>>7844534
Book is fairly similar. It could even be a little more "edgy" since the girls he picks up at the record shop are 14 or so. It's been a while since I've read it though.

I don't feel the same way about the movie though. The second half is a little slower/drawn out.

>>7844534
You have to see the movie in the context of the time that it came out, not watching it a decade after Irreversible came out.

>>7844534
You couldn't read it so it doesn't matter.

>>7844534
the book has a diffrent ending than the movie does, which changes some things

so if you're interested in that go ahead

imo it's not worth reading

>>7844553
I remember then as younger desu.

The film had a better ending oddly enough, the book's felt totally out of place to the point where some publishers just didn't include it. Don't know what the author was thinking.

>>7844572
also, this guy seems to think you couldn't read it? honestly most lower students that aren't common cored can read this

I really tried to like it. So many people told me it was a great movie, with an amazing plot and "philosophical meaning". But it's empty and bland. The protagonist is really shit, no real personality, he looks real fucking retarded. After his suicide attempt, in the psychologist scene, I legitimately thought they lobotomized him

>>7844565
Never heard about it

>>7844534
How it the movie bad?
>It's stupid, violent, anarchist and rebel, the perfect edgy teenager combo
That's just the characterization of some of the teenage characters, who are that way for a reason.
I think the idea of "rehabilitation" through engineered trauma and what actually happens is the real attractive.

>>7844534
there is quite a controversy around the book and its adaptation.

it goes a little something like this
>burgess writes the book in 2 weeks bc he needs money
>the book basically hits you over the head with the assumption that there is a free will
>that was not a popular opinion in america at that time
>the american publisher did not publish the last chapter that turned everything around
>burgess accepted this bc he needed money
>kubrick reads american version
>starts work on his movie
>gets a british copy of the book, hates the original ending and does not go with it
>makes his movie about determination, abolishing free will
>also works in some hard to spot details that imply that ludovikos technique never worked
>the movie gets flak from some religious idiots after peope imitate the style and some crimes of alex
>this completely drowns out the discussion about the different endings

kubrik also changed some minor details that worked towards the free will ending of burgess.
i have written a paper on these details some time ago, would be willing to summarise them here if anyone cares

>should i read the book?
if you want to get the peacefull and conformist ending, yes
if you want to read some cool made-up words that made it into yesterdays popculture and are refernced in IJ and suchlike: yes
if you have nothing else on your list and want to kill a few evenings: yes
if you hated every aspect of the movie: no

>>7844648
>I think the idea of "rehabilitation" through engineered trauma and what actually happens is the real attractive.

I agree, I found it a really nice aspect of the movie. But, as it's implied in it, he was never really rehabilitated. He just lost his capability to be bad.

But I think it was poorly executed. Alex looks nothing like a protagonist. It just seems as if he were just a spectator through the whole movie, not a single event bothering him. He didn't get angry at the people who tortured him, he didn't get angry at the writer who tortured him, he didn't get angry at his friends for beating him. As he said in the end of the movie, "I passed through hell" with a smile on his face, as if it didn't affect him

>>7844689
>he was never really rehabilitated. He just lost his capability to be bad.
thats the whole point of the movie.
take away my ability to be an asshole and i am no longe a human protagonist.

wtf man.

>>7844697
I know that's the point of the movie. I'm not complaining, I'm saying I liked that part.

But that's not an excuse to be a reactionless protagonist

>>7844664
I would like to hear your summary on kubricks details

>>7844708
sry, read your post wrong.
tired af once more

after ludoviko, alex is programmed against a certaintype of action.
he does react to being beaten, he gets this "horrible horrible sickness"

and the movie implies that alex is in fact only pretending to being programmed:

like when he burps after the show in the prison. its the same burp he made to mock the policemen who arrested him
or when he stands at the river thames, before the beggars beat him up. the flood changes from high to low, implying that alex stood there, waiting to be recognised.

thats one of the major changes that kubrik made, which put alex in a very active and clever position.
This was just not intended by the book at all.

>>7844724
sry anon but i am really tired now.
but ill make a thread when I wake up, adressing the topic.
see you in 9 hours
>inb4 NEET: i am moving flats right now and have some free time.

>>7844740
Thanks! Looking forward to it