So what's the point of this film? Just a guy who does a lot of bad stuff?

what was the final chapter?

Casting a 27yo as Alex ruined the message, it's supposed to be a coming-of-age story (he's 15 in the book)

TL;DR, Alex gets a new gang and is preparing for another night of ultra-violence and sees the error of his ways and pledges reform lest his kids turn out like him. The end.

So Kubrick ends the film with "The govt is bad" and the book is more about "Take personal responsibility"?

>In the final chapter, Alex finds himself halfheartedly preparing for yet another night of crime with a new gang (Lenn, Rick, Bully). After a chance encounter with Pete, who has reformed and married, Alex finds himself taking less and less pleasure in acts of senseless violence. He begins contemplating giving up crime himself to become a productive member of society and start a family of his own, while reflecting on the notion that his own children could possibly end up being just as destructive as he has been, if not more so.

Yeah but it's also about growing up. Alex is 15 in the beginning of the book and 21 by the end

Attached: pete.jpg (310x310, 16.42K)

You know that Malcolm MacDowell also didn't live in a dystopian future, right?

Never thought of it like this. Thanks user.

I don't know what you're trying to imply. I'm just saying that it's stupid to cast someone in his late 20s to play a character who's supposed to be a teen

He's implying that you're a moron for believing that only teen actors could portray a character in a coming of age story, and following that logic only people who live in dystopian societies could portray Alex. It is such a non-issue with the movie.

Sure, let's cast a 60yo to play a middle-schooler too while we're at it, who cares about logic

dont be an idiot user

Let me guess, you're one of those people who doesn't understand the movie if the main character isn't a complete mary sue and good goy.

The movie would have a different impact if the lead actor was clearly a teen as opposed to a more fully baked adult who cannot change his ways as easily

Did you even watch it? He only does bad stuff for about the first third of the movie and the rest is about asking the question of if it’s moral to strip someone of their nature in order to conform to a societal structure.

...

Sounds fucking shitty

Free will is what makes a person a person. Even if a man is despicable he should still possess the choice of whether or not he wants to reform himself or if he wants to continue his crimes until he pays the price.

It's a hit job on CBT in favor of psycho-therapy.

Basically it's saying CBT treats you like a machine whereas psychoanalysis treats you as a living thing.
As far as free will goes, there is more free will to CBT than just going with what you were given by nature and psycho therapy takes too long.

Its about the nature of God giving mankind the choice to be good or wicked. Without choice, there is no good or wicked. Agency is key to being a human.

someone should have said this to ebert like 40 years ago

Sounds gay as fuck. I liked the movie. Book sounds like shit.

Free will is an illusion.