Write descriptive essay about A Clockwork Orange movie 1971, write an essay of at least 500 words on A Clockwork Orange, 5 paragraph essay on A Clockwork Orange, definition essay, descriptive essay, dichotomy essay.
A Clockwork Orange
Year:
1971
Country:
USA, UK
Genre:
Crime, Drama, Thriller, Sci-Fi
IMDB rating:
8.4
Director:
Stanley Kubrick
Patrick Magee as Mr Alexander
Michael Bates as Chief Guard
John Clive as Stage Actor
Adrienne Corri as Mrs. Alexander
Carl Duering as Dr. Brodsky
Paul Farrell as Tramp
Clive Francis as Lodger
Michael Gover as Prison Governor
Miriam Karlin as Catlady
James Marcus as Georgie
Aubrey Morris as Deltoid
Godfrey Quigley as Prison Chaplain
Storyline: Protagonist Alex DeLarge is an "ultraviolent" youth in futuristic Britain. As with all luck, his eventually runs out and he's arrested and convicted of murder and rape. While in prison, Alex learns of an experimental program in which convicts are programed to detest violence. If he goes through the program, his sentence will be reduced and he will be back on the streets sooner than expected. But Alex's ordeals are far from over once he hits the mean streets of Britain that he had a hand in creating.
Type Resolution File Size Codec Bitrate Format
1080p 1784x1080 px 8958 Mb h264 128 Kbps mkv Download
DVD-rip 640x480 px 641 Mb mpeg4 655 Kbps mp4 Download
Reviews
A Brilliant, Startling, and Unforgettable Film
I became an instant Kubrick fan once I saw 2001, and I became even more hooked when i saw Dr. Strangelove. A Clockwork Orange solidified my belief that Kubrick is bar none the greatest director ever. This truly unique sci-fi film remains the most disturbing movie I have seen, and it's 35 years old.

The fact that this film lost Best Picture to The French Connection puzzles me and yet, at the same time, doesn't surprise me. The Academy could never reward such a daring film as this, especially a science fiction film. 35 years later, this movie would still warrant a hard R rating, if not a near NC-17. The way that Kubrick puts the violence in the film like it's no big deal is really scary and disturbing, which makes the movie marvelous.

The cinematography and editing of this picture are truly mind-blowing. From the opening image of the anti-hero, Alex, staring down the camera, to the eerie ending shot, you cannot keep your eyes off of the screen. The way the film was shot remains cutting edge to this day, and you'd be amazed at how long the takes are and how mind-blowing the cinematography is. And one could never forget the sex scene, basically a motion blur, to the William Tell Overture. The use of slow-motion was also used perfectly, a breath of fresh air in a time where it is used sloppily and for no reason.

The direction is like none other. The rape scenes are unflinchingly done, and the sporadic and flashy style (rendered cliché by films such as Saw) makes for some of the triipiest scenes on film. Kubrick did wonders with the camera and made for an insane trip, with a startling message of violence in our youth and the effects of a government experiment. One must watch this movie more than once to truly appreciate it.

What really, really makes the film so incredible is Malcolm McDowell. His portrayal of Alex, a young delinquent who entertains himself with violence and rape, is truly one of the greatest performances on film. His nasty sneer and devilish performance is flawless. You can see the way he holds back a grin when he says he's going into jail for murder, and during the treatment scenes, his delight turning to utter shock is unforgettably real. He makes the film what it is: a classic.

As much as I have gushed about the movie, it is definitely not for the faint of heart. The rape scenes get very out of control, and the subject matter is incredibly disturbing. However, if you keep an open mind and aren't a stupid teenager who will watch it for some T & A, you'll realize how amazing of a film this is, and how well it holds up after three and a half decades.
2006-04-04
Practically a parody
"A Clockwork Orange" is my favorite novel of all time. Before watching the movie I wondered if it would do justice to the novel. Well, it didn't. The movie was basically a porno version of the novel. Kubrick's aim seems to have been to take a philosophically meaningful story and incorporate as much female nudity into it as possible. Why? I guess it was avant-garde or something. I think there were a couple occasions on which bare "groodies" were possibly warranted. Other than that, the nudity was over-the-top and cheesy.

People talk about how disturbing the violence is in "A Clockwork Orange." Disturbing violence? I really didn't see any. What did masquerade as violence reminded me of the old "Tom and Jerry" show. Most of the violence consisted of Alex and his droogs tapping each other and their victims with canes, but the bizarre sound effects during these scenes told the viewer to see this as brutal. In another scene Alex raises a phallic sculpture in order to clobber a crazy cat-lady, but you don't actually see him hitting her with it; instead, you are shown something that looks a bit like cartoon fireworks. Then the rape scenes are always accompanied by upbeat music which just makes them seem comical. The violence in the book was truly disturbing, but I don't see how you are supposed to take violence in this movie seriously.

The book had a theme, which was that a person's most important right is being able to think and choose for himself, and nobody has the right to take that away from him regardless of the consequences. In its truly ridiculous final scene, the movie obliterated that theme by choosing to focus on and glorify Alex's sexual fantasies, as if he was some sort of perverted superhero. Thus the point the movie inadvertently seems to end up making is that if the government doesn't stop people, they will just go out and perform deviant acts, but deviance is so much fun that the government shouldn't try to stop them. This completely undermines the message of the book.

In short, the novel is a literary masterpiece. The movie is a hypersexualized, cartoonish version of that masterpiece, practically a parody. Good thing Kubrick didn't try a film version of "Pride and Prejudice"--wonder how that would have turned out. There are numerous things I hate about this movie, from the glow-in-the-dark jumpsuits to the fact that I will never be able to listen to the William Tell overture the same way again. But it had a few good points. It did follow the basic storyline of the book up until the end and was well acted and filmed. For that I will generously give it a 3.
2009-05-06
Disgusting crap
I had heard about this movie for many years so I finally decided to watch and am embarrassed that I even spent any time watching this junk, which so many 'enlightened types' apparently think is art - or according to some articles that I read. Let's suppose for a minute that the protagonist was a female and little 'Jane' spent her nights sodomizing and castrating unsuspecting males, drawn to her beauty. Janie is just a little party girl, you see, who loves to have fun - she doesn't realize how bad she really is. We are supposed to sympathize, you see. When the terrible government tries to reeducate her, we should mourn for her passing.... Uh...yeah. Bet that some who think this movie is just nifty would have a different view if tables were turned. Personally I have a hard time with any movie portraying graphic violence against women posing as a movie that is trying to portray society in a meaningful way. The sets may have been futuristic at the time, but just look dated now; the constant camera angle looking down at the menacing face, becomes tiresome very quickly. It's as if the movie tries too hard to convince us of its uniqueness or artfulness, if you will. What a waste of time and money.
2011-09-06
amazing, the greatest villain ever, nothing has scared me more
i just saw this movie about a day ago, and it completely blew me away, namely the main character, protagonist, hero? Alex. we love, hate, and or just plain utterly confused about how we feel of Alex. Alex is the greatest villain ever because he is ourselves, he is the worst of ourselves. hes the deep dark place inside you that rises to the surface eventually, and then pushed down just as fast because it terrifies you. the way Alex stares into the camera in the first scene just freaks me out, he has a little smirk on his face that seems to say you may hate me, but you'll never be rid of me, because there can never be good without the bad, and i am the bad.
2005-03-19
A sick, twisted masterpiece
A Clockwork Orange is my favourite film of all time, and deservedly so; I've watched it 10 times, and it never fails to disappoint. Whether you love it or you hate it, you will never forget it. It's a disturbing and dark film, but if you can stomach it, you'll almost certainly like it.

The film is an adaption of the novel of the same name. The story follows Alex Delarge, a young boy who participates in the old "ultraviolence" with his "droogies" (or, in other words, he beats up, steals from and rapes people with his friends). The "ultraviolence" is, indeed, ultra violent; the "Singin' In The Rain" scene is sickening, taking a sweet song that we all know and love and changing the way we think about it forever.

Georgie, one of his fellow droogies, talks about the "Cat Lady", an old woman who runs an health farm off in the countryside. On the weekends, she's all by herself; the perfect target for some ultraviolence, Georgie says! So the next day, they decide to head off to the house. Alex attempts to make his way into the house using the phrase he has always used: "Excuse me, can you please help? There's been a terrible accident!" Alex asks if he can use the Cat Lady's phone to contact the emergency services, but The Cat Lady refuses.

And we soon learn why, as she realises the words the "young man" said at the door were awfully similar to the ones quoted in the newspapers about an incident with an author (which also involved Alex) and so she phones the police who agree to come down to her house (although she doesn't think it necessary). Alex, however, has managed to make his way into her house and, after some talking, fights her and murders her. Alex, for once shocked with what he's done, runs outside to his droogies. But they haven't forgotten Alex beating them up earlier in an attempt to show who's leader, and smash a milk bottle over his head and quickly flee, leaving him to the hands of the police who soon arrive. Alex is arrested and taken to prison.

I won't go any further into the plot, as the plot really starts from there. But I will say this again; the film is very dark and sick. There are some scenes which, even on my 10th viewing, still shock me. It is frightening at times and does not ever hold back. But if you are still willing to see it, then you will love it. Each and every scene in this film is vivid and memorable. The only thing which turned me off initially was the language this film uses. The original book used a unique language called "Nadsat" and it still uses it for this film. First time around, watch the film with subtitles on (unless you've already read the book) or you will not understand it. Read up on the language, there are many sites with a Nadsat dictionary. Other than that, this is a masterpiece with not a single flaw. Some would dispute that fact, calling it over-the-top violence, but for everyone else, it's a timeless classic.
2010-07-10
Conspiracy!
Something's probably bugged you about "A Clockwork Orange" and other films like it. You're not quite sure what it is, but it makes you mad. That's because you are witness to one of the greatest conspiracies of moviedom. Critics say Clockwork Orange is good. Film professors teach that Clockwork Orange is a masterpiece. Contentious artsy-fartsy students can't shut their silver spoon mouths about the brilliance that lies within Clockwork Orange. They do this about many, many horrid films, and we take it meekly, assuming that other people know something we don't.

That's a lie, 'cause I know it all. And A Clockwork Orange reeks. It's a lot like Impressionistic art: labeled as classy and innovative, yet it really makes no sense to anyone.

I tells it like it is. Here you have a film that has a really antagonistic subject Alex (Malcom McDowell) who revels in sex, violence, and talking in some sort of weird language that's most likely based on sounds emanating from 5-month-old tots. After some shocking, shocking acts of violence and rape (and CHECK OUT that phallic imagery, our film professors chime), the law catches up with Alex and throws him in jail. A bizarre experiment rehabilitates him to become nauseous at the mere thought of sex, violence, and Beethoven. From this point on, a large subtitle might as well be flashing "SOCIAL COMMENTARY" at the bottom of the screen.

My thought is, social commentary in movies is fossilized dinosaur dung sold at museums, unless shown with a spark of creativity. This is not the case. The plot turn is not more complicated than anything you've seen on a Happy Meal box. Think: What goes around comes around. Alex treats his friends badly. Later, they do the same to him. Alex tries to beat the system. Alex drinks milk. Blah, blah, blah. Kubrick revels in long, dry stretches of cinematic wasteland that has everyone barking that it's the best thing since Oprah started reading books. Open your eyes to the truth! It's just a few people bullying you into liking something that you haven't had the time to make up your own mind about! Free the people! Begin the revolution!
2006-01-26
Awesome Movie
A pure classic movie. A psychological Thriller. One of the best of all time. Is a comedy and a horror all in one. You can't beat this movie. A oldie but with watching. You will love this movie. Makes you wonder why can't Hollywood make more movies like this. Made in1971 but is way before its time.

My favorite movie 11 June 2001 | by Ayatollah (Florida) – See all my reviews Without a doubt, my absolute favorite film of all time. I first saw this movie three years ago and I have been in love with it (and Stanley Kubrick) ever since. I never get tired of seeing this movie. Why it remains so under-appreciated (at least by "casual" movie viewers) is beyond me. Everything is great; acting, direction, cinematography, the sets, everything.

Something that I don't think anyone else commented on was the Russian motif. The names of the droogs (Alexander, George, Peter, and Dim...short for Dimitri) are decidedly Russian. The singer referenced in the record store, Johnny Zhivago, has obvious Russian overtones. The statement made by the Minister of the Interior about the "peace-loving citizens" is a direct reference to the name that Soviet government representatives applied to their people when talking about the Cold War. Red seems to stand out from other colors. And, of course, who could forget Nadsat, the Russian slang language? I wonder what Burgess and Kubrick were trying to suggest about the future of Ingsoc (those familiar with "1984" will understand.
2017-06-22
We All Are Ready For A Little Of The Old Ultraviolence
Spoilers Ahead:

What a masterpiece!! He loves to hold a mirror up to our monstrous faces beneath our masks and laugh at our vanity. Stanley delighted in having fun with our hubris about ourselves. Yes, little Alex has all violence removed from him and he is set free in that idyllic paradise we kid ourselves is our society. He is as helpless and defenseless as a little lamb. His former gang members, now cops, proceed to torture and almost kill him. I hear feminists yelling what is the point of all that sexist violence in the beginning. I have never found one women who liked this movie; this is largely due to the rape scene and where Alex chases the women with the giant porcelain male sex object. Well, the point is for fools, who like Aristotle, hold that nobody enjoys doing evil; they only do evil because they believe it to be good. Sorry, the world is filled with monsters who enjoy hurting others for the wonderful feeling of power it gives them. Look at Alex's home life, how little and powerless he is, but at night he goes out and gives himself a real ego boost at the expense of everyone else.

It reminds me of Freud's letter to Alred Adler: "Why on earth should I care for creatures the majority of whom will do me great harm for the smallest gain and a minority who will harm me just for the enjoyment it gives them." This is the point; WE ARE ALL READY FOR A LITTLE OF THE OLD ULTRAVIOLENCE. It is neither a popular nor pleasant truth; Stanley loves to let us see what irrational violent savages living within a complete psychotic delusion of our real nature. The bone thrown into the air becomes a nuclear missile platform in space in 2001. The same message: you are still the murderous violent savage do not be so impressed with yourself, you big phony. The whole thesis of DR STRANGELOVE is this: despite all this technology these dangerously irrational fools will wipe themselves all out. We will meet again somewhere, do not know where or when: human irrationality and world destroying technology equal only one thing: ANNIHILATION.

The core of the film has nothing to do with Alex; it is the society around him that thinks non violence is the cure of criminality when the world is a dangerous and violent place. But, they will never let that reality into their little bubbles they live within to keep up a happy soporific coma. Alex is you; Alex is me we are monsters. Let the power grid go off and we will all be Alex I assure you. The monster is within each one of us; Kubrick wants you to see when he was released among us it did not quite go the way we expected. Self delusion the theme of Kubrick you will find it always in his works that and how in the dark we are about our real nature.
2015-05-26
Shitty
Awful acting, awful direction and awful screen play. All in all a shitty movie. I have no issues with the content matter, im not saying the content is poor but the execution is. And lord knows why it is one of the controversial movies, i don't see anything controversial about it. Im a big fan of controversial cinema but it neither amounts to a good controversy nor to a well directed movie. It not even worth a single star but that is as low as i can go. There is nothing more to say about this movie but IMDb wants me to at least write 10 lines of review so im gonna add few more lines. Its shitty and a big waste of time. Do not watch this. Its better to watch a cartoon instead. Its like a poor comedy that pretends to be different but its just shitty. Im sure that's ought to do it. Thanks
2014-07-31
A black comedy so black some will not see the comedy....
I find it bizarre how so many great films from spat upon genres like horror and costumed heroes receive such vitriol from critics who enjoy BAD films in those categories but despise good ones, alway's their pathetic answer is the same: 'OMG The 'BATMAN & ROBIN' IZ BETTER DEN The 'DARK KNIGHT' BEKUZ IT DUZNT TAEK ITSELF SERIOUSLY LOL!' I fail to understand that argument. It's fine for a director to have a sense of humor and not be obnoxious about his craft, but there's a difference between having fun and not giving any effort by goofing off. Would you give some lazy student who sleeps through class who always comes in high and writes 'F- you' on a test as an answer an A+ because he doesn't take school seriously? If you give bad films like 'Batman & Robin' good ratings over 'The Dark Knight' because they 'Aren't serious' you are essentially doing the same thing. This filthy minded Liberal mentality has infected all aspects of film, with many excellent directors taking flack for the serious thematic content in their films.

Chief among these persecuted directors is the once-vaunted Stanley Kubrick, whose name is now used by these indie film fans and liberal canker sores as slang for 'pretentious' or 'overrated' or 'Taking himself too seriously'(one truly bizarre troll who sees the untalented Jason Friedberg as superior to Kubrick who I insulted sent me a string of hate mail telling me to orally pleasure him for weeks, that sums up the level of maturity of these people). What these disgusting people forget, however, is Kubrick's amazing range. He has directed romantic films, horror films, science fiction films, period melodramas, war films, but also comedies. Not only is he responsible for the famous comedy/satire 'Dr. Strangelove'(Which I will review along with another, more blatant comedy I feel is a spiritual descendant of 'Strangelove'), he has also infused even his grimmest films with humor('Full metal Jacket' has lots of black comedy in the suffering of 'Gomer Pyle' and in the Drill Seargent's over-the-top insults, and the famous 'Here's Johnny' sequence in 'The Shining'), but 'A Clockwork Orange' is perhaps his most biting speculative satire, and like I said, it's so grim many will fail to see the comedy.

The plot is simple, an obnoxious but intellectual young gang leader named Alex(Malcom McDowell in what is easily his best performance)commits the vilest of deeds, is betrayed by his cronies who are sick of his tyranny, and volunteers for a reformative treatment which makes things worse than before. And it encompasses all spectrum's of comedy, from slapstick, sexual innuendo, irony and social satire. The wonky imagery, along with it's bizarre but blatant sexual overtones, ridiculous outfits and classical music score smacks not of a Kubrick film, but a Ken Russel film on drugs. Alex isn't really that different than cartoon character's like Woody Woodpecker, Bugs Bunny, and in some cases Mickey Mouse, or silent comedians like Chaplin's Tramp. He antagonizes people in a stylized manner, makes a bunch of dumb cracks then suffers last minute. There's a big difference, though. Here, we SEE and FEEL him pay for his crimes, and are forced to consider what we as an audience have accepted and voyeuristicly participated in, and makes us feel guilty. If that was Kubrick's only purpose, the film would still be a masterpiece, but it's just his secondary purpose.

He explores just what happens when Alex is subjected to a 'cure' that will rob him of his violent impulses. It does rob him of his negative impulses, but it fails to make him 'good' so much as unresponsive, even when he needs those impulses. It also stops him from engaging in the only loves in his life that AREN'T destructive; his love of 'Ludwig Van', his neglected and manipulated, but still beloved parents and his pet snake(Symbolically representing his now circumcised manhood). For all of his crimes, his suffering is genuinely heartbreaking, AND WE STILL FEEL GUILTY ABOUT IT, since Alex is a character that we should have no reason to feel sorry for, but do anyway. One minute we are forced to be disgusted with liking him, then disgusted that we ever hated him. Brilliant, manipulative, but brilliant.

Beyond that, the film poses the disturbing question about 'reform' programs: If it is unjust to rob someone as disgusting and deserving of punishment as Alex of his free will, then how much worse is it to subject lesser criminals or the mentally ill to such treatment? In real life, those lesser criminals or the mentally ill would be subjected to such treatment, and someone like Alex wouldn't get the chance, thus meaning that the truly innocent suffer even MORE undeservedly than the guilty. And then there's the implication that it all comes undone and that Alex returns to his old ways. So that means that in real life, lesser criminals would suffer FOR NOTHING.

What a brilliant question to pose: If the guilty don't deserve it, who does? It's all a balancing act, social commentary, satire, horror, humor, but Kubrick makes it all work, and doesn't 'Take himself too seriously' for a second of it, unless you consider a rape scored to 'Singin' in the Rain' and women eager for an orgy sucking on phallic-shaped lollipops to be reverent and conservative and stuffy.

Try and make a film as rich as that, 'Care-free filmmakers'. I dare you.~
2009-07-11
See Also
Write descriptive essay about A Clockwork Orange movie 1971, A Clockwork Orange movie essay, literary essay A Clockwork Orange, A Clockwork Orange essay writing, narrative essay, A Clockwork Orange 500 word essay, argumentative essay A Clockwork Orange.
×