A clockwork orange......am I missing something

Road-Hog

Watched first half hour of this the other night for the first time and Had to give up after that.....couldn’t see the masterpiece that it’s protrayed as.....overly violent both sexually and physically and a warped if any kind of story line.....can see why it was banned all those years ago...am I alone with this view.....I will admit that I’m no major film buff but for a film that has such a high rating by a lot of critics I just couldn’t appreciate how anyone could regard this as a classic...?

Harry Palmr

Well your first mistake was to give up after 30 minutes probably. Sometimes you need to see the whole jigsaw not a quarter of the pieces - it's not a Marvel film etc which can be summarised as a succession of explosions and quips.

sheroman01

...there's another 105 minutes of the movie to watch....

I think it's best to judge a movie after watching all of it.

El Duda

I think it's a dark twisted masterpiece and a frighteningly accurate portrayal of what the future had to bring.

The Nadsat vernacular in particular is eery and iconic. The opening shot is the best opening shot of any movie imo.

johnny_ultimate

I mean this as no insult or disrespect whatsoever as it’s a universal statement... but anybody who ever says ‘I turned it off after x minutes’, whatever the film, cannot comment on the film in any meaningful way.

Unless ‘x’ is the actual running time of the film

Watch the full thing. It’s as long as it is for a reason. Get back to us then

RayCun

am I missing something

Watched first half hour of this

think you answered your own question

pumpkin4life

It's a dark, twisted, hilarious, psychedelic masterpiece, while also being a great analysis of free will and its part in morality, and the decline of a society as a result of corruption and degeneracy, from a director who was at that stage, at the peak of his powers.

It's also got some nudie wans in it.

Give it another go. The movie takes a very different turn in its second half.

branie2

Malcolm McDowell's best film as well

branie2

The ending is very different from the original novel though

Road-Hog

pumpkin4life wrote: »

It's a dark, twisted, hilarious, psychedelic masterpiece, while also being a great analysis of free will and its part in morality, and the decline of a society as a result of corruption and degeneracy, from a director who was at that stage, at the peak of his powers.

It's also got some nudie wans in it.

Give it another go. The movie takes a very different turn in its second half.

I don’t think I’d have the patience to watch it fully.....it was boring me.......even the nudity couldn’t keep me interested. Can understand the reaction back in the 1970’s

Thank you though for your non-judge mental response however, unlike some of the initial Comments above that expressed an almost intolerant sentiment to anyone who would dare speak/commmet negatively about a ‘master piece’ in film making in their view.

I might give it a second chance.

Sad Professor

30 minutes isn't even the end of the first act. You don't even know what the film is really about yet.

That said, Kubrick isn't for everyone. In fact, he's not for most people. And that's okay. I'd recommend watching another Kubrick film instead. Maybe one of his earlier ones like Dr Strangelove, Paths of Glory, or Lolita.

Rothko

Road-Hog wrote: »

I don’t think I’d have the patience to watch it fully.....it was boring me.......even the nudity couldn’t keep me interested. Can understand the reaction back in the 1970’s

Thank you though for your non-judge mental response however, unlike some of the initial Comments above that expressed an almost intolerant sentiment to anyone who would dare speak/commmet negatively about a ‘master piece’ in film making in their view.

I might give it a second chance.

It's more the fact that you can't really properly comment on a movie if you've only seen 30 minutes of it.

batgoat

It's a great film but I prefer the book overall,it's written entirely in Nadsat which becomes weirdly intuitive. Also worth considering that the concept was strongly based upon the psychology of the time so it wasn't simply a matter of a far off dystopia.

Reati

branie2 wrote: »

The ending is very different from the original novel though

Indeed but it's somewhat unrealistic to the core of the story and other chapters. The book is a stunning read filled with so much Nadsat. Might have to read it again.

batgoat

Reati wrote: »

Indeed but it's somewhat unrealistic to the core of the story and other chapters. The book is a stunning read filled with so much Nadsat. Might have to read it again.

I still find it very hard to comprehend that the rape was based upon what happened to Burgess' wife. Must have been difficult for him to write for that alone, particularly the perspective he adopts.

Reati

batgoat wrote: »

I still find it very hard to comprehend that the rape was based upon what happened to Burgess' wife. Must have been difficult for him to write for that alone, particularly the perspective he adopts.

I never knew it was based on a real life event.

dr.fuzzenstein

Road-Hog wrote: »

Watched first half hour of this the other night for the first time and Had to give up after that.....couldn’t see the masterpiece that it’s protrayed as.....overly violent both sexually and physically and a warped if any kind of story line.....can see why it was banned all those years ago...am I alone with this view.....I will admit that I’m no major film buff but for a film that has such a high rating by a lot of critics I just couldn’t appreciate how anyone could regard this as a classic...?

Well, if you don't like violence in movies, this one is absolutely not for you.
But the violence is not just there for the sake of it, it serves a very important purpose to the storyline. The portrayal of it changes, you could say it shifts 180 degrees later on.
If you think there's just violence and no story, it's because you only watched 30 minutes of the movie.
To me it is a portrayal of how society deals with violence and a story about free will.
It's almost what we see today, why do kids who have everything their parent's generation could only dream of turn nasty and violent?
Also, keep in mind, in the 70's, modern civilization as we know it had only existed since the 50's.
To many people it was a frightening new time, the novel was written in 1962, less than 20 years after the end of the war.
Dystopian stories about disaffected, frustrated and bored youths were an entirely new thing.
Even to my parent's generation, what we call daily life was like something from a different planet. It's sometimes almost is if you watch the movie from the viewpoint of the older generation, because everything, the fashion, the slang, the attitude and lifestyle are utterly bizarre and incomprehensible and maybe that's the point of it. It just plunges you into this crazy world that you have no connection to, so you feel as bewildered as the older generation in the 60's and 70's.
Which adds another dimension to it today.

Johnmb

Road-Hog wrote: »

I don’t think I’d have the patience to watch it fully.....it was boring me.......even the nudity couldn’t keep me interested. Can understand the reaction back in the 1970’s

Thank you though for your non-judge mental response however, unlike some of the initial Comments above that expressed an almost intolerant sentiment to anyone who would dare speak/commmet negatively about a ‘master piece’ in film making in their view.

I might give it a second chance.

I don't think anyone was criticising you for not liking what you seen, just pointing out that you had watched very little of what is a long movie to be in a position to judge the whole. The bit you watched was really just the introduction. It's been a long time since I seen it, but there's a lot that happens after the first 30 minutes, and I don't just mean another 105 minutes, I mean the story move on considerably.

Having said that, it is a very long film, and it's not exactly action-packed, it's a slow moving film in parts. That may not be to everyone's liking, but if you're only watching the first 30 minutes, then you aren't judging the actual film.

Greyfox

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

I mean this as no insult or disrespect whatsoever as it’s a universal statement... but anybody who ever says ‘I turned it off after x minutes’, whatever the film, cannot comment on the film in any meaningful way.

Oh yes you can. If a film doesn't have you invested and enjoying it after 30-40 mins more than likely it will be the same after 2 hours, life is too short to waste time when your not enjoying something. Its an ok film but its a long way from been a classic. Usually 30 mins is enough time to know wheter something is your cup of tea or not.

Sad Professor

What has happened in Star Wars by the 30 minute point? First appearance of Obi-wan? Certainly Han Solo hasn't appeared yet and they haven't even left Tatooine. Enough time to decide that the robots and exploding planets are silly and not to your taste perhaps but not enough time to form a proper view of the film and its story.

Obviously the OP saw enough of A Clockwork Orange to be disturbed by the violence and nudity and maybe enough to decide that the film just isn't for them, but not enough to genuinely ask "what am I missing?" because what they are missing is obvious: the rest of the film.

weemcd

You're not missing anything. I always found the film to be straight fúcking garbage.

Frank O. Pinion

It's one of the 10 greatest films of all time. For reference, I think Mulholland Dr. is the greatest. A Clockwork Orange is an absolute masterpiece, and I've seen it multiple times. Cinema to me, is Kubrick and Lynch, not Spielberg and Lucas.

A fantastic double bill is A Clockwork Orange followed by Bronson, for when I want to feel weird.

johnny_ultimate

Greyfox wrote: »

Oh yes you can. If a film doesn't have you invested and enjoying it after 30-40 mins more than likely it will be the same after 2 hours, life is too short to waste time when your not enjoying something. Its an ok film but its a long way from been a classic. Usually 30 mins is enough time to know wheter something is your cup of tea or not.

As said, the point is if you turn off a film a fraction of the way through you haven’t actually seen the film. A film is a whole - it’s as long as it is (whether that’s 10 mins or eight hours) for a reason.

Just a few days ago I watched One Cut Of The Dead. For the first 35 minutes or so, I was very indifferent to it - just seemed like a low-rent zombie film to me. But it completely transformed after that and shed a whole lot of new light on that first half hour, and I fell for it completely. If I’d left after 30 minutes I wouldn’t have any ability to comment on the film whatsoever to be frank. While that’s an unusual example in how strikingly different the film is later on, there have been several cases where what comes later in the film has significantly changed my mind about what happened earlier.

Maybe there’s a just a philosophical difference in approach here. When I sit down to watch something in the cinema or at home, I’m all in - I’ve decided to clear however long is needed, and that’s that. Maybe I won’t like the film, but I’m still all in. True, I tend to filter through things in advance and rarely watch something I don’t find at least interesting in some way. But the only time I’d ever switch something off would not be the result of the film itself - it’d be my own tiredness, or having to stop early for whatever reason. Anytime I’ve turned something off after a few minute it’s been because I don’t feel I can give it the attention it deserves. If I don’t / can’t finish it, I know I’ve surrendered my ability to say anything about it.

If the OP watches A Clockwork Orange and doesn’t like it, that’s fine! I don’t believe any film is above criticism - and personally, while it’s been a good decade since I watched it last, I’d tend to recommend several other Kubrick films over it (although really all his films are worthy in their own way as far as I’m concerned). But regardless of one’s final stances it deserves to be seen in its entirety, from beginning to end as intended. Only then, IMO, can anyone really come to a full, proper conclusion on the thing - again, not intended as any sort of insult, just my genuine belief that any given film has to be appraised as a whole

artvanderlay

The book is much better, read that instead. I didn't really like this film, but this was probably because I don't like Kubrick, and I think all his stuff is very over-rated. Visually good, but that's it. IN MY OPINION!!!

artvanderlay

I also don't agree that you have to watch a movie to the end to form an opinion: that's bull. It's a director's job to pace a movie well and if he can't do that, then he is boring me. Every great movie I have ever seen drew me in from the beginning, because the director knew what he was doing and knew how to keep things moving. If it's not happening for me after 30 mins, I'm done. Would you stick with a horrible relationship in the hope that it would get better down the line? Would you keep eating a meal that tasted like ****, in the hope that the taste improved? I wouldn't, but maybe some people enjoy the misery, to quote Mrs. Doyle! :pac:

artvanderlay

Sad Professor wrote: »

What has happened in Star Wars by the 30 minute point? First appearance of Obi-wan? Certainly Han Solo hasn't appeared yet and they haven't even left Tatooine. Enough time to decide that the robots and exploding planets are silly and not to your taste perhaps but not enough time to form a proper view of the film and its story.

Obviously the OP saw enough of A Clockwork Orange to be disturbed by the violence and nudity and maybe enough to decide that the film just isn't for them, but not enough to genuinely ask "what am I missing?" because what they are missing is obvious: the rest of the film.

Well apart from the visuals, Star Wars is a ****e kids movie, with terrible dialogue and bad acting. I only ever watched it as a kid because they got me with the action figures :pac: I also think the whole story in Star Wars is shockingly bad. It really is a poor space opera.

Frank O. Pinion

If you watch 30 minutes of a film, you can have an opinion of those 30 minutes and that's it. You can't critique the whole thing. Sure, you could probably judge a lot of modern Hollywood films on their opening 30 minutes and deem them to be crap. But, truly unique masterpiece films, (and especially old slower paced films), could have twists, turns, tonal shifts that build upon or work because of their opening 30 or so minutes.

Like Johnny said, if you plan to watch a long film and actually form an opinion on it, set out the time to watch it and good or bad...watch the damn thing. Then people can take your opinion seriously.

SEPT 23 1989

Give the ultra violence a chance OP

yuridwyer

Blown away by A Clockwork Orange when I first saw it on an illegal VHS in college, not for everyone's tastes but compared to modern movies it's tame, probably what sets it apart is the underlying menace more so than the violence. Similar to Kill Bill in terms of its unique language style, how colourfully visual it is and of course the impact of the music... I just love it.

Oh, and by the way, it wasn't banned, Kubrick pulled it himself for fear of someone copying the movie and going after his family

artvanderlay

Frank O. Pinion wrote: »

If you watch 30 minutes of a film, you can have an opinion of those 30 minutes and that's it. You can't critique the whole thing. Sure, you could probably judge a lot of modern Hollywood films on their opening 30 minutes and deem them to be crap. But, truly unique masterpiece films, (and especially old slower paced films), could have twists, turns, tonal shifts that build upon or work because of their opening 30 or so minutes.

Like Johnny said, if you plan to watch a long film and actually form an opinion on it, set out the time to watch it and good or bad...watch the damn thing. Then people can take your opinion seriously.

Well, you can critique the first 30 mins and you can also critique the director for not keeping you engaged enough to continue on watching the rest of it. A good director is going to keep you engaged from the get-go: even if the pace is slow, there will usually be something that keeps you hanging on to see more.



Name some movies that you saw that were absolute **** for the first half hour or so (and I mean absolute cack) but they picked up after that and were ultimately very good. I can't think of one and I have sat through a lot of films.

batgoat

artvanderlay wrote: »

Well, you can critique the first 30 mins and you can also critique the director for not keeping you engaged enough to continue on watching the rest of it. A good director is going to keep you engaged from the get-go: even if the pace is slow, there will usually be something that keeps you hanging on to see more.



Name some movies that you saw that were absolute **** for the first half hour or so (and I mean absolute cack) but they picked up after that and were ultimately very good. I can't think of one and I have sat through a lot of films.

Films can be a slow burn, that doesn't make them ****. It's just a way of slowly establishing the story. Ben Wheatley does it a lot, eg Kill List is an incredibly slow moving film in many respects and builds up to being one of the best horrors going.

The likes of There Will Be Blood didn't have a word spoken for the first 20 minutes, it would be pretty foolish to write it off by the thirtieth minute.