New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

A Clockwork Orange

post #1 of 31
1/27/07 at 9:07am
Thread Starter 
Just watched it for the first time last night and this morning (watched the first hour last night and the rest this morning). There are two guys I work with that were talking about this movie on Friday and for some reason I thought it might turn out to be some cult flick rubbish (Rocky Horror).

And I have to say, it wasn't too bad. Lots of imagery and dialogue that kept me attentive. I was worried that I wasn't going to like it, since about 10 years ago I stepped into the middle of the movie where Alex was receiving "treatment." But overall not a bad flick. Might be worth buying. Lots of classic one liners that are funny in themselves (a bit of the old ultraviolence).
Reply
Reply
post #2 of 31
1/27/07 at 1:15pm
It's a pretty good movie, a bit too crazy for me in some parts. I remember watching it for the first time in my psych class.
Reply
Reply
post #3 of 31
1/27/07 at 8:52pm
It's also a classic SF novel, written by Anthony Burgess during the height of Cold War paranoia. It is an important work with a message. Many are put off by the odd slang Burgess invented for his near-future Britain, but it is little harder than Heinlein's The Moon is a Harsh Mistress.

As much as I love the works of Kubrick, all I can say about the film is that it does half justice to the book. Burgess was a masterfull linguist, and the teen slang he invented in his novel, called "Nadsat" was actually fashionable for a short while among London's youth. He also invented the language called "Ulam", spoken by the cave people in Quest for Fire.

Gary
Reply
Reply
post #4 of 31
1/28/07 at 8:11am
Yes I've seen it many times. It has a strange draw for me. Little things also like the writers aid being the guy who was Darth Vader in the Ep IV-VI. What is strange is if you analyze it there is not just one thing but many and none of the things I like about it individually add up to a hill of beans but I still like the film.

Art
Reply
Reply
post #5 of 31
1/28/07 at 12:38pm
One of my favorites for sure.
Reply
Reply
post #6 of 31
1/28/07 at 5:17pm
This is my 2nd favorite Kubrick movie behind Dr. Strangelove. I like it better than 2001 which may label me a heretic to some, but that's ok. This is another movie using "period specific styles" that if you weren't around during the "mod" days, some things may be lost on you a bit, e.g. where did he ever get the idea to make something look like that? And when the movie first came out it carried an X rating which caused quite a hubbub.

larry
Reply
Reply
post #7 of 31
1/28/07 at 6:53pm
I like the part where he tea bags those two girls in his room playing classical music on high end gear.
Reply
Reply
post #8 of 31
1/29/07 at 5:41am
I think this is one of those movie's that just aged well. It's still very watchable. Kubrick for as much as so many don't like about him does make these kind of movies that kick around for decades.
Reply
Reply
post #9 of 31
1/29/07 at 7:10am
I'd strongly encourage anyone who's seen this and not read Burgess's book to do so - and get the version with the final chapter (unreleased in the UK, I believe).

I love the film adaptation and its near the top of my Kubrick favorites, but there are some things about the novel I like even better. Anyone who likes the film should really experience both.
Reply
Reply
post #10 of 31
1/29/07 at 7:35am
Quote:
Originally Posted by khyron View Post

I'd strongly encourage anyone who's seen this and not read Burgess's book to do so - and get the version with the final chapter (unreleased in the UK, I believe).

I've always felt that the final chapter was a huge cop-out, and that the book (and movie) are better without it.
Reply
Reply
post #11 of 31
1/29/07 at 7:40am
Another picture that I thought was profound when it came out and was I was young and smoked lots of pot. I was down in the Loop for the first showing of the picture and the theater was full of heads looking for another trip like 2001.

Now I see the picture as misanthropic and Kubrick as a miserable son of a bitch in general.
Reply
Reply
post #12 of 31
1/29/07 at 11:22am
Quote:
Originally Posted by PooperScooper View Post

... And when the movie first came out it carried an X rating which caused quite a hubbub.

larry

I've seen both the X and R cuts and there were a few short cuts in the R-rated version that I saw (this is back in the days of VHS, anybody remember those?). I mention this because I think some people reading your comment might think that it was just downgraded from X to R do to changing sensibilities.

BTW, I heard that some of the early DVDs had terrible PQ, so I still haven't gotten around to buying a copy. Do the new releases have good PQ and are any of them the original X-rated cut?
Reply
Reply
post #13 of 31
1/29/07 at 1:14pm
In Out In Out
Reply
Reply
post #14 of 31
1/29/07 at 2:06pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom Brennan View Post

Another picture that I thought was profound when it came out and was I was young and smoked lots of pot.

Now I see the picture as misanthropic and Kubrick as a miserable son of a bitch in general.

Dude, why all the hate for ol' Stan? Sounds like somebody needs a bong hit, stat!
Reply
Reply
post #15 of 31
1/29/07 at 2:27pm
Loved this movie for two reasons.

1) The political commentary in the movie was fantastic. Easy to see how modern political-correctness would result in a similar situation now.

2) Malcom McDowell at his best.

Chris.
Reply
Reply
post #16 of 31
1/29/07 at 4:29pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mac The Knife View Post

I've seen both the X and R cuts and there were a few short cuts in the R-rated version that I saw (this is back in the days of VHS, anybody remember those?). I mention this because I think some people reading your comment might think that it was just downgraded from X to R do to changing sensibilities.

BTW, I heard that some of the early DVDs had terrible PQ, so I still haven't gotten around to buying a copy. Do the new releases have good PQ and are any of them the original X-rated cut?

IMDB lists the minor changes for X -> R. I'm pretty sure I have all the (different) DVD releases of Clockwork Orange and IIRC the lastest one is not bad. If I get a chance I'll pop it in tonight.

larry
Reply
Reply
post #17 of 31
1/29/07 at 5:25pm
i loved this movie as much as i hated 2001... which was alot
Reply
Reply
post #18 of 31
1/30/07 at 4:09am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mac The Knife View Post

I've seen both the X and R cuts and there were a few short cuts in the R-rated version that I saw (this is back in the days of VHS, anybody remember those?). I mention this because I think some people reading your comment might think that it was just downgraded from X to R do to changing sensibilities.

BTW, I heard that some of the early DVDs had terrible PQ, so I still haven't gotten around to buying a copy. Do the new releases have good PQ and are any of them the original X-rated cut?

There's really only been 2 DVD versions, all OOP from what I can tell. The "remastered" version is non-anamophic 1.66:1. The PQ is quite good. I saw some EE here and there, there is some grain, of course, but the movie looks quite good. IIRC there's a hidef DVD version in the works, so I guess another SD DVD should be coming also.

larry
Reply
Reply
post #19 of 31
1/30/07 at 10:10am
Saw the HD version on INHD and it looked amazing, so an HD-DVD of this should really impress. Can't wait for the whole Kubrick set to finally look the way they should.
Reply
Reply
post #20 of 31
1/30/07 at 10:19am
Quote:
Originally Posted by FredProgGH View Post

Saw the HD version on INHD and it looked amazing, so an HD-DVD of this should really impress. Can't wait for the whole Kubrick set to finally look the way they should.

You know, so did I, and forgot. I knew I had seen it recently and didn't remember getting out the big collector's edition DVD case. Now I remember seeing the title on my DVR list. I kept it around for a while.

larry
Reply
Reply
post #21 of 31
1/30/07 at 10:45am
Quote:
Originally Posted by PooperScooper View Post

.... The "remastered" version is non-anamophic 1.66:1. ....

larry

This reminded me that it is also the 1.66:1 aspect ratio that has been keeping me from buying this. With my current setup, 1.66:1 looks bad no matter what settings I use.

I really don't understand Kubrick's use of 1.66:1 on all those films.
Reply
Reply
post #22 of 31
1/30/07 at 10:48am
1.66 was pretty much the standard AR for Britain at the time AFAIK. And Stanley liked square frames.
Reply
Reply
post #23 of 31
1/30/07 at 11:36am
"I really don't understand Kubrick's use of 1.66:1 on all those films. "

Regardless, that's what Kubrick liked. To not watch his pictures because you don't like his chosen aspect ratio is rather odd. Not that I can't think of reasons to dislike his pictures.......

What do you do about pictures that were shot in the Academy ratio?
Reply
Reply
post #24 of 31
1/30/07 at 5:43pm
never seen it, dont know if i will
Reply
Reply
post #25 of 31
1/30/07 at 8:00pm
I found it odd and twisted, but it kind of grows on you. Very strange movie. Not exactly something to watch with the family.
Reply
Reply
post #26 of 31
1/31/07 at 11:07am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom Brennan View Post

"I really don't understand Kubrick's use of 1.66:1 on all those films. "

Regardless, that's what Kubrick liked. To not watch his pictures because you don't like his chosen aspect ratio is rather odd. Not that I can't think of reasons to dislike his pictures.......

What do you do about pictures that were shot in the Academy ratio?

Academy ratio 1.33:1 is less of a problem in that it doesn't get postage stamped.

The problem I have is that since every 1.66:1 transfer I've seen in "non_enhanced", I can either watch a "postage stamped" image that is the correct ratio but has bars on all four sides.

Or, I can zoom out, which also has correct aspect ratio but has about 10% overscan.

Or I can stretch it to 16x9 and use the full screen with only a little overscan but with really fat people.

I guess I shouldn't complain about Stanley. If they would just do "enhanced" transfers with the 1.66:1 image in the 16x9 frame everting would be fine.
Reply
Reply
post #27 of 31
1/31/07 at 11:21am
"The problem I have is that since every 1.66:1 transfer I've seen in "non_enhanced", I can either watch a "postage stamped" image that is the correct ratio but has bars on all four sides"

Ah, now I understand.

Regrds
Reply
Reply
post #28 of 31
1/31/07 at 9:46pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by FredProgGH View Post

Saw the HD version on INHD and it looked amazing, so an HD-DVD of this should really impress. Can't wait for the whole Kubrick set to finally look the way they should.


I have this on my DVR, but I haven't watched it yet. Do you know if they cut anything out of the INHD showing? I'd rather watch it in HD if it's the uncut version, but if it's been edited and stuff taken out, I'd rather see the original on DVD.
Reply
Reply
post #29 of 31
2/1/07 at 12:05am
It was uncut, at least as far as I could tell. It was also cropped down to 16x9, but since that is how it was shown in American theaters (AFAIK, anyway), it seemed like a perfectly acceptable framing.
Reply
Reply
post #30 of 31
2/1/07 at 12:47am
Cool. Thanks! I've never watched it before, and I'm looking forward to it. Glad I won't be missing anything with the HD version.
Reply
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home