I don't agree that it's a masterpiece, but it's an interesting film. Kubrick intentionally made it on a low budget as a kind of slumming project after 2001 to prove that he could still turn out good art without a posh budget.
I think the way the film lulls the audience through the masterful use of cinematic forms (editing is especially ahead of its time) and invites it to not just observe, but actively participate extremely clever, something that Kubrick would approach again only in Eyes Wide Shut
Editing of action scenes is 10 yeards ahead of its time and all action directors would, sometimes unwittingly, copy Kubrick down the line, but what particularly stands out is the music sequence with the Christ statuette, which is genius.
Well its a retro-alternate future now. All those brutallist buildings in London were in every scifi movie from the 70s. But its not distracting, its just of its time.
no it isn't.
Nabokov approved of Kubrick's version because eroticizing the relationship in a movie screws up the framing of the story by giving Humbert the benefit of the doubt.
Its literally anywhere movies can be found, even fear and desire, a movie kubrick himself tried to delete is on even the lower quality publicly accessible places like yify.
Bad taste is the only reason I can think someone would find that his worst film. His CV is extremely strong I guess but still struggle to see it being rated below Killer's Kiss or e-girlta.
I don't think he has. But he's mostly interesting to film theoreticians, and wannabes, because he's mostly a brilliant craftsman without anything worthwhile to say, atleast nothing that hasn't been said better by others.
>he's mostly a without anything worthwhile to say, atleast nothing that hasn't been said better by others
I guess. His films can still be very moving though, like Barry Lyndon or paths of glory
Yes
some very very stunning moments
it's a movie about programming and it some points it really feels like it.
it's funny though because it holds this weird place where people know it's cool but many seem to have not ever even really watched it. I guess the images are just that iconic and kewl
the opening, the "ballet" fight, the demonstration with the naked lady, the ludovico theater treatment of course, the scene when they walk along the waterside maybe
there's lots. it's just funny because I don't see the hipsters with posters of it in their rooms and people who dress up on halloween ever actually talk about the film
I think it's saying the leaders who promote these ideas are just doing it so they can come across as gentle or caring or something and secure votes yada
ah. well yes, he made it seem as though it was very effective. I say it is seemingly ineffective to us as an audience as the last shot is him appearing in ecstasy as the trigger music plays
it stands to reason he was just acting like it worked, during the demonstration
After all why wouldn't he "If this shit works and you will walk free." easy, just pretend like it does and you're good to go.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
To me the point of that scene was to show that he still had a violent inner world despite being unable to act on in the real world, so it was effective at stopping him from acting violently, but not thinking violently, so while the treatment seemingly worked it didn't actually fix the problem, it was just a treatment for addressing the symptoms rather than the disease.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
>those quads
Well shit I think you might be on to something.
Real talk though yeah that's plausible.
I suppose you can see at as this: at best the ludovico is a bandaid to our societal ills, at worst it is outright falsehood.
I'm not entirely sure humans can fully be deceived by pavlovian training. The film does a pavlovian experiment on us, the audience, and it is somewhat successful: Personally, when I hear "Singin' in the Rain" I think straight back to the scenes of ultraviolence, abuse and rape. But, I can still consciously remember how this is the result of a deliberate choice from a filmmaker, and the actual original source material is a delightful musical. I've been successfully conditioned to associate the song with rape, but am still of conscious enough mind to realize that I have been tricked into doing so.
NTA but I think it's a bit of both. The writer who's wife died of pneumonia thinks of Alex as a victim until he realises one of the crimes he had committed had directly impacted him at which point he wants nothing more than revenge.
yeah there's a few shots which feature these sort of pyramid shapes
like when the gang approaches the tramp in the beginning down that corridor
or during the demonstration with the naked lady the spotlight forms a big triangular pyramid shape
yeah there's a few shots which feature these sort of pyramid shapes
like when the gang approaches the tramp in the beginning down that corridor
or during the demonstration with the naked lady the spotlight forms a big triangular pyramid shape
yes, that's right
like a few other koobrick kinos it's best watched in a theater. at home or on a small screen the temptation to just look away is too great
it's trash and the worst kubrick film
go read the book
everything mentioned ITT from the story to the imagery to the themes to the "iconic" scenes to this lifted directly from the book.
it literally is a 1 for 1 copy of the book down to the dialogue and narration being word for word so how can you give credit to the filmmaker for this??? There is not a single original scene or idea in the movie it is ALL in the book, the drugs, moloko, ultra violence, the classical music, rape, weird way of speaking is all taken EXACTLY how it is with no changes from the book
the stuff that he DID change or had creative license over is a travesty. He took ultra violent teenage criminals and thought "let's make a fricking broadway special out of this" and gave them fricking canes clad them in top hats and diapers and made them dance campy ballet while committing crimes like a fricking charlie chaplin special. Not to mention casting 40yr old looking men as teenagers But hey maybe if we gave them lipstick and eyeshadow they won't notice! This film is a fricking disgrace
>so how can you give credit to the filmmaker for this???
because a book is words on a page and a film is made up of moving pictures anon. hope this helps. he made the film.
and every good thing about the film is taken from the book. It's one thing if he made the conscious choice, "Beethoven would be fricking kino in this scene" "with this part of the movie we'll really explore ideas about recidivism and morality" "let's have them talk like this it'll be really original" but none of that was his idea or vision, what WAS his vision was dressing them up like vaudeville characters and putting them in diapers
>and every good thing about the film is taken from the book.
that's really silly because my contention is what makes the film great are the images, the acting, and the music.
You are a turbo brainlet. Watch the different adaptations of the Shining if you believe words just leap out onto the screen and make the film themselves without any aesthetic sensibilities to curate them.
>if you believe words just leap out onto the screen and make the film themselves without any aesthetic sensibilities to curate them
but this is exactly what kubrick did the dialogue is word for word, narration is word for word. Musical score is taken directly from the book with no creative changes.
Any direction on the delivery of lines, the action, exactly "how" Alex should rape this women or beat this guy up etc. is (IMO) a piss poor decision most prominently displayed by the casting and the distractingly comical outfits they wear. These are the "aesthetic sensibilities" you are talking about
yes it's arguably worse in the book, it's written first person from Alex's POV so not just the dialogue but all of it is in the weird pseudo ruskie english
I think they wear black outfits in the book, wouldn't have been nearly as iconic as the white ones. Alex also doesn't have his eyelashes or bowler hat.
you say iconic, I say appalling
Disingenuous post.
I couldn't be more genuine if I were certified, A Clockwork Orange is one of my favorite books, Kubrick is one of my favorite directors; I was so ready to see some kino of one of my favorite novellas and I was so disgusted by what he did I couldn't believe this could happen. The worst part is it's probably one of the most faithful adaptations of a book I have ever seen, he literally follows the narrative scene by scene, line by line, word for word (except for the ending kind of, there are two versions of the ending in the book he went with the one where Alex stays evil), and then just makes the most bizarre creative choices to frick around
it's really wacky to say a filmmaker doesn't deserve credit for adapting text into a film. he still had to do a lot of work, lol. or do you think every choice made in the film is just inherently obvious due to the text?
I am not saying he doesn't deserve credit or even did a bad job, I am saying he completely butchered the characters of Alex et al. for no reason. The outfits suck. The dance fighting is bizarre and homosexual. Why are they even wearing matching outfits in the first place? >do you think every choice made in the film is just inherently obvious due to the text
go read the book. When I say the scenes and dialogue are lifted exactly as they are, that's exactly what I mean. I don't mean to say "the ludovico scene happens in the book too!" "the psychiatrist character shows up in the book too!" I mean that it is a word for word carbon copy, there is not a single word of original dialogue in the entire movie
and yes I didn't like it, this is a thread asking if it was good and I am entitled to my opinion
I think you're just having a b***h to have a b***h. Kubrick didn't get teen actors because they wouldn't be able to act, and he changed the visuals because they looked better.
I think they wear black outfits in the book, wouldn't have been nearly as iconic as the white ones. Alex also doesn't have his eyelashes or bowler hat.
Even Jackson with Lotr trilogy took some creative liberties with them that worked in favour for that trilogy(despite anons memeing on them) because movies is a different platform and requires more visual stimulation
It’s entertaining and interesting because at the time it was rare to see a movie about someone with no morals whatsoever but it’s really just a glorification of fake violence.
>Illuminati/Masonic imagery starts getting discussed >25 minutes later incredibly angry, stream-of-consciousness ranting bait-post full of incorrect opinions and insults toward the source material and its fans appears >Thread is now about this post
Really makes you think
You call it bait and incorrect opinions because you have no idea what you are talking about, you haven't read the book just watched the movie so you have no context on anything I am talking about
it's not bad I watched it a few times when I was an edgy teenager, I obviously didn't fully grasp what it was actually about and rewatched it when I was older which was also good but for different reasons, id say it's worth seeing once kind of like Caligula I guess which I also enjoyed not sure why though
maybe it's just that 70s/ early 80s era of movies like deer hunter, Amityville horror, dog day afternoon etc. that I enjoy
starts like a snuff film and ends as if it had been a thoroughly profound experience. hope you like seeing wieners and breasts on your screen, cause this movie has a lot of them. i'm also not a big fan of the long shots or the long-ass runtime, personally.
in 2024, I think most of the themes explored by the movie have already been engrained in the average person's mind >le gouvernment bad and it won't be the eye-opening (hah) experience critics back then accredited it to be, since the internet these days is very adept at showing us just how cruel different governments can be.
it comes across as a movie that's trying to be shocking and profound to a 1970 audience (which i'm sure it was), but it falls flat when compared to the absurdity of the world we live in today.
Yes.
It's a masterpiece but doesn't get credit as one because Kubrick made so many masterpieces it's hard to form a proper reception of them.
I don't agree that it's a masterpiece, but it's an interesting film. Kubrick intentionally made it on a low budget as a kind of slumming project after 2001 to prove that he could still turn out good art without a posh budget.
No he didn't.
I think the way the film lulls the audience through the masterful use of cinematic forms (editing is especially ahead of its time) and invites it to not just observe, but actively participate extremely clever, something that Kubrick would approach again only in Eyes Wide Shut
>editing is especially ahead of its time
can you speak on this? I haven't really considered it before
Editing of action scenes is 10 yeards ahead of its time and all action directors would, sometimes unwittingly, copy Kubrick down the line, but what particularly stands out is the music sequence with the Christ statuette, which is genius.
>the music sequence with the Christ statuette, which is genius.
Oh yeah. that part is brilliant.
Sincerely, Yes.
I liked the ending of the movie better than the book tbh.
Yeah why not. It was ahead of its time back in the day, kinda dated now.
>kinda dated now.
In what way?
Well its the future of the 70s, so the kids all go to the record store. Just little things like that, doesn't make the movie worse, just dates it.
They also don't go to bars and drink drug-laced milk. I just look at it as an alternative future tbh so never really get hung up on things like that.
Well its a retro-alternate future now. All those brutallist buildings in London were in every scifi movie from the 70s. But its not distracting, its just of its time.
The minister saying they need to release criminals to make space for political prisoners is pretty accurate to what happens today.
I could never understand what the frick they were saying
i was erect throughout the whole film
Did Kubrick ever actually make a bad film?
He himself didn't like e-girlta
It's inferior to this othet e-girlta
no it isn't.
Nabokov approved of Kubrick's version because eroticizing the relationship in a movie screws up the framing of the story by giving Humbert the benefit of the doubt.
I honestly can't find this movie anywhere. Has it been wiped by big brother?
Its literally anywhere movies can be found, even fear and desire, a movie kubrick himself tried to delete is on even the lower quality publicly accessible places like yify.
2001. It's always hyped up by pretentious homosexuals who sniff their farts.
I have seen people saying Eyes Wide Shut was his worst. Not sure why.
Bad taste is the only reason I can think someone would find that his worst film. His CV is extremely strong I guess but still struggle to see it being rated below Killer's Kiss or e-girlta.
2001 is honestly his worst
No.
I don't think he has. But he's mostly interesting to film theoreticians, and wannabes, because he's mostly a brilliant craftsman without anything worthwhile to say, atleast nothing that hasn't been said better by others.
>he's mostly a without anything worthwhile to say, atleast nothing that hasn't been said better by others
I guess. His films can still be very moving though, like Barry Lyndon or paths of glory
Yes
some very very stunning moments
it's a movie about programming and it some points it really feels like it.
it's funny though because it holds this weird place where people know it's cool but many seem to have not ever even really watched it. I guess the images are just that iconic and kewl
>iconic
It has many iconic scenes that have been emulated like the opening for example
the opening, the "ballet" fight, the demonstration with the naked lady, the ludovico theater treatment of course, the scene when they walk along the waterside maybe
there's lots. it's just funny because I don't see the hipsters with posters of it in their rooms and people who dress up on halloween ever actually talk about the film
Even Pokémon paid homage
1/2
SOUL. Pokémon also being up Stand by me in the first games
Yeah it makes fun of moronic liberals who think we are obligated to give violent criminals a second chance in society.
I think it's saying the leaders who promote these ideas are just doing it so they can come across as gentle or caring or something and secure votes yada
Yes because it’s never that they actually try or believe in these moronic attempts, there has to be some deeper conspiracy related to it.
yeah I mean alex was a photo op for lowering recidivism rates
nevermind the fact the treatment is both torturous and seemingly ineffective
>seemingly ineffective
No, seemingly it was very effective or he wouldn't have licked the boot or curled into the fetal position to avoid conflict.
ah. well yes, he made it seem as though it was very effective. I say it is seemingly ineffective to us as an audience as the last shot is him appearing in ecstasy as the trigger music plays
it stands to reason he was just acting like it worked, during the demonstration
After all why wouldn't he "If this shit works and you will walk free." easy, just pretend like it does and you're good to go.
To me the point of that scene was to show that he still had a violent inner world despite being unable to act on in the real world, so it was effective at stopping him from acting violently, but not thinking violently, so while the treatment seemingly worked it didn't actually fix the problem, it was just a treatment for addressing the symptoms rather than the disease.
>those quads
Well shit I think you might be on to something.
Real talk though yeah that's plausible.
I suppose you can see at as this: at best the ludovico is a bandaid to our societal ills, at worst it is outright falsehood.
I'm not entirely sure humans can fully be deceived by pavlovian training. The film does a pavlovian experiment on us, the audience, and it is somewhat successful: Personally, when I hear "Singin' in the Rain" I think straight back to the scenes of ultraviolence, abuse and rape. But, I can still consciously remember how this is the result of a deliberate choice from a filmmaker, and the actual original source material is a delightful musical. I've been successfully conditioned to associate the song with rape, but am still of conscious enough mind to realize that I have been tricked into doing so.
Could the ludovico actually work? Is it MKultra?
NTA but I think it's a bit of both. The writer who's wife died of pneumonia thinks of Alex as a victim until he realises one of the crimes he had committed had directly impacted him at which point he wants nothing more than revenge.
oh most certainly. not only did he want the revenge but he was like basically cumming as it was exacted against alex
a little of the old
ultra violence
If it wasn't for American Psycho this movie could have been the Cinemaphile meme film of choice.
Watched this movie for the first time tripping balls on acid
Yeah, but the illuminati/Masonic imagery will go over the typical viewers head.
Hint - Look at the very poster you just posted. The triangle with the eye poking out
yeah there's a few shots which feature these sort of pyramid shapes
like when the gang approaches the tramp in the beginning down that corridor
or during the demonstration with the naked lady the spotlight forms a big triangular pyramid shape
QRD on triangles?
A triangle is a 3 sided figure.
Masonic version is an unfinished pyramid with an eye above it, so there isn't a triangle, its a circle above a rhombus in their symbology.
Good movie but the violence scenes are upsetting personally
yes, that's right
like a few other koobrick kinos it's best watched in a theater. at home or on a small screen the temptation to just look away is too great
I based my entire personality on alex when I was like 14
it's trash and the worst kubrick film
go read the book
everything mentioned ITT from the story to the imagery to the themes to the "iconic" scenes to this lifted directly from the book.
it literally is a 1 for 1 copy of the book down to the dialogue and narration being word for word so how can you give credit to the filmmaker for this??? There is not a single original scene or idea in the movie it is ALL in the book, the drugs, moloko, ultra violence, the classical music, rape, weird way of speaking is all taken EXACTLY how it is with no changes from the book
the stuff that he DID change or had creative license over is a travesty. He took ultra violent teenage criminals and thought "let's make a fricking broadway special out of this" and gave them fricking canes clad them in top hats and diapers and made them dance campy ballet while committing crimes like a fricking charlie chaplin special. Not to mention casting 40yr old looking men as teenagers But hey maybe if we gave them lipstick and eyeshadow they won't notice! This film is a fricking disgrace
>so how can you give credit to the filmmaker for this???
because a book is words on a page and a film is made up of moving pictures anon. hope this helps. he made the film.
and every good thing about the film is taken from the book. It's one thing if he made the conscious choice, "Beethoven would be fricking kino in this scene" "with this part of the movie we'll really explore ideas about recidivism and morality" "let's have them talk like this it'll be really original" but none of that was his idea or vision, what WAS his vision was dressing them up like vaudeville characters and putting them in diapers
>and every good thing about the film is taken from the book.
that's really silly because my contention is what makes the film great are the images, the acting, and the music.
You are a turbo brainlet. Watch the different adaptations of the Shining if you believe words just leap out onto the screen and make the film themselves without any aesthetic sensibilities to curate them.
>if you believe words just leap out onto the screen and make the film themselves without any aesthetic sensibilities to curate them
but this is exactly what kubrick did the dialogue is word for word, narration is word for word. Musical score is taken directly from the book with no creative changes.
Any direction on the delivery of lines, the action, exactly "how" Alex should rape this women or beat this guy up etc. is (IMO) a piss poor decision most prominently displayed by the casting and the distractingly comical outfits they wear. These are the "aesthetic sensibilities" you are talking about
>weird way of speaking
so that dumb shit is intentional?
yes it's arguably worse in the book, it's written first person from Alex's POV so not just the dialogue but all of it is in the weird pseudo ruskie english
you say iconic, I say appalling
I couldn't be more genuine if I were certified, A Clockwork Orange is one of my favorite books, Kubrick is one of my favorite directors; I was so ready to see some kino of one of my favorite novellas and I was so disgusted by what he did I couldn't believe this could happen. The worst part is it's probably one of the most faithful adaptations of a book I have ever seen, he literally follows the narrative scene by scene, line by line, word for word (except for the ending kind of, there are two versions of the ending in the book he went with the one where Alex stays evil), and then just makes the most bizarre creative choices to frick around
so you didn't like it. whoop de doo
it's really wacky to say a filmmaker doesn't deserve credit for adapting text into a film. he still had to do a lot of work, lol. or do you think every choice made in the film is just inherently obvious due to the text?
I am not saying he doesn't deserve credit or even did a bad job, I am saying he completely butchered the characters of Alex et al. for no reason. The outfits suck. The dance fighting is bizarre and homosexual. Why are they even wearing matching outfits in the first place?
>do you think every choice made in the film is just inherently obvious due to the text
go read the book. When I say the scenes and dialogue are lifted exactly as they are, that's exactly what I mean. I don't mean to say "the ludovico scene happens in the book too!" "the psychiatrist character shows up in the book too!" I mean that it is a word for word carbon copy, there is not a single word of original dialogue in the entire movie
and yes I didn't like it, this is a thread asking if it was good and I am entitled to my opinion
>I'm not saying he doesn't deserve credit or did a bad job, I'm just saying he doesn't deserve credit and did a bad job
into the trash it goes
I think you're just having a b***h to have a b***h. Kubrick didn't get teen actors because they wouldn't be able to act, and he changed the visuals because they looked better.
he didn't have to get teen actors he just shouldn't have casted guys that looked like they spent 30 yrs chain smoking at the back of the pub
I think they wear black outfits in the book, wouldn't have been nearly as iconic as the white ones. Alex also doesn't have his eyelashes or bowler hat.
Disingenuous post.
Kubric is a Director first and foremost.
Even Jackson with Lotr trilogy took some creative liberties with them that worked in favour for that trilogy(despite anons memeing on them) because movies is a different platform and requires more visual stimulation
o its kino
It’s entertaining and interesting because at the time it was rare to see a movie about someone with no morals whatsoever but it’s really just a glorification of fake violence.
>Illuminati/Masonic imagery starts getting discussed
>25 minutes later incredibly angry, stream-of-consciousness ranting bait-post full of incorrect opinions and insults toward the source material and its fans appears
>Thread is now about this post
Really makes you think
You call it bait and incorrect opinions because you have no idea what you are talking about, you haven't read the book just watched the movie so you have no context on anything I am talking about
Yeah
it's not bad I watched it a few times when I was an edgy teenager, I obviously didn't fully grasp what it was actually about and rewatched it when I was older which was also good but for different reasons, id say it's worth seeing once kind of like Caligula I guess which I also enjoyed not sure why though
maybe it's just that 70s/ early 80s era of movies like deer hunter, Amityville horror, dog day afternoon etc. that I enjoy
its second worst kubrick movie right behind paths of glory. Still kinda okay if you can get over the silly american slang
It's an excellent film. Although I find it funny that the soundtrack has more Rossini than it does Beethoven
More? Nah
thats because rossini was shabbos buttgoy.
starts like a snuff film and ends as if it had been a thoroughly profound experience. hope you like seeing wieners and breasts on your screen, cause this movie has a lot of them. i'm also not a big fan of the long shots or the long-ass runtime, personally.
in 2024, I think most of the themes explored by the movie have already been engrained in the average person's mind >le gouvernment bad and it won't be the eye-opening (hah) experience critics back then accredited it to be, since the internet these days is very adept at showing us just how cruel different governments can be.
it comes across as a movie that's trying to be shocking and profound to a 1970 audience (which i'm sure it was), but it falls flat when compared to the absurdity of the world we live in today.