Holy Overrated Movie, Batman!

Rating: Null/10 (12 December 2002)

Let me start with a little autobiographical information. One day, I wanted to see "A Clockwork Orange" because I heard it was an awesome movie. But, I decided it would be more spiritually rewarding to read the book before I watched the movie. At this same time, I was assigned a research paper for English class, and I decided to do it on "A Clockwork Orange". So, I read "A Clockwork Orange" in detail, studied the Nadsat language of the malchicks'. I read criticisms, more criticms, analytical essays. And then, I decide, ah gee, I'm going to watch this movie. And yes, I am an avid movie watcher and I claim to know what I'm talking about when I say this or more correctly write this. Stanley Kubrick's "A Clockwork Orange" is a perversion of the novel. He deep down wanted to make a porn and decided he's going to interject it within the story of "A Clockwork Orange". What was the point of the sexually explicit material? There is no connection between it and the novel by Anthony Burgess. There wasn't sex in his story, there was rape and the ravaging of innocence. There was nothing sexy about it. So why then do these big chested, curvy Playboy bunny-type women "get raped" with little to no struggle (I think one assisted in taking her clothes off) and in the book they are 10-11 year old girls who have yet to have big breasts and gorgeous hips. A minor detail overlooked by a director's arrogant vision. And then there's the old lady who is brutally attacked (then murdered) by Alex. Very old and decrepid in the book with no capability of defending herself except with her copious amounts of cats (I think I saw five in the movie, in the book there was like twenty). In the movie she is limber, probably early 50's and is killed by a giant phallic symbol. In the book, it was a bust of Beethoven. It was so significant to have the music destroy this lady, not this huge phallus. What is the point? The point is, o my brothers, is that Kubrick I believe is a sexist man who wants his victimized women to be dominated by large maleness (aka ceramic phallus). I will admit one thing good that this movie accomplished, the comedic tone of the book. The lightness of the language and Malcom MacDowell captured the humor well, BUT he was too old to be Alex. Alex is fifteen which makes it all the more CREEPIER. The actors were too old to be playing a gang of teenagers. Hmm, what else....oh yes the violence and the underlying theme of freedom of choice. The violence, not at all shocking, but then again I've grown up to "pulp fiction". Not that I need the in-your-face style, but I think that's what Kubrick was going for. He doesn't leave it for the imagination, but fails at providing grotesque imagery that would make you feel sickened by the violence. And the freedom of choice, yes the prison chaplain has his famous line, but I think the ultimate point of this movie is lost in once again Kubrick's obsession with sex. If you want Kubrick-directed naked people I suggest "Eyes Wide SHut". At least then I get the point. But here, he fails. He doesn't do enough justice to the book. He strays from the Anthony Burgess's vision too far. Sure, it's more faithful than a lot of Hollywood's book adaptations, but it could have been done so much better. This book was practically begging to be made into a movie with it's already picked-out soundtrack. But I honestly feel that if people read the book before jumping on the hype band wagon back in the '70's, we wouldn't look at this movie with such awe.