Leaderboard

When I first saw Clockwork, I didn't hate it or even view it with the same lens (hell, at that age I was shocked to learn women still earned less than men). I was introduced to it by a guy, theater major friend who was a huge Kubrick fan, and I do think he viewed it as art and not just bro-core. I do also consider it art. I just can't watch it anymore. There are just certain things I opt out of. I wrestle with the necessity of showing ultra-violence in the way Kubrick does. On the one hand, you can't show extreme violence in extremely shocking ways without, well, doing it. But is necessary to linger so long on things? Or to take it to such an extreme? I really don't have an answer for that. I see both AlmostAGhost and Cameron H's side. Does the artist's intention matter? If he intends the violence/sex as commentary, does it matter vs. whether he intends it as fantasy/male gaze? Also, I find Kubrick's treatment of the actors in this film really despicable.

I love everything about this post, and I love every Rocky and Creed movie except, you guessed it, Rocky V. That movie, I think, is unnecessarily lambasted, but it's still the weakest of the series by far. I actually have mixed feelings about Rocky II because I kind of feel like they go too far into making Rocky the butt of jokes, like the film turns him into someone who is clinically mentally disabled, who can't fend for himself. Recently, however, I've been re-evaluating a lot of movies that I have not seen in quite some time (LOTR and Susperia being prominent examples), and since it's been probably a decade since I've seen Rocky II, I think it is time for a re-watch. I will hold off on actually ranking them until that happens.

That's sort of why I have 1 and 2 of each series bouncing between each other, because of how well the character arcs mirror each other. If any of the Rocky film were to be called boring it would be V because it really isn't a boxing movie so much as a family drama, topped with a horrible street fight at the end. 3-4 are the uber 80s versions of the series complete with friendship beach runs, robots, and taking down the Soviet Union, while Balboa mixes the family drama of V with the heart and boxing of I. Stallone plays the character, based on Chuck Wepner, to a T and it's in that first movie you see as complete a movie as you can see, especially from a first time writer. Creed II is surprisingly good, especially after how incredibly the first was, basically blending elements of Rocky II-IV, but making it unique in that it isn't just a Rocky/Adonis story, but also a Ivan/Viktor story, where the viewer gets this incredible ying-yang type story where in essence Viktor is playing the same role Rocky did in the first two Rocky films, albeit as the aggressor in the coupling.

Tried to give the movie a chance by rewatching as much as I could. As much as like (or at least appreciate) 2001, i find it and pretty much any film by Kubrick to just be so overrated. He always struck me as producing the kind of overwrought, hyperpretenious movie that you'd find from a first year film student desperate to create capital-A "ART!" And I came to this conclusion when i was a first year film student and have yet to experience any thing different.

Rocky Ranking for me would be this order: 1. Rocky 2. Creed 3. Rocky II 4. Creed II 5. Rocky Balboa 6. Rocky IV 7. Rocky III 8. Rocky V Also since this is my 3,000th post I make my official request for an episode to either be Last Action Hero or Ready to Rumble, because how those two films haven't been covered yet is mind boggling.

That's true. But I think I read it more "both sides are wrong" and not "government is wrong, thus Alex is right." EVERYONE is being bad here. Focusing down, I think the flaw for me is less the shock/violence, but the statements about violence/morals has become super muddled and it's obviously unclear what's trying to be said. (None of us are really sure.) That's not a good thing for a film. Also, the comedy/irony angles play as ridiculous forms for this message. I was going to wonder if the exploration of violence and morals would be better received (by this forum anyway) if it was done in a more serious, less cartoony manner, but I see that Taxi Driver is running away in the poll above so I guess that answers my question!

But the people who try to cure him are definitively judged to be wrong (by both the novel and the film) in the way they are portrayed. And Kubrick's decision to have Alex singing and dancing while he rapes the writer's wife gives that scene a charming and whimsical tone. I understand that it's meant to contrast with the horror of the act, but it's presented in such a way that I can absolutely see how some people would see Alex as heroic. Hell, the reason it got "banned" in the UK was because of all the copycat crimes. I'm inclined to say no. Every artist's intention is to make a great film, and we obviously don't see all films as great. So if the artist's intention is to make an anti-violence statement through satirization, and it doesn't come off that way in the film, why shouldn't we criticize the film for achieving the opposite of its intention?

I feel like this is a situation where it feels like we're arguing but we're actually in complete agreement.

Although Paul has some... interesting opinions about the Rocky films (the first one being boring?!?!? After all the HDTGM snoozers we've slogged through, to call ROCKY boring....) the most egregious is saying that Stallone never got in shape as Rocky. PURE MADNESS

This is the crux of every film about bad behavior: is the film endorsing, glorifying, or excusing the behavior, or is it firmly denouncing or condemning the behavior? And it's 100% an "eye of the beholder" question. In this case, I mostly lean towards Cameron H.'s side (as well as Amy's side and that of many others here) that the film teeters too closely to glorifying or excusing Alex's violence, particularly the violence towards women.

100%

My main problem with Rocky II is that Rocky wins. It works emotionally but is this even plausible? The first movie works because Apollo is basically expecting an exhibition. He hasn't properly trained. He's not the mentally. But could Apollo the heavyweight champion go into Rocky II against a nobody and realistically lose? I admit I don't know anything about boxing but is there a real world analogue to this at all? Anything even close to this happening?

That's totally fair re: IMDB rating, but why aren't you dismissing your own anecdotal evidence with the same scrutiny? Is there any actual proof of a gender issue in liking the film? Everyone is confusing me with this line of attack, tbh. I don't love the movie, as I said, but I do support it as a film and an artwork. I don't think it's fair to paint Clockwork supporters as bros who aren't woke enough and lack empathy, and we can't have a fair discussion about the movie if that's what's happening.

1. Rocky 2. Creed 3. Balboa 4. Rocky II 5. Rocky IV 6. Rocky III 7. Rocky V I'm seeing Creed 2 tomorrow. So, I still don't have a ranking but I'm going in cautiously optimistic. I think Balboa, until Creed came out, is the first Rocky sequel that got what made Rocky so special. It's got the drama, the heart, the emotion that separates it from the hundred other sports movies that all follow the same formula. The problem is you can't really have Balboa without at least a few of the sequels. Rocky IV is debateably the worst of the series. It's only better than III and V because it gets so goofy that it turns laughably good in parts. The robot alone is practically a joke. It would be impressive now. Let alone 30 years ago.

I remember watching the Rocky movies for the first time (and out of order ) when I was around 11 or 12, and I remember thinking the first one was kind of boring. However, I realize now how wrong I was. Rocky is a perfect movie. (2-4 are dumb fun. 5-6 I don’t remember well enough, but I don’t remember hating them) I’ve only seen the first Creed, but I kind of feel like if we don’t want him to live forever in Rocky’s shadow, the character deserves to be ranked on his own.

Someone somewhere said that it was meant to be a comedy? If so, well, that failed. And not because it's not funny or that people didn't laugh. Rather than seeing it as a comedy even in the philosophical sense, I'm thinking it's more of a... music video? It's more music video because there doesn't seem much of a narrative, or at least no purpose behind the narrative that's presented. Rather, the intent is more on creating a "theme", both in the sense of an emotional through-line (making the audience deliberately FEEL something) and in the sense of a message or moral (deliberately feeling something ABOUT something.) All the talk about the shock to the audience, the indictment of society and free will, etc. is testament to that. How many times did Paul and Amy say something like "the film wants you to..." or "the film makes you..." Kind of like a music video -- one that doesn't necessarily have a beginning-middle-end multiple-pointed storyline, but does provide images and sound that present something more singular. Although maybe it's more like a museum piece-- we are meant to stare at it on the wall in its entirety as you mull over a "theme" that is displayed. Hopefully you can blink. But that's also why it (and other "art-y" films) are unsatisfying to many, especially in its story. Because we prefer to see a narrative that results in something larger. Philosophically speaking, it's why we tell stories in the larger categories of tragedy and comedy. The twin face masks, one crying one laughing. Every story starts with something wrong with the world, an unsettled status quo, but by the story leading us through death (tragedy) or through coupling/marriage/birth (comedy), it restores to a new if not better status quo. "Orange" begins with the unsettledness, to be sure, but it's difficult to see any movement through death (does Alex even die to his old self? guess not) nor coupling/marriage (not at all) so what's the resolution, where is the redemption? We are left with a world unchanged and displaying themes we already agree with, so why wouldn't someone feel upset that it became a waste of time. The inner nihilist in us all is tapping his foot, prompting the movie, "and ...?!" (The Inner Nihilist was a sixth character in Pixar's Inside Out but you'll have to see the director's cut.) All of that to say, by failing to fit into the purposeful intentions of either comedy or tragedy, it falls into neither, making it just a one-note whine.

According to that table, women also only represent about 13% of the total number of people rating it on IMDb - which is in itself a bit of self-selection as it only represents the type of people who voluntarily go that site, create an account, and rate movies. What happens when you increase that sample size and broaden its scope to include people who don’t rate movies there? So, yeah, as Bleary suggested, I’ll take it all with a grain of salt. I mean, between The Canon and Unspooled, people (not saying anyone here) have always tended to be generally dismissive toward IMDb user rankings (which is based on ratings). So I’m not sure I agree with using it here as proof of popularity or whatever. You can’t use that list to and try to diminish the importance or worthiness of movies like Shawshank Redemption and Forest Gump and then turn around and use the exact same list to raise up A Clockwork Orange. It’s either a reliable gauge of a movie’s quality and popularity or it isn’t. We can’t pick and choose when want to confirm our own bias. I mean, I’m willing to concede that even if you broaden the sample size nothing changes at all. Maybe I’m just being presumptuous and I’m flat out wrong. All I can point to is, anecdotally, in my entire life, I have never heard an impassioned defense of this movie from a person that wasn’t a dude.

That could also be a generational thing. How much violence was in films when they were younger. I was also expecting a larger gender divide, but there might be self selection going on as well. The people most likely to hate it know of its reputation and just don't watch (and then don't rate it).

My condolences always come out poorly, ether feeling wordy or sounding possibly trite. But I am sorry that you have experienced this personally. I would not disagree with this statement. Regardless of whatever further discussion I have of it still, of which, I imagine there will be some barring time constraints, I do want to at least acknowledge this.

I know I would really like to watch The Women and a few other movies with you guys (but especially the Women which is somehow a movie without a single man in it and is also so misogynistic. I still adore it and am dying to see what you guys would make of it).

For the record: I’m 100% offended by the content. (Which I think is kind of the point) I don’t know that being offended by the content and not liking the movie in general have to be mutually exclusive. I will also confess, I’ve hated this movie since I was a teenager, and I hate it now as an adult. Personally, I don’t need gratuitous scenes of protracted rape to “get it.” I also don’t think the idea that Alex is forced to watch horrible images of rape and violence while A Clockwork Orange’s audience is watching them voluntarily is as clever as the movie seems to think. It all feels like an ill-conceived college film. I don’t care if everyone else loves it and I have no interest trying to convince people otherwise. I’m just speaking my truth.

I definitely don't think art "should" make you feel uncomfortable. Art should make you feel something but it doesn't have to be discomfort. And a lot of things that aren't art make me feel uncomfortable. And I'm not sure how Taxi Driver doesn't make someone feel uncomfortable. So, it meets that criteria in spades. I'm also not a fan of A Clockwork Orange either. I've always thought a lot of it came across as almost amateurish. I just think of bits like a person getting stabbed with a giant penis and the, I guess, subliminal messaging of cutting to the paintings during the stab. Things like that feel like film school student saying "did you get the symbolism?????" I know there's more to the movie than that but ehhhhh. This is just boring. I'm not offended by the content. It just doesn't do anything for me.

Sorry for the multiple posts - I'm catching up on the episode - but what did raise my eyebrow was at Amy's statement that art should make you feel uncomfortable. While I agree that it's great if "art" makes you think or maybe even consider distressing or foreign concepts, it shouldn't be the only criteria for judging whether you like that art. I felt like Amy didn't really have much defense for the movie, but in the end she even preferred it over Taxi Driver because of this one criterion. I don't get it.

I wanted to call A Clockwork Orange the KISS of movies, but I'm not sure if it even deserves to be called that. At best, it's Marilyn Manson. No one remembers him for being a great musician, just his "shock value." A Clockwork Orange is peanut-packed bro-core, drenched in sophomoric moral philosophy, that titters maliciously behind the guise of "Art." No thanks.

What gigi-tastic might look like...