Are there actually people who think this movie is bad? If yes, explain why

Are there actually people who think this movie is bad? If yes, explain why.

It's too LE edgy

That's doubtful OP, not that many retards come to Sup Forums

>That's doubtful OP, not that many retards come to Sup Forums
Plenty of underage/millenials like though, who have no grasp of its context or cinematic significance at least. Fuck, they probably don't even know it was a book.

Because most guys will never fuck two girls at once.

>can't detect sarcasm

It's a good movie but you're an autist

It's not bad, but I don't like it.

There are no flaws in the execution of all the filmmaking elements, everything is how it should be.
But I just don't like/enjoy the narrative and the overall atmosphere, While I understand the themes and ideas behind it, I get nothing out of it personally while watching.

Its a shame so many people dont even know these kinos exist. They all just watching crap like 50 shades darker.

Decent point. Can agree.

I watched that movie when I was around 15 and got obsessed with it. I showed it to other people one time when we were drunk late at night and then I got mad when one of them fell asleep and therefore obviously didn't appreciate this masterpiece. Good times.

You had some of the ultra violence before you went drunk? Lol your story sounds like the movie itself.

FOOOOOOOOOOOOOOD, alright?

I actually dont even want this
Never found that interesting

Tried watching it once. They beat up some homeless dude or something. There was some queer looking car and a horrible background and they're all giggling while the hat guy eye fucks the camera. Shut it off soon after. Seemed mad gay. Tenacious D did it better in a 30 second scene.

Roger Ebert hated it. Me too.

dont even try op the fucks who hate it are idiots and you gonna get trolled by other fucks

I though it was pretty linear, simplistic, the third act felt like a huge deus ex machina.

Only thing I really liked was the tension on the old men house at that one point, but it was diluted by an awful resolution.
Like if the writer coulnd't decide going for the brutal resolution, or a funny one, to cut the tension, so he mix both like you would mix a jar of mayonnaise and a jar of peanut butter.

Worst fake argument ever

What?

It's nothing like the book, and takes out the entire fucking ending so it just randomly stops.

>It's nothing like the book

Not an argument

>ignoring my second point

>the """government""" indoctrinates alex into thinking the nazi's is the epitome of evil

What did Kubrick mean by this?

the book is way better.

WELL WELL WELL WELL WELL

I did the see it until I was out of my teens

in the end, society are the nazi, and society literally breastfeeds Alex. He's completely reformed now!

tl;dr "ultraviolence" and "society" are the same: but while Alex wears his costume to be different from all other gangs and criminals (we can see he stands out, he's probably the most influent gang leader), when society takes his leadership away from him, nothing really changes: he still lies, he still thinks about women and sex, and killing.
in the end, the only thing you can learn is: don't even ever try to live outside the established ules of society: it doesn't change much, but you gotta stay in your place.

fuck off Herts student

Roger Ebert is a fucking pleb

that reference i got it

>be ebert
>talk shit your entire life
>die of mouth cancer

doesn't realize that Nazis are assholes

my only complaint is that besides the rape scene, violence in this is more light hearted and cartoonish late nite romping than the brutal shit it was in the book. The gang fight is just acrobatics and western gimmicks while in the book alex carved the enemy gang leaders face with razor so he got blinded by blood

It's incredibly boring, like any other Kubrick film

Roger Ebert is in general a good critic but his opinion has to be auto discarded whenever a film features any of the following:

Violence (unless its to show how ebul racists are)
Horror elements
Science fiction elements

>He gave Leon a bad score because the relationship between leon and mathilda made him uncomfortable, and saw it as a "generic action movie"

>he called Alien a "haunted house movie in space"

>he didnt like The Thing

>he completely failed to understand the point of Fight Club because he got hung up on the "glorification of violent fascism"

>he gave Reservoir Dogs 2.5 stars

>he didnt like Blade Runner

>he refused to give Dirty Harry top marks because "the film's message is fascist"

Ebert is a hypocrite. He claims that a good critic is one that manages to leave his own prejudices and preconceptions at the door, but whenever a movie made a point that didnt sit right with him (for instance that violence can be used instrumentally or that fascism is a natural swing of the pendulum if things become too liberal) he became a petulant child and gave unjustified low ratings.

Thanks for the quick rundown on Roger Ebert

I don't think it's bad. I just don't think it's anything particularly impressive.
I found it's themes and ideas to be crystal clear and blatant and the fact that they are so easy to comprehend presents no stimulation. I'd rather watch something like Dr.Strangelove which masks the underlying concept between layers of irony and satire.
My distaste for the film only comes out of the fact that this is one of those movies that "film buff" fedoralords parade to show off their taste, the same kind of people who think V For Vendetta is a masterpiece. It's like Fight Club, the movie is fine but it's cult is terrible.
Again, the movie is great, Malcolm McDowell's performance is great, but it's just a movie that didn't grab too much of my interest. This is low-tier Kubrick.

Pretentious, "plot", dude shocking lmao, dude outrageous lmao

>"hey guys look at how ignorant I am"

lol only teenage wankers think this movie is deep

I love the main character, but ever since the first watch I started turning it off once he gets to prison, without the intrigue it becomes meh

Definitely iconic though, love the way it's composed.

>Low-Tier Kubrick
....

The whole movie is pretty cartoonish and farcical, though. The costumes, the sets, even some of the performances remindest me of something that could have been in the 60s Batman show. I don't know about the book, I haven't read it, but the movie was obviously going for a certain campiness.

Lol this though.