one of the movies has Beethoven playing in the background, causing him to feel ill every time he hears his music.

Afterwards, the effects are demonstrated to a gathering of officials. Remember the "deep meaning" i mentioned earlier? This is where it presents itself. It makes the argument that nobody should have their free will taken away, even when they've used it constantly to murder and rape people. I get where it's coming from, but it clearly could've used a better example. Instead, it gives us a guy who needs to have his free will taken from him.

After the demonstration, he gets released from prison. He goes back to his parents house, only to find his stuff has been sold and his room is now rented out. He leaves, and encounters the old homeless man from before. He, along with his friends, beat the hell out of him. Two police officers break it up, and it's then revealed that the two police officers are his former droogs Dim and Georgie. They then take him to the countryside, beat the hell out of him and nearly drown him. Again, you should be happy this is happening, but the film WANTS you to feel sorry for him. It's honestly shocking and deplorable how much this film wants you to love a murdering rapist.

He is then found by Frank Alexander, the man whom he beat earlier and is now wheelchair bound because of it. He accepts him into his home not knowing who he is. Later he hears him singing "Singin' in the rain" the song he sang while he raped his wife. Now knowing who he is, he drugs him and locks him in an upstairs bedroom. He blares Beethoven's 9'th, causing him to jump out of the window in a suicide attempt. He wakes up in a hospital with all his bones broken. He is given a psychological evaluation. Surprise surprise, he now doesn't have any aversions to sex and violence. The minister, who conducted the experiment, offers him a job at his public relations office. He then brings in a stereo system playing Beethoven's 9'th, which doesn't have any affect on him.

In summary, this is a film that glorifies violence and tries to cover it up with a "Deep message." It's amazing how defended this movie is when it's little more than a orgy of debauchery. Only positive things i can say about it is that it's well shot, and has a good soundtrack.… Expand

1 of 2 users found this helpful11

All this user's reviews

0

asoomroMay 28, 2012

This movie was needlessly pornographic and violent in a bad way. It was disgusting and a waste of time. It was one of those movies you walk away saying, I hope my younger siblings don't have to watch this...it's just wrong overall.

10 of 21 users found this helpful1011

All this user's reviews

0

edpoopstuffJul 13, 2015

not a fan of rape and beating, I also thought there was really any story behind this its just a lot of really weird violence, I think the director was really seeing how far he can go making a movie and somehow people allowing it

10 of 25 users found this helpful1015

All this user's reviews

2

BobA.May 23, 2006

A movie that has stood the test of time as a monument to the easily impressed.

2 of 5 users found this helpful

3

billrullerApr 25, 2011

I don't understand what people see in this movie. I couldn't really follow this movie at all. Just a couple of teenagers trying to take over their town, and they do it by beating up innocent people and raping women. It's also unbelievablyI don't understand what people see in this movie. I couldn't really follow this movie at all. Just a couple of teenagers trying to take over their town, and they do it by beating up innocent people and raping women. It's also unbelievably wierd. Their are some strange scenes that were so weird, I scratch my head and tried to figure out what's going on. It also gets more weird in the middle, I don't know what I was watching. The end kinda gets a little depressing, I pretty much just pulled the plug and said "goodbye" to this movie. I never read the book, but some people told me that the book is better than the movie. I guess I'm not a fan of films like this.… Expand

8 of 25 users found this helpful817

All this user's reviews

0

kylerawksAug 1, 2013

This movie deserves to burn in hell. I only watched one short scene to prove that this movie is a terrible piece of garbage. I hope that the characters in this movie get beaten to death. I hope people who actually like this movie change theirThis movie deserves to burn in hell. I only watched one short scene to prove that this movie is a terrible piece of garbage. I hope that the characters in this movie get beaten to death. I hope people who actually like this movie change their mind and break the disc. This movie deserves nobody's time.… Expand

10 of 32 users found this helpful1022

All this user's reviews

2

TedK.Jun 20, 2008

A very poor movie. Incredibly boring in addition to being loathsome. It would be 0 out of 10 if not for Wendy Carlos' soundtrack.

3 of 12 users found this helpful