A film for half-baked sociologists.

Rating: 1/10 (1 October 2002)

The tale of a violent man (a boy in the book) and societies attempt to reform him.
Never before has so much junk been written about a low budget movie that fails on so many fronts. You can read quite a bit of this cheap sociologist gobbledegook in the reviews that surround this one - in case you doubt my word!
Let us start with a few facts for a change: The film was made on the ultra cheap. Look at the lack of extras or expensive sets (all filming took place in real locations). Look at the cheap TV lighting. Look at the amount of hand held camera work. Warner Brothers didn't really want to make this movie, but Kubrick told them it would make pots of money and that won them over - in this he was right!
(To quote a Clash lyric: "They wear smart suits. And think it's funny. Turning rebellion in to money...")
Alex is living in a society we don't really see (in the movie at least). So how can we judge "society values?" Is Alex a one-off or common? This is a society that sells penis-shaped ice-lollies to children so it must be a bit sick in the head, but no attempt is made to give the movie on-the-ground context.
Set in the future is it? Well it is a future that looks a lot like the year it was made right down to the trousers and haircuts. Maybe the future looks a lot like 1972!
I look for films to do two main things: To educate or to entertain. Clockwork Orange does neither. Many scenes are quite revolting - and bizarrely they are even found revolting by some of the people who rate the movie highly!
I went to a rough house school that housed real football hooligans, rapists and sociopaths. Let me tell you now, they didn't like classical music or have the ability to explain their actions in clear language to anybody. Several were too stupid to even form sentences.
Having experienced/suffered the real thing why would I prefer to listen to the version of a highly protected/highly privileged middle class man (Kubrick) who - in success - chose to live his life behind barbed wire, protected by big dogs and shotguns?

I can stand rape and violence if it has a point to it, but here it doesn't. I am not surprised the original "rape victim" quit the movie, who would want to be portrayed on screen like that? Being held down and stripped, while someone with a bad comb-across tries to worm a hand held camera between your legs?
I don't attack Anthony Burgess's book (which I have read) because I think that is a valid exercise in literature. Not that it is that good or that original. Even AB admitted that the use of slang was borrowed from elsewhere.
I hate this film and the reasons that it was made. I also hate the people that make excuses for them. They should all be ashamed of themselves. Avoid at all costs.