ROCKS OFF - The Rolling Stones Message Board
http://rocksoff.org/cgi-bin/messageboard/YaBB.pl
GENERAL >> MAIN BOARD >> Clockwork Orange (NS)
http://rocksoff.org/cgi-bin/messageboard/YaBB.pl?num=1336073232

Message started by Factory Girl on May 3rd, 2012 at 2:27pm

Title: Clockwork Orange (NS)
Post by Factory Girl on May 3rd, 2012 at 2:27pm

Hello everybody!

I bought the Clockwork Orange dvd today.  What are your thoughts on this classic movie?

Title: Re: Clockwork Orange (NS)
Post by mojoman on May 3rd, 2012 at 2:28pm
moon approved!!!

Title: Re: Clockwork Orange (NS)
Post by Edith Grove on May 3rd, 2012 at 2:31pm
Wonder what it would have been like if the Stones had done it ?

Title: Re: Clockwork Orange (NS)
Post by Heart Of Stone on May 3rd, 2012 at 3:17pm
I saw it when it came out, very daring for the time, sex, violence & Beethoven!

Title: Re: Clockwork Orange (NS)
Post by Ian Billen on May 3rd, 2012 at 10:13pm


A Clockwork Orange is a bizarre and shocking masterpiece. It is my second favorite film of all time (and I have saw many).


There's no other film like it. A cinematic art piece from Kubrick.


It makes many top notch movies look like "kids play".  If you are a film fan, it is simply a must see...  and truly on a level all in it's own.


*Enjoy ... and try watching it alone late at night (it's not entirely scary though). You've made arguably the best movie purchase you possibly could of (although it is not a female flick... still if your into film... it is simply mandatory).


- Ian



Title: Re: Clockwork Orange (NS)
Post by MrPleasant on May 4th, 2012 at 3:11am
A legendary movie. A classic . What's to say? It should be in the top one hundred ten of everybody's favorites. As for ultraviolent pics, it stands proudly next to "The Wild Bunch"; as for very dark comedies, it is the logical sequel to "Dr. Strangelove"; as for pornography, I'm more the Russ Meyer type.

I think that seven or twenty Stanley Kubrick's discs are essential for one's collection.


Title: Re: Clockwork Orange (NS)
Post by LanternHigh on May 4th, 2012 at 6:06am
I believe is a movie to have and dont let on some shelve.. is just a masterpiece..one of the many of Kubrick;
On some late evening should be seen.. and no there arent many scenes of schock.. no.
Is the 2nd of my fav movies.

Bravo to have bought it, enjoy!

Title: Re: Clockwork Orange (NS)
Post by BONOISLOVE on May 4th, 2012 at 11:30am
Enough with the superlatives! This film is good, from a technical POV, but it's no Titanic (3D version). Don't believe in the critics, the oscars, or the french. U2 Rattle and Hum is, after all, everybody's idea of the most important best film ever made. Some people didn't like it, but I bet they enjoy doing some very nasty thing to themselves.

Has anyone seen Madonna? She should be punished for her "singing", alright, and for being a fake lesbian; however, I bet she's like the greatest actress ever. Like Julia Roberts or Brad Pitt.

Who cares about ugly angry people from the past like Spencer Tracy or George C. Scott? They always looked old.

Also, what's the deal with all those subtitled movies?

Title: Re: Clockwork Orange (NS)
Post by Ian Billen on May 4th, 2012 at 12:42pm

BONOISLOVE wrote on May 4th, 2012 at 11:30am:
Enough with the superlatives! This film is good, from a technical POV, but it's no Titanic (3D version). Don't believe in the critics, the oscars, or the french. U2 Rattle and Hum is, after all, everybody's idea of the most important best film ever made. Some people didn't like it, but I bet they enjoy doing some very nasty thing to themselves.

Has anyone seen Madonna? She should be punished for her "singing", alright, and for being a fake lesbian; however, I bet she's like the greatest actress ever. Like Julia Roberts or Brad Pitt.

Who cares about ugly angry people from the past like Spencer Tracy or George C. Scott? They always looked old.

Also, what's the deal with all those subtitled movies?



________________________________________________



The raw technical aspects of the filming wasn't so much it (although for what technology they had at the time the film is still fantastic... timeless). It is the acting, the score, the build-up ... the uniqueness of the parts... the characters and how they captivate you... how the story is incorporated to the film... the editing ...all those less technical aspects.  As far as the more technical stuff goes... Kubrick captivates you more with angles, scenery, lighting and costume than modern day films with all their million dollar camera equipment.


THAT is what makes great directing my friend, not the latest film technology. Leonardo Dicaprio with all the latest 3D film technology is less than forgettable next to Malcolm McDowell as Alex. There is where it lies.


Ian

Title: Re: Clockwork Orange (NS)
Post by BILL PERKS on May 4th, 2012 at 1:07pm
PART OF KUBRICK'S BRILLIANCE IS BUYING GREAT STORIES TO PORTRAY ON FILM AND HE PICKED ONE OF THE FINEST  BOOKS EVER WRITTEN.THE MOVIE IS FANTASTIC AND INNOVATIVE , BUT NOT HIS BEST.

Title: Re: Clockwork Orange (NS)
Post by Gimme Shelter on May 4th, 2012 at 4:05pm
CLASSIC

Title: Re: Clockwork Orange (NS)
Post by BONOISLOVE on May 6th, 2012 at 10:15pm

Ian Billen wrote on May 4th, 2012 at 12:42pm:

BONOISLOVE wrote on May 4th, 2012 at 11:30am:
Enough with the superlatives! This film is good, from a technical POV, but it's no Titanic (3D version). Don't believe in the critics, the oscars, or the french. U2 Rattle and Hum is, after all, everybody's idea of the most important best film ever made. Some people didn't like it, but I bet they enjoy doing some very nasty thing to themselves.

Has anyone seen Madonna? She should be punished for her "singing", alright, and for being a fake lesbian; however, I bet she's like the greatest actress ever. Like Julia Roberts or Brad Pitt.

Who cares about ugly angry people from the past like Spencer Tracy or George C. Scott? They always looked old.

Also, what's the deal with all those subtitled movies?



________________________________________________



The raw technical aspects of the filming wasn't so much it (although for what technology they had at the time the film is still fantastic... timeless). It is the acting, the score, the build-up ... the uniqueness of the parts... the characters and how they captivate you... how the story is incorporated to the film... the editing ...all those less technical aspects.  As far as the more technical stuff goes... Kubrick captivates you more with angles, scenery, lighting and costume than modern day films with all their million dollar camera equipment.


THAT is what makes great directing my friend, not the latest film technology. Leonardo Dicaprio with all the latest 3D film technology is less than forgettable next to Malcolm McDowell as Alex. There is where it lies.


Ian









ROCKS OFF - The Rolling Stones Message Board » Powered by YaBB 2.5.2!
YaBB Forum Software © 2000-2026. All Rights Reserved.