I Hated A Clockwork Orange

[rara avis]

Go ahead, have at me, I've brought foam bats with which you may take out your aggression:

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


I just watched it for the first time the other night. I thought it was ridiculous, masturbatory, tedious, clumsy, and just... hatefully boring. I was conscious of all the actors acting. I found I could not care what happened to anyone in the movie, or what they had to say. The sets could've been designed by an excitable 15 year old. I thought the attempts to be sssshhhocking were juvenile- even looked at from the perspective of 1971 when it was "pushing the envelope"- and btw, K-Word, thanks for doing everyone that favor - and I have been considerably more entertained by people's detailed explanations of why this movie is great than I was by the movie itself. That's bad.


Anyway, since the topic of the day seems to be movies, I thought I'd toss that out there and see whether anyone has something to say. FTR, I was disappointed not to at least find this movie interesting.


The Shining was very good. Next up: either Barry Lyndon or Dr. Strangelove.

[Prunesquallor]

What about the book? I liked it...never seen the movie, though.

[uncon]

3. I will send you my thoughts on it, but only if you say "please"...

Regarding Lynch - see Inland Empire. It's no Mulholland but incredible nonetheless. Two (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) good sites (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.).

Something to keep in mind is that every character is not to be taken literally. They could be two sides of the same person or they could represent something metaphorically and not be a character at all in the traditional sense. Lynch's films are dreams and in dreams there are literal, physical things mixed in with symbolic/magical things. Ultimately his films are always about a loss of innocence (really, his innocence lost told through different characters). Lynch is one of the greats - maybe the only actual "great" director left that would be up there with Bergman or Bunuel. I can't think of any contemporary director who I like more when considering their entire career. There aren't many artists but he is surely one. This wasn't really directed at you dalidaisy - just needed a jumping on point.

Me and You and Everyone We Know (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) - beautiful work.

[rara avis]

Haven't read it. The language would have been interesting, if it hadn't gotten kind of lost in my overall sense of irritation. I actually was wondering about the book while I was watching, for that reason.

[azelismia]

Go ahead, have at me, I've brought foam bats with which you may take out your aggression:

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


I just watched it for the first time the other night. I thought it was ridiculous, masturbatory, tedious, clumsy, and just... hatefully boring. I was conscious of all the actors acting. I found I could not care what happened to anyone in the movie, or what they had to say. The sets could've been designed by an excitable 15 year old. I thought the attempts to be sssshhhocking were juvenile- even looked at from the perspective of 1971 when it was "pushing the envelope"- and btw, K-Word, thanks for doing everyone that favor - and I have been considerably more entertained by people's detailed explanations of why this movie is great than I was by the movie itself. That's bad.


Anyway, since the topic of the day seems to be movies, I thought I'd toss that out there and see whether anyone has to say. FTR, I was disappointed not to at least find this movie interesting.


The Shining was very good. Next up: either Barry Lyndon or Dr. Strangelove.

I hated a clockwork orange too. Dr strangelove is definitely worthwhile though. awesome movie.

[uncon]

I thought it was ridiculous, masturbatory, tedious, clumsy, and just... hatefully boring.

It is all those things and more. It works on two levels - social commentary (this stuff is bad, so is the treatment) and vicarious enjoyment (probably only for men though). Like when Fox news does a show on how horrible pornography is - it's a good excuse to show titillating things while condemning them.

It deals with crime and punishment, aggression and guilt brought on by an out of control libido (testosterone). Born with a sweet tooth in a candy store behind thick glass. What was the real point of the film - maybe it's simply about a young male's perspective of civilization as one of it's discontents. I identified quite a bit with the protagonist but mostly in thought and not in deed, being a somewhat externally reserved INTJ.

I wouldn't have recommended it to you though.

2001 or Strangelove are good choices but I think Full Metal Jacket might be his best though. Lolita is more depressing than sensational and Eyes Wide Shut is a disaster. Never seen Lyndon b/c it seemed like a snoozer.

[Night Runner]

I watched it once with a few buddies - they were big fans, so that made the experience bearable. It didn't leave much of an impression on me, except for 3 things:
1) The fast-forwarded sex scene was amusing.
2) I understand K's effort to sound artsy and use Russian words, but did he have to butcher them so horribly? It's not devOchka - it's dEvochka, for FSM's sake!
3) I found the brainwashing/eye-poking scene to be very disturbing. I'm very protective of my eyes (to the point where I would never wear contacts) and seeing all those things done to the actor's eyes was easily one of the most disturbing movie-watching experiences I have ever had.

[BlackOp]

Well...CWO isnt one of my favorite Kubrick films. It was a button pusher...especially for what was happening in 1971 cinema. He was already punching holes in "modern escapism" before there was modern "ultra-violent" escapism...he saw it coming. The underlying premise came in one quote " thing seems so much more "alive" when they are on the big screen". All the exaggerated penis imagery (to me) was about repressed males living vicariously through moving images...their heros are reckless, lawless womanizers. "Badboys"....Ironically his satire backfired as there were outbreaks of real-life imitators. Kubrick had the movie pulled in some places......when was the last time that happened. Props...

One scene that is lost on some is the joyride car scene...with the cheesy blue screen superimposed backdrop. He wanted to make them appear "cartoony"...as if to mock the viewers vicarious obsession with violence and create an emotional disconnect.

Like it or hate it...it still is an important film. There was nothing like it at the time. It is a bit form over function but respect its insubordinance and nose thumbing. Quite the juxtaposition to 2001 (rated G) which was his previous film. I think he "wanted to get dirty" with it and push the envelope. He had guts...

[Bobert]

Barry Lyndon was punished by many. A lot of Kubricks' films arouse controversy.

I liked Clockwork when I was 18. But I haven't seen it in a long while. I didn't care for Eyes Wide Shut either.
But his camera work is amazing.

[dandylion]

I found the brainwashing/eye-poking scene to be very disturbing. I'm very protective of my eyes (to the point where I would never wear contacts) and seeing all those things done to the actor's eyes was easily one of the most disturbing movie-watching experiences I have ever had.

Oh yes, that part made me want to die.

[tp6626]

I enjoyed it, but I think I can see why someone might not be interested by it. I think it does appeal to young males more; it is somewhat juvenile.

I preferred Dr Strangelove, and will bet that you can't stop thinking of Moriarty when you watch it! :) (With that avatar, Moriarty is Dr Strangelove to me, I even imagine him sat in the wheelchair, and when I read his posts they are in that accent).

Anyway, I won't want to spoil anything, so I'll not do any odd quotes (there are plenty). In fact, seeing as you didn't like CWO, I'm hard pushed to guess which way you'll swing with regards to Dr Strangelove.

I thought it was funny, thought-provoking, and full of oddly intriguing ideas. I reckon they all had a good laugh making it! :)

(I don't think Jennifer Aniston is in it though).

[CatalystAK]

A Clockwork Orange does seem like a film you either really like or one that you really hate. I personally really liked it because when I first saw it I was in the middle of taking a film criticism class and I could really identify all the parts of the film because things are so extreme.

I also think that the 'really like it or really hate it' is true of a lot of Kubrick's works. I really liked The Shining, Dr Strangelove and Full Metal Jacket. 2001 and Spartacus I saw when I was younger and didn't fully appreciate them but if I saw them now I might.

[BlackOp]

Regarding Lynch - see Inland Empire.

I am a big fan of Lynch but Inland Empire was way too self-indulgent and LONG. IMO. To the point of becoming annoying rather than abstractly challenging. I found the first 1/2 of Lost Highway to be similar in tone (to IE) but much more effective and unconsciously creepy. Mulholland Drive and Blue Velvet were fantastic though. I am a huge fan of Bergman also and agree about Lynch being in the same class (almost).

[Ntwadumela]

Oh, and Mulholland Drive (another Lynch film). If you like complexity & brain teasers, this one's perfect.

I find it quite fitting that you would like this movie, with all the sexual undertones (as well as the overt ones) and all.

I actually took a film studies class two years ago and chose that movie as my culminating final project - disassembling and analyzing every minute detail. My presentation was over 2 hours long to do this movie justice.

Honestly, I wouldn't say Mulholland Drive is even one of my favorite movies, but I loved the challenge in understanding such an abstract, convoluted, and non-linear story.

[uncon]

I am a big fan of Lynch but Inland Empire was way too self-indulgent and LONG. IMO. To the point of becoming annoying rather than abstractly challenging. Mulholland Drive and Blue Velvet were fantastic though. I am a huge fan of Bergman also and agree about Lynch being in the same class (almost).

Yes, not his best but still good if you're into Lynch. They're probably not in the same class but I really can't think of anyone else that would even come close. There just aren't any huge names anymore - a sure sign that we're in the declining phase (popular music seems that way also). Oh well, opera had its time also.

[BlackOp]

I find it quite fitting that you would like this movie, with all the sexual undertones (as well as the overt ones) and all.

I actually took a film studies class two years ago and chose that movie as my culminating final project - disassembling and analyzing every minute detail.

My presentation was over 2 hours long to give this movie justice.

Honestly, I wouldn't say Mulholland Drive is even one of my favorite movies, but I loved the challenge in understanding such an abstract, convoluted, and non-linear story.

What did you conclude was the blue box/key metaphor? The espresso scene?

[Kisai]

The blue box/key was "Rita's" contract with the Evil Spirit Forces of Hollywood. She set Betty up to trade her fate for hers, which she gladly did out of love.

The espresso scene is just David Lynch having fun.

[dalidaisy]

I find it quite fitting that you would like this movie, with all the sexual undertones (as well as the overt ones) and all.

Geez, I must be pretty transparent, with all my sex talk, huh? Seriously, though, I did not like it for the sex, though it does add to the appeal. I like movies that are complex, surreal & layered. Oh, & I am a big fan of Lynch...

[BlackOp]

The blue box/key was "Rita's" contract with the Evil Spirit Forces of Hollywood. She set Betty up to trade her fate for hers, which she gladly did out of love.

The espresso scene is just David Lynch having fun.

I got that it was destroying her small city idealism. There is a certain sadness (blue) when you find what you hold dear is proven wrong. If you want to achieve artistic greatness you have to open the box and suffer the transition...the "key". The scene where she gets emotional to the "taped" singing performance and the other is unaffected. Easily susceptible to Hollywood gimmicks...much like a "target audience" is to a water downed, premeditated movie plot.

The espresso scene was a metaphor for Lynchs disdain for artistically stunted movie executives. Their initial reaction to his films (espresso) is spit out in disgust. "But sir, this is the finest espresso in the world". The whole film is a "fuck you" to Big Hollywood.

[Kisai]

"First of all to understand what happened to Killer, you gotta understand who Killer the dog was..."

[Ntwadumela]

I got that it was destroying her small city idealism. There is a certain sadness (blue) when you find what you hold dear is proven wrong. If you want to achieve artistic greatness you have to open the box and suffer the transition...the "key".

The espresso scene was a metaphor for Lynchs disdain for artistically stunted movie executives. Their initial reaction to his films (espresso) is spit out in disgust. "But sir, this is the finest espresso in the world". The whole film is a "fuck you" to Big Hollywood.

I believed the box and key to be tied with Diane's repressed memories (murder, sexual abuse, etc.) and her falsely constructed reality. The reality lay within the box: empty, desolate, and disheveled. The box must remain closed for her to live in this fantasy state. As the box opens, so does her reality.

Honestly, my memory is hazy on the espresso scene. It's been a while.

[INTJoe]

Rara, I think you should have saved ACO for the last of Kubrick's films. It's probably his most complex and polarizing*. Sweep this one under the rug and don't hate on him just yet. Dude really is an amazing film-maker. I think BlackOP has done you a dis-service by allowing you to view ACO before you are primed for it.

That said, ACO is one of my least-favorite by him. Kubrick has earned the right for me to give it another chance though in a while.

Barry Lyndon is fucking amazing, and I hate period epics.

I would have suggested you watch his films in order, beginning with 1956's The Killing. That, and 1957's Paths of Glory are both black and white gems.

*Even if you don't find ACO edgy, it is undeniable the social impact it had in England. Kubrick received death threats until he removed the film from English theaters (at this time, he was a permanent English resident), and it was not shown until after his death in 1999. The English at the time were quite worried that copycat crimes would be committed.

[dalidaisy]

I got that it was destroying her small city idealism. There is a certain sadness (blue) when you find what you hold dear is proven wrong. If you want to achieve artistic greatness you have to open the box and suffer the transition...the "key".

The espresso scene was a metaphor for Lynchs disdain for artistically stunted movie executives. Their initial reaction to his films (espresso) is spit out in disgust. "But sir, this is the finest espresso in the world". The whole film is a "fuck you" to Big Hollywood.

I saw the blue box as a metaphor for her repressed memory & the key was her guilt & symbolic of the murder.

I agree that the espresso scene depicting the mobster who can't stand his less than perfect espresso depicts Hollywood executives showing their disdain for his work.

[Kisai]

If the blue key belonged to Betty, why is it in Rita's purse with a bunch of money?

[BlackOp]

If the blue key belonged to Betty, why is it in Rita's purse with a bunch of money?

Its been a while but I thought they were the same person...."the dark side" of her unconscious. That whats great about Lynch and its left open-ended. The box was definitely a symbol of her unconscious...imo.

[dalidaisy]

If the blue key belonged to Betty, why is it in Rita's purse with a bunch of money?

Rita is the girl that dies, the key is the murder, the money paid the hitman...

[BlackOp]

Rita is the girl that dies, the key is the murder, the money paid the hitman...

But arent those all metaphors for her "transformation"?

[HeyZeus]

Critics have said of Kubrick movies that you don't just watch them once, as you wouldn't listen to a piece of music once, read a book once, look at a painting once, and feel everything was revealed in that initial observation.

I have not seen a Kubrick movie (excepting The Killing and that early movie about the boxer and the dance hall girl) that did not increase in richness upon subsequent viewings.

Conclusion: one viewing may not be enough to declare it's bad.

This is not true of the Ernest series, or Pauly Shore/Carrot Top movies. Multiple viewings not suggested there.

[azelismia]

Critics have said of Kubrick movies that you don't just watch them once, as you wouldn't listen to a piece of music once, read a book once, look at a painting once, and feel everything was revealed in that initial observation.

I have not seen a Kubrick movie (excepting The Killing and that early movie about the boxer and the dance hall girl) that did not increase in richness upon subsequent viewings.

Conclusion: one viewing may not be enough to declare it's bad.

This is not true of the Ernest series, or Pauly Shore/Carrot Top movies. Multiple viewings not suggested there.


you have to like something at least a little in order to rewatch it. if you absolutely despised something first time thru, it's not going to get better. it's just subjecting yourself to a miserable time. the only kubrick movie I ever liked was dr strangelove. the rest were pure garbage imho.

[BlackOp]

the rest were pure garbage imho.

Yeah...he should have burned with all the other witches.:p Honestly, I think Kubrick would find great joy in knowing you think his work is garbage....I think I just heard a chuckle from the grave.

[HackerX]

Read the book.

Honestly. I've saw half the movie (couldn't stand to see the rest) after I had read the book and couldn't believe how much Kubrick mutilated it.

The book is definitely worth reading, the language is hard at first, but you pick it up pretty quickly.

While you're at it, pick up 1985 by Burgess as well (especially if you've read 1984). Skip the 1984 loving at the start and read the actual story.

[azelismia]

Yeah...he should have burned with all the other witches.:p Honestly, I think Kubrick would find great joy in knowing you think his work is garbage....I think I just heard a chuckle from the grave.


oh it wouldn't surprise me if Kubrick knew his work was gubblish. I suspect he made it as horrid as he could but with a enough of a twist that the gullible would mistake it for genius. 2001 a space odyssey pure style no substance, full of made up symbolism to form an ersatz impression of depth. the crowds eat up that sort of thing, it makes them feel intelligent and deep to pretend they see a figure in the clouds. They can make up any sort of meaning for it they want.. but at the end of the day, it was still just a cloud.

[eternaltriangle]

I'll take a foam bat - this is one of my favourite films.

I think Dr. Strangelove is okay at best - it occasionally has witty puns, but is hardly incisive. Its main premise - that mutually assured destruction is mad is both obvious, and actually a pretty facile treatment of the subject. It is too much a schmaltzy Peter Sellers comedy, and insufficiently an epic Kubrick film.

A Clockwork Orange, by contrast, is absolutely stunning in its choice of music and visuals. The set design could not "be designed by a bunch of 15-year olds." A Clockwork Orange (the film) is interesting for the same reason that cyberpunk or steampunk are interesting - it asks what are the implications of the present course of development. The world of A Clockwork Orange was the ultimate realization of the world of free love the hippies were trying to create (I see the film as ultimately a conservative one).

Roger Ebert panned the film, criticizing in particular how "unexplored" the character of Alex was, arguing that it was the director, not society or his family that made Alex incurable violent. That is the point. Alex Delarge is the criminal by nature who is incurable by rehabilitation, and the strongest counterpoint to the liberal position on crime of the 60's and 70's. For at the end of the day virtue (and vice) require choice, and social engineering cannot change that fact - particularly in a society that is itself, criminal.

I will also stand by 2001: A Space Odyssey and Full Metal Jacket. Barry Lyndon was humdrum, as was Paths of Glory - good films, certainly better than Armageddon or Pearl Harbour but not masterpieces.

[Prunesquallor]

Haven't read it. The language would have been interesting, if it hadn't gotten kind of lost in my overall sense of irritation. I actually was wondering about the book while I was watching, for that reason.

Yeah, the language was a main reason why I liked the book.

[BlackOp]

Roger Ebert panned the film, criticizing in particular how "unexplored" the character of Alex was, arguing that it was the director, not society or his family that made Alex incurable violent. That is the point. Alex Delarge is the criminal by nature who is incurable by rehabilitation, and the strongest counterpoint to the liberal position on crime of the 60's and 70's. For at the end of the day virtue (and vice) require choice, and social engineering cannot change that fact - particularly in a society that is itself, criminal.


Roger Ebert panning your film is a badge of honor... he hated Blue Velvet also , saying "I dont get it". :laugh: Guy had vision....


BlackOp added to this post, 20 minutes and 20 seconds later...

oh it wouldn't surprise me if Kubrick knew his work was gubblish. I suspect he made it as horrid as he could but with a enough of a twist that the gullible would mistake it for genius. 2001 a space odyssey pure style no substance, full of made up symbolism to form an ersatz impression of depth. the crowds eat up that sort of thing, it makes them feel intelligent and deep to pretend they see a figure in the clouds. They can make up any sort of meaning for it they want.. but at the end of the day, it was still just a cloud.

Aze...I remembered you mentioning CWO a while back about movies that affected you. Did a search to verify I wasnt confusing you with another member.

Your words... "the two movies that I can think of off hand are gallipoli and clockwork orange. Clockwork orange gave me serious nightmares. I blocked that movie pretty much.
I should add this was years ago though. The effect was strong enough that I never forgot it and they are the first that spring to mind."



Kubrick just chuckled again....;) Those must have been some scary clouds...

[azelismia]

Roger Ebert panning your film is a badge of honor... he hated Blue Velvet also , saying "I dont get it". :laugh: Guy had vision....


BlackOp added to this post, 20 minutes and 20 seconds later...



Aze...I remembered you mentioning CWO a while back about movies that affected you. Did a search to verify I wasnt confusing you with another member.

Your words... "the two movies that I can think of off hand are gallipoli and clockwork orange. Clockwork orange gave me serious nightmares. I blocked that movie pretty much.
I should add this was years ago though. The effect was strong enough that I never forgot it and they are the first that spring to mind."



Kubrick just chuckled again....;) Those must have been some scary clouds...


yeah, it did give me nightmares but I also have other issues. it doesn't take much to do that. I don't like violence. it has nothing to do with any sort of genius in movie making. I am pretty darn sure that passion of the christ would give me nightmares too. that's why I never watched it. It affected me in that I've learned not to watch movies with extreme graphic violence as it tends to upset my digestion. Clockwork orange is pretty much without any sort of merit and is entirely gratutious. Gallipoli on the other hand is a pretty realistic telling of a story from WW1. it actually has a lesson to teach and a point in the telling. Even so, I no longer watch graphic movies even if they have a lesson to teach.

[Kisai]

Rita is the girl that dies, the key is the murder, the money paid the hitman...

I like it. It has the aura of correctness about it. I have to watch the movie again.

[dalidaisy]

But arent those all metaphors for her "transformation"?

Certainly. When she finds the key & money & opens the box, the dream is over & it's back to the ugly reality she has to face...

[rara avis]

Conclusion: one viewing may not be enough to declare it's bad.

This is not true of the Ernest series, or Pauly Shore/Carrot Top movies. Multiple viewings not suggested there.

I understand what you're saying, but if I watched ACW again, it would be an action solely based on the opinions of others, which contradict my own. Same with Ernest Goes To Camp. I'm not going to keep at something I don't personally value just because People Say I Should. That would be gross, sheepish pretensiousness. I made a concession in giving the movie a try, though I had suspected it wasn't going to... suit me; I did that based on the recommendation of someone whose opinion I respect. I did the same with The Shining, which it turned out I liked. ACW irritated me for reasons beyond what I'd actually expected to find.

Anyway, I'm glad you all enjoyed it; I'm not out to convince you otherwise. Just declaring my opinion, mostly for the purpose of obnoxiousness. :D I think a lot of the power and value of art is in subjectivity. The ideas used in ACW are interesting, I'm serious when I say it's more entertaining for me to hear people discuss the movie than to watch it; I just found that the movie itself got in the way of those elements, enough so to be repellent to me.

[INTJoe]

the only kubrick movie I ever liked was dr strangelove. the rest were pure garbage imho.

Have you seen all 11 of them?

I'm sorry but I can't realistically see any of his films being considered "pure garbage".

Which film was garbage, and why do you think so? I consider Lolita his "worst" but I still rate it a 6/10. And had I watched it in 1962 may have rated it higher.

[cms]

I have always thought Kubrick was over-rated. WAY over rated and I don't buy the argument, that he was a genius for the time period. Look at the films they were pumping out in France and Italy at the time.
I say most of his films are at the sub-par level, maybe one or two are above average.. and the rest are way below.

I welcome the foam bat attack!

[BlackOp]

I have always thought Kubrick was over-rated. WAY over rated and I don't buy the argument, that he was a genius for the time period. Look at the films they were pumping out in France and Italy at the time.
I say most of his films are at the sub-par level, maybe one or two are above average.. and the rest are way below.

I welcome the foam bat attack!

Hmm...Moviemaker has him listed at #6 in its top 25. Joined by Fellini, Lang, Bergman and Hitchcock. Pretty good company if you ask me.....

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

"But his films at not always love at first sight, either. Deeply layered in metaphorical meaning, they often require a certain digestion period—if not a second viewing—to fully realize their implications. Says editor Steve Hamilton: “[Kubrick is] the master of big (really big) budget art movies.”

[azelismia]

Hmm...Moviemaker has him listed at #6 in its top 25. Joined by Fellini, Lang, Bergmann and Hitchcock. Pretty good company if you ask me.....

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

"But his films at not always love at first sight, either. Deeply layered in metaphorical meaning, they often require a certain digestion period—if not a second viewing—to fully realize their implications. Says editor Steve Hamilton: “[Kubrick is] the master of big (really big) budget art movies.”


appeals to authority mean nothing.
Especially if the authority you are appealing to consists of movie critics.

Kubrick made films that appeared to have deep meaning, but really said nothing. the average person watching his films has a fear of saying anything bad of it lest they appear "not in the "getting it " crowd.

he was not a genius, he was just an obfusticator.

[eternaltriangle]

yeah, it did give me nightmares but I also have other issues. it doesn't take much to do that. I don't like violence. it has nothing to do with any sort of genius in movie making. I am pretty darn sure that passion of the christ would give me nightmares too. that's why I never watched it. It affected me in that I've learned not to watch movies with extreme graphic violence as it tends to upset my digestion. Clockwork orange is pretty much without any sort of merit and is entirely gratutious. Gallipoli on the other hand is a pretty realistic telling of a story from WW1. it actually has a lesson to teach and a point in the telling. Even so, I no longer watch graphic movies even if they have a lesson to teach.

1. How does A Clockwork Orange not have a point?
2. How does Gallipoli have a point, or for that matter, an interesting point (wow - war is bad and Churchill is dumb... great).
3. Why is realism even a good thing for film? The advantage of the medium of film is that you can have more complex subtexts than in other media. Simply portraying something realistically (I suspect you would learn a lot more by reading about Gallipoli) wastes the vast potential of the medium.

I can understand one disliking a complex film - it can be boring, or do a poor job, etc. I don't think A Clockwork Orange fits that definition for me, but evidently it does for you. Eraserhead was a very interesting but if I was reviewing it I wouldn't call it a thrill-ride of activity. That said, if you just plain don't get the depth I don't think you are being a very discriminating viewer (anyhow, I find it fun to try to give something a point whether it had one or not - often bad movies do have unintentional themes or subtexts and whatnot*)

*eg. the film Dungeons and Dragons is incredibly racist, for instance.

[BlackOp]

appeals to authority mean nothing.
Especially if the authority you are appealing to consists of movie critics.

Kubrick made films that appeared to have deep meaning, but really said nothing. the average person watching his films has a fear of saying anything bad of it lest they appear "not in the "getting it " crowd.

he was not a genius, he was just an obfusticator.

You can say what you want...but by your own admission, you listed his work as one of the two films that affected you most in YOUR LIFE. Instantly came to mind when asked. Art is about affecting the observer....he did his job. Regardless if you liked it or not...he still got his hooks into you. That fact you feel compelled to deface him speaks volumes IMO. When I dont care about something...I tend not to discuss it.

[cms]

Hmm...Moviemaker has him listed at #6 in its top 25. Joined by Fellini, Lang, Bergmann and Hitchcock. Pretty good company if you ask me.....

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

"But his films at not always love at first sight, either. Deeply layered in metaphorical meaning, they often require a certain digestion period—if not a second viewing—to fully realize their implications. Says editor Steve Hamilton: “[Kubrick is] the master of big (really big) budget art movies.”

With enough 'digestion' one could find 'metaphorical meaning' in a bar of soap...
Which I guess would actually be the genius of Kubrick films, he not only made obvious-generalized social commentaries, he hid them just enough so when the viewer actually did come across the "true meaning" of the film, they were so amazed at their own intellect, they forgot about how sub-par the film actually was. He brought a "dumbed down' version of art house to the US and the UK. Actually what I find interesting about Kubrick is that his genius lies in the fact, that intended or not, he has become the tailor of the emperors new clothes...

[azelismia]

You can say what you want...but by your own admission, you listed his work as one of the two films that affected you most in YOUR LIFE. Instantly came to mind when asked. Art is about affecting the observer....he did his job. Regardless if you liked it or not...he still got his hooks into you. That fact you feel compelled to deface him speaks volumes IMO. When I dont care about something...I tend not to discuss it.


it could have been ANY violent movie though. that was simply the one that I sat thru. it means nothing. I always would have said hte quality of that film was abyssmal. I never watched faces of death either but I am sure it would have seriously affected me and it certainly isn't good filmmaking, because something had an impact doesn't mean it's good. how it affected me was by just how much I hated it. it's not genius. it's just abusive imagery.




azelismia added to this post, 0 minutes and 36 seconds later...

With enough 'digestion' one could find 'metaphorical meaning' in a bar of soap...
Which I guess would actually be the genius of Kubrick films, he not only made obvious-generalized social commentaries, he hid them just enough so when the viewer actually did come across the "true meaning" of the film, they were so amazed at their own intellect, they forgot about how sub-par the film actually was. He brought a "dumbed down' version of art house to the US and the UK. Actually what I find interesting about Kubrick is that his genius lies in the fact, that intended or not, he has become the tailor of the emperors new clothes...


Precisely

[BlackOp]

I imagine these responses could be cut/paste into any topic discussing influential film makers. We could dissect Fellini's 8 1/2, Bergman's Persona or David Lynch's Blue Velvet. Some will call it "junk" some "brilliant".

Honestly, I'm happy some here hate Kubrick. Hate is still a strong emotion...and only reinforces why I appreciate and respect him.

[INTJoe]

Azelismia, you never answered my question... have you seen all his movies? You called them all (but Dr. Strangelove) "utter garbage".

Reading this thread makes me think he is perhaps the most under-rated of all-time. lol.

Don't just shun what movie critics say about him. His peers cite him as being a brilliant film-maker. Spielberg called 2001 "the big bang for directors". Scorsese cites Barry Lyndon (a film most people haven't even seen) as his favorite Kubrick film.

9 of his 11 films are in the IMDB top 250. A remarkable feat considering he dabbled in any genre his heart desired. He told his cinematographer for Spartacus to sit down and shut up and basically did his job for him and that guy ended up winning the Oscar. lol.

Many consider The Killing as one of the best film noir. Spielberg cites Paths of Glory as one of his favorites.

His decision to turn the screenplay of Dr. Strangelove into a comedy was one of the ballsiest and most brilliant gambles in film history. He portrayed space correctly in 2001 as being silent. Not like the cheesy George Lucas who went for the commercial success of loud noises in Star Wars 9 years later. Many of the special effects in 2001 still hold up 41 years later.

Kubrick's cinematography and lighting techniques in Barry Lyndon were highly innovative. Interior scenes were shot with a specially-adapted, high-speed Zeiss camera lens originally developed for NASA. This allowed many scenes to be lit only with candlelight, creating two-dimensional, diffused-light images reminiscent of 18th-century painting.

Most versatile film-maker ever. Film noir, war, comedy, cast-of-thousands, sci-fi, psychological thriller, period epic, horror...he tackled it all and did it all very well.

[BlackOp]

Don't just shun what movie critics say about him. .

That top 25 list I posted was created BY a poll of his peers...directors, screenwriters and industry people. People who actual get their hands dirty MAKING film...not getting fat, pointing fingers from a couch.

[dalidaisy]

As with all films, the value of it is decided by each individual viewer. Movies that are liked by a large percentage of the population become "popular". This doesn't make them bad. It also doesn't mean that everyone will think they are worthwhile. I think it is an admirable trait to be objective & to appreciate the viewpoints of others.

This movie is a thinking man's picture for sure. It's not for the faint of heart & the overly emotional. It is not, in my opinion, a movie made for mere entertainment value. I appreciate movies that make me think long after I've left the theater. I truly admire movies that have a profound affect on me by making me change my views or consider things I hadn't imagined.

I saw this movie when I was very young (in my teens) & yes, the visuals were quite disturbing. But, even at an early age, I was able to ascertain the underlying story of corruption, the danger of political power & the struggle to be oneself despite adversity. I have watched it again several times over the years & find new things that draw my interest every time. I am a fan of this movie & of Kubrick as a director. I understand why others might not feel the same. I'm okay with it.

[HackerX]

But, even at an early age, I was able to ascertain the underlying story of corruption, the danger of political power & the struggle to be oneself despite adversity.

Except it's not. Gratuitous violence is very much the point and the one thing Kubrick got right in the movie. You are meant to be disturbed, not because the violence itself is disturbing, but because it's not. What's disturbing is how easily manipulated we are, deep inside.

Contrast "Lord of the Flies" to "1984" and see where ACO really lies.

[azelismia]

Azelismia, you never answered my question... have you seen all his movies? You called them all (but Dr. Strangelove) "utter garbage".

Reading this thread makes me think he is perhaps the most under-rated of all-time. lol.

Don't just shun what movie critics say about him. His peers cite him as being a brilliant film-maker. Spielberg called 2001 "the big bang for directors". Scorsese cites Barry Lyndon (a film most people haven't even seen) as his favorite Kubrick film.

9 of his 11 films are in the IMDB top 250. A remarkable feat considering he dabbled in any genre his heart desired. He told his cinematographer for Spartacus to sit down and shut up and basically did his job for him and that guy ended up winning the Oscar. lol.

Many consider The Killing as one of the best film noir. Spielberg cites Paths of Glory as one of his favorites.

His decision to turn the screenplay of Dr. Strangelove into a comedy was one of the ballsiest and most brilliant gambles in film history. He portrayed space correctly in 2001 as being silent. Not like the cheesy George Lucas who went for the commercial success of loud noises in Star Wars 9 years later. Many of the special effects in 2001 still hold up 41 years later.

Kubrick's cinematography and lighting techniques in Barry Lyndon were highly innovative. Interior scenes were shot with a specially-adapted, high-speed Zeiss camera lens originally developed for NASA. This allowed many scenes to be lit only with candlelight, creating two-dimensional, diffused-light images reminiscent of 18th-century painting.

Most versatile film-maker ever. Film noir, war, comedy, cast-of-thousands, sci-fi, psychological thriller, period epic, horror...he tackled it all and did it all very well.


I agree Dr Strangelove is a good movie and I had said that I never said it wasn't. As far as his percieved depth though, it isn't there. His work is ersatz. It appears to be deep when really it's not. I have not seen every movie he ever made and I do not think that's necessary. I understand his style well enough from what I have seen.

He is style over substance (as I believe i have said a number of times). Sure, his movies LOOK great, but they have no substance. He uses a lot of abstract imagery that leaves the viewer to think it must be deep and thus genius.. but it's not..

sometimes, as they say, a cigar is just a cigar....

[dalidaisy]

Except it's not.

For me, it's what I see that matters, regardless of the director's intent or what others see. Not being the overly emotional type, violence has never really affected me the way it has the people around me. There's (supposedly) disturbing violence in many movies, but that's not all I see. It's just another layer. I also look past overly dramatic love scenes & overtones as well. Both are equally revolting/pleasing/whatever in my mind. Natural Born Killers is one of my all time favorite movies, btw, so is 1984 (though I prefer the book)...

[rara avis]

This movie is a thinking man's picture for sure. It's not for the faint of heart & the overly emotional. It is not, in my opinion, a movie made for mere entertainment value. I appreciate movies that make me think long after I've left the theater. I truly admire movies that have a profound affect on me by making me change my views or consider things I hadn't imagined.


I don't object to thinking my way through interesting concepts and layers. I didn't expect a movie so renowned for challenging ideas and violence to be entertaining to me, per se. I just didn't find that this movie intrigued or engaged me with its "underlying" ideas.

It seems to me that this is why you'd create a movie to demonstrate your story, your points, in the first place - you have the ability in this medium to really gather up someone's mind and propel them along through/around/over the points and themes you want to convey, using imagery and action and dialogue all blended. I just didn't get propelled in this one. I just plodded by and noticed the points. It wasn't really much of an experience.

As for overemotionality, I had the opposite problem - all this drama going on, and I only felt kind of irritated, and mildly creeped out in parts. I think it's just a perverse reaction I have, when I'm conscious that someone's really going overboard to try to get a reaction from me. The biggest reaction they're going to get, generally, is superciliousness. :undecided:

I am interested to see more of his other movies, little by little. The ones with maybe a bit more subtlety.

[azelismia]

if you're looking for subtle.. I don't think you're going to find it in Kubrick... good luck!

Also, the violence in CWO is beside the point as to it's worth as a movie. that was a side track issue brought in by BLK OP that has nothing to do with the main point of this discussion.

it just wasn't a well made film. I thought gallipoli was a brilliant movie and it was a little more violent. But the violence was an integral part of the story and it was a story worth telling, and furthermore a story told well.

[BlackOp]

You are meant to be disturbed, not because the violence itself is disturbing, but because it's not. What's disturbing is how easily manipulated we are, deep inside.
.

Just out of curiosity...when did you first see the film? I have a "hunch" people werent as desensitized to this level of cinematic violence and graphic rape in 1971. It is somewhat tame by today's films (Irreversible- Gaspar Noé comes to mind). Is that statement in regard to when it was created or comparing it to modern culture?

Whats funny is its not in my top 20 favorite films...and not in my top 5 of Kubrick.

[dalidaisy]

I don't object to thinking my way through interesting concepts and layers. I didn't expect a movie so renowned for challenging ideas and violence to be entertaining to me, per se. I just didn't find that this movie intrigued or engaged me with its "underlying" ideas.

It seems to me that this is why you'd create a movie to demonstrate your story, your points, in the first place - you have the ability in this medium to really gather up someone's mind and propel them along through/around/over the points and themes you want to convey, using imagery and action and dialogue all blended. I just didn't get propelled in this one. I just plodded by and noticed the points. It wasn't really much of an experience.

As for overemotionality, I had the opposite problem - all this drama going on, and I only felt kind of irritated, and mildly creeped out in parts. I think it's just a perverse reaction I have, when I'm conscious that someone's really going overboard to try to get a reaction from me. The biggest reaction they're going to get, generally, is superciliousness. :undecided:

I am interested to see more of his other movies, little by little. The ones with maybe a bit more subtlety.

I think the world would be boring if we all thought alike & enjoyed the same things. I'm glad there's diversity in film taste as well as the numerous other ways that individuals differ...

I'm sorry you didn't like the film. Better luck next time!

[INTJoe]

I agree Dr Strangelove is a good movie and I had said that I never said it wasn't. As far as his percieved depth though, it isn't there. His work is ersatz. It appears to be deep when really it's not. I have not seen every movie he ever made and I do not think that's necessary. I understand his style well enough from what I have seen.

He is style over substance (as I believe i have said a number of times). Sure, his movies LOOK great, but they have no substance. He uses a lot of abstract imagery that leaves the viewer to think it must be deep and thus genius.. but it's not..

sometimes, as they say, a cigar is just a cigar....

I think it's a bit unfair to say he brings no substance to the game, considering he adapted or created his own screenplays and also produced his films. He was a film-maker, not a director.

I wouldn't say seeing all his films is "necessary". You don't have to like him of course, but you did say all his other films were "utter garbage". I think you should see them all before making a claim like that lol.

Which of his films have you seen? I just can't see any way any sane human could call The Killing, Paths of Glory, Spartacus, Barry Lyndon, The Shining, or Full Metal Jacket "utter garbage". Especially if they haven't seen them all. I can at least understand reasons why someone might pan 2001 or A Clockwork Orange. But not really those other ones I've listed.

[HackerX]

Just out of curiosity...when did you first see the film? I have a "hunch" people werent as desensitized to this level of cinematic violence and graphic rape in 1971. It is somewhat tame by today's films (Irreversible- Gaspar Noé comes to mind). Is that statement in regard to when it was created or comparing it to modern culture?

The comment is as much to do with the book as it is with the movie. The whole dystopian society is merely a plot device in the book, which is focused around Alex and his free will.

If anything, my comment is the reverse of what you're trying to point out, that the difference between audiences in 1971 and now aren't that large.

[Synamon]

Just out of curiosity...when did you first see the film? I have a "hunch" people werent as desensitized to this level of cinematic violence and graphic rape in 1971. It is somewhat tame by today's films (Irreversible- Gaspar Noé comes to mind). Is that statement in regard to when it was created or comparing it to modern culture?

Whats funny is its not in my top 20 favorite films...and not in my top 5 of Kubrick.

I saw it a hundred years ago (ok not really, but before most of you were born) and couldn't watch the whole thing. It was just weird for weirdness sake. I find that I resist the blatant manipulation of Kubrick's films which interferes with enjoying them.

[BlackOp]

If anything, my comment is the reverse of what you're trying to point out, that the difference between audiences in 1971 and now aren't that large.

We will have to agree to disagree on this..... which is great. Or are we agreeing to agree? The phrasing of that response is a little confusing.

I actually I think as a whole...ACO wasnt that amazing. After the first 15 minutes it bogged in spots and took the audience out of a suspension of disbelief. I think its overt tone was by design as none of his other films share this quality. It was meant to rattle cages...which it did. No one can deny that....and I think its why he went that direction with the adaptation. It was a right hook to "peace and love" idealism which I cant help but smile when I think about. That alone gets high marks....:p

[BlackOp]

I thought about this thread a bit......one thing I think that is understated is how "punk rock" this movie was. Kubrick was already established...could have easily taken a much less divisive project in the name of "job security". He was coming off a critically acclaimed film (2001)...and it was rated "G". This was a HUGE stick in the eye of the establishment. If you hate his work..at least give the guy props for "risk". The film got banned.....thats impressive at this stage of one's career. Just sayin'....he was a bucking bronco. God bless him.....

[Deliberator]

I just watched it for the first time the other night. I thought it was ridiculous, masturbatory, tedious, clumsy, and just... hatefully boring. I was conscious of all the actors acting. I found I could not care what happened to anyone in the movie, or what they had to say. The sets could've been designed by an excitable 15 year old. I thought the attempts to be sssshhhocking were juvenile- even looked at from the perspective of 1971 when it was "pushing the envelope"- and btw, K-Word, thanks for doing everyone that favor - and I have been considerably more entertained by people's detailed explanations of why this movie is great than I was by the movie itself. That's bad.


I read the book and enjoyed it. I saw the movie immediately after and hated every bit of it. It wasn't even that violent. It was so terribly stupid.

My dad had built it up so much because he loved it and thought it was so "evil" and great, but it was honestly pretty lame and a very poor representation of the book.

By the way... I don't know how anybody could have nightmares after watching this movie! The violence was soft!! Haven't you ever seen GoodFellas, or hell, even a Mel Gibson war movie?

[BlackOp]

I read the book and enjoyed it. I saw the movie immediately after and hated every bit of it. It wasn't even that violent. It was so terribly stupid.

My dad had built it up so much because he loved it and thought it was so "evil" and great, but it was honestly pretty lame and a very poor representation of the book.

By the way... I don't know how anybody could have nightmares after watching this movie! The violence was soft!! Haven't you ever seen GoodFellas, or hell, even a Mel Gibson war movie?

Umm...this film is almost 40 years old. Comparing the violence to Goodfellas (1990) isnt really realistic. I always try to envision what was taking place in culture at the time of a movies release....and its influence on the medium.

[Indy]

I haven't read A Clockwork Orange, but I can imagine it could be part of the general problem of translating books to the screen.

I had the same thing with 1984 recently. The book had a major effect on me reading it in high school, I still consider it to be one or maybe the best books I've ever read. But the movie was just a lame and boring summary of the main scenes, it missed the arguments and power that made the book so great.

On ACO, I enjoyed the fast-forward sex scene accompanied by Beethoven, but I really wondered what the fuzz - 'too much violence' - was about, it doesn't have the same impact as it did in 1971; it seems dated and I was not impressed.

Reflecting on in the proper timeframe, I agree with eternaltriangle and blackop that it did make a relevant point and can be respected for it.

I seem to be one of the few that enjoyed Eyes Wide Shut, but maybe that was because I was 16y old when I saw it, and imagining wild Venetian inspired orgies in a grand mansion seemed very appealing to me. It had great cinematography and Sydney Pollack was amazing in that movie as well I remember.

[azelismia]

I read the book and enjoyed it. I saw the movie immediately after and hated every bit of it. It wasn't even that violent. It was so terribly stupid.

My dad had built it up so much because he loved it and thought it was so "evil" and great, but it was honestly pretty lame and a very poor representation of the book.

By the way... I don't know how anybody could have nightmares after watching this movie! The violence was soft!! Haven't you ever seen GoodFellas, or hell, even a Mel Gibson war movie?


I am probably a good example of the type of people that were watching this in 1971. at the time I watched this movie I had watched no violent movies in my life. I saw gallipoli at the same time as this. I think I watched this in 1987 or 88. between the two of them I was quite shaken up. I was absolutely not desensitized to violence. I still am not as I do not really watch violent movies. I don't enjoy it so why should I subject myself to it? there is nothing meaningful to be gained from it.

I am also prone to nightmares. it's an over active imagination at work which goes even wilder at night. I've also had issues with lucid dreaming and night terrors. I prefer not to exacerbate it. as I said I have other issues..

[Medicine Man]

Clockwork orange may be a bit gaudy, but 2001. I actually get angry when people say they don't like 2001. You should all appreciate its brilliance, especially as INTJs, yes, pure brilliance. 2001 is the apotheosis of movie making. If I had time, I could accumulate a list of 1000 reasons of why every creature that thinks should watch and analyze 2001. Don't make the devil angry!

[azelismia]

Clockwork orange may be a bit gaudy, but 2001. I actually get angry when people say they don't like 2001. You should all appreciate its brilliance, especially as INTJs, yes, pure brilliance. 2001 is the apotheosis of movie making. If I had time, I could accumulate a list of 1000 reasons of why every creature that thinks should watch and analyze 2001. Don't make the devil angry!


Why would it make you angry that other people don't like a pretty piece of garbage?

[BlackOp]

Why would it make you angry that other people don't like a pretty piece of garbage?

Wow...I can understand your opinion on ACO but 2001 not so much. I would be "curious" to what you consider cinematic brilliance...being this is garbage and all. Its Kubricks finest film by a mile.

[Kenetics]

Kubrick made films that appeared to have deep meaning, but really said nothing.

I was reading through this "old" thread and had to stop here. Maybe it's been commented on by others, but here's my favorite quote by Kubrick - I use it all the time:

I don`t think that writers or painters or filmmakers function because they have something they particularly want to say. They have something that they feel. And they like the art form; they like words, or the smell of paint, or celluloid and photographic images and working with actors. I don`t think that any genuine artist has ever been oriented by some didactic point of view, even if he thought he was.

Kubrick is my favorite director (I even love Eyes Wide Shut), he's my artistic role model, and it had nothing to do with deep meanings. What is depth anyway, right? It had to do with him creating visceral experiences. If you don't get that visceral experience, that has nothing to do with stupidity, I agree, and I wouldn't call someone who didn't like Lynch stupid either. But not getting that experience is no reason to say that the fans are just pretentious idiots who perceive meaning where there is none, or where the meaning is superficial. Kubrick's subjects were always jumping points to create aesthetic pieces of art.

[zibber]

Kubrick is my favorite director, my artistic role model, and it had nothing to do with deep meanings. What is depth anyway, right? It had to do with him creating visceral experiences. If you don't get that visceral experience, that has nothing to do with stupidity, I agree, and I wouldn't call someone who didn't like Lynch stupid either. But not getting that experience is no reason to say that the fans are just pretentious idiots who perceive meaning where there is none, or where the meaning is superficial. Kubrick's subjects were always jumping points to create aesthetic pieces of art.

Heh, I was thinking about Lynch around the time you said "visceral experiences".

I think it's such a drag when people actually criticize art works for "not saying anything". What does that mean? What says something, an economy textbook? A moralizing parable? If a work moves you (deeply), doesn't that equal (deep) meaning? What is it, are you annoyed that everyone is lyrical about it but you found yourself unmoved by it?

I suppose you could accuse Kubrick (and Lynch) of aiming for a shock effect, or something, but I think you'd be missing the point of their works.

I thought it was ridiculous, masturbatory, tedious, clumsy, and just... hatefully boring. ... I thought the attempts to be sssshhhocking were juvenile- even looked at from the perspective of 1971 when it was "pushing the envelope" ... I have been considerably more entertained by people's detailed explanations of why this movie is great

Hmm, indeed.. Your post comes across as so hateful..

(NB: What an effect that movie has had on you after all, eh? ;))

[Ither]

The book A Clockwork Orange is very good, or at least I thought so thirty plus years ago when I was obviously much younger. It is, as I remember, a linguistic tour de force. Burgess generally is worth reading. The way he treats culture and personality in The Malay Trilogy is impressive.

[Tristan]

There's usually at least something in a movie for everyone to appreciate, but I guess the OP just got left out. I have only seen 3 Kubrick movies. 2001: Loved the way he gave life and power to classical pieces, rather than cheapening them like TV ads do.
A Clockwork Orange: Like kenetics said, a visceral experience. Just take it as such.
Dr. Strangelove: I usually hate Western antiwar shit because the theme is overused, in-your-face, and plain ignorant. Kubrick was able to overcome this handicap part-way by making such endearing characters.
I don't LOVE Kubrick movies fanatically, but I can find things in them that I love for certain.

[rara avis]

There's usually at least something in a movie for everyone to appreciate, but I guess the OP just got left out. ... I don't LOVE Kubrick movies fanatically, but I can find things in them that I love for certain.

Oh, I could find things to appreciate about it, certainly, if I needed to. Especially when you drop back and consider the date the movie was made. But that's along the same lines as the idea that nothing's boring if you look closely enough into it. It would be strictly academic on my part, because my overall visceral experience was one of irritation and boredom.

No hard feelings, really; mostly a little hyperbole, on my part. I'm just saying. Didn't like it.

[Kenetics]

Oh, I could find things to appreciate about it, certainly, if I needed to. Especially when you drop back and consider the date the movie was made. But that's along the same lines as the idea that nothing's boring if you look closely enough into it. It would be strictly academic on my part, because my overall visceral experience was one of irritation and boredom.

No hard feelings, really; mostly a little hyperbole, on my part. I'm just saying. Didn't like it.

You weren't the "hyperbolest".

And I don't think anyone here would suggest that nothing is boring if you look closely enough, because so much of it is something that just hits you immediately. Sometimes a work of art requires patience, sometimes that patience is just a waste of time. Watch it again in five years if you want to, or, y'know, don't. It might've changed. I have a very mixed opinion of this movie myself. There are parts of it that are boring, and some that are just beautiful.

It's been a few years since I've read the book, so I can't remember if this was in it, but my favorite part of the movie is the way Malcolm McDowell reads this little prose poem:

Oh bliss! Bliss and heaven! Oh, it was gorgeousness and gorgeousity made flesh. It was like a bird of rarest-spun heaven metal or like silvery wine flowing in a spaceship, gravity all nonsense now. As I slooshied, I knew such lovely pictures!

[music221]

What about the book? I liked it...never seen the movie, though.

The book is way better than the movie. But then again that's the way it usually is.