Critics’ reviews

A Clockwork Orange (1971)

11 reviews from 11 publications. Critics’ score 72: 8 positive, 1 mixed, 2 negative.

Back to our review of A Clockwork Orange

72
Positive
8
Mixed
1
Negative
2
Empire
1 January 2009 · Kim Newman
90*

The film is a much-maligned and misunderstood classic and one of Kubrick's finest. It is resoundingly fable-like and abstract rather than a glamorisation of violence, with a stylised approach, sculpturally perfect sets and an astonishing performance by Malcolm McDowell at its core.

Read the full review →
The New York Times
9 January 1972 · Vincent Canby
90*

Kubrick's film is a brilliant and dangerous work, an almost perfect example of the disorienting New Movie that remains aloof from the matters it depicts. It fashions the rise and fall of Alex as the most elegantly stylized and classically balanced movie Kubrick has ever made.

Read the full review →
Variety
15 December 1971 · Murf.
90*

Kubrick's film is a brilliant nightmare that runs contemporary social syndromes through a cinematic centrifuge to produce comic horrors of a regulated society. It makes an opaque argument for preserving respect for man's free will, even to do wrong, using vulgarity, brutality and sophisticated comedy.

Read the full review →
Slant Magazine
20 November 2007 · Jeremiah Kipp
85*

The critic views the film as Kubrick's finest masterwork, praising its refusal to judge Alex while forcing viewers to confront their own morality through the director's ironic, distancing aesthetic. McDowell's charismatic, gleeful performance as the ultra-violent protagonist is highlighted as central to the film's human and satirical power.

Read the full review →
The Guardian
13 January 1972
85*

The critic calls the film chilling and mesmeric, predicting it could become one of the seminal movies of the seventies through its density of quality and imaginative use of cinema's first principles. They single out the technical symmetry of sight and sound, along with strong performances especially from Malcolm McDowell as Alex.

Read the full review →
Radio Times
★★★★ · Andrew Collins
80

The critic notes the film's inflated mythology due to its long unavailability in the UK but finds it prescient, visceral, and compelling despite its shocking violence. Kubrick's distinctive vision stands out, even if the film falls short of undisputed masterpiece status.

Read the full review →
The New Yorker
25 December 1971 · Pauline Kael
40*

Kubrick's film is literal-minded in its sex and brutality and Teutonic in its humor, the work of a strict professor making a pornoviolent sci-fi comedy that turns the novel's meanings around. By making victims more repulsive than the thugs, Kubrick has learned to love the punk sadist and puts the audience on Alex's side.

Read the full review →
RogerEbert.com
2 February 1972 · Roger Ebert
20*

The critic calls the film an ideological mess that celebrates its sadistic hero Alex rather than critiquing society or the state, using visual techniques to make the audience identify with him. It is ultimately talky, boring, and a paranoid right-wing fantasy masquerading as social commentary.

Read the full review →
Den of Geek
14 June 2011 · Matt Edwards
90*

The critic calls the film one of the best ever made and says hardly any element falls short, praising its visually striking quality from the opening and Malcolm McDowell's magnificent central performance that makes the character compelling despite his actions.

Read the full review →
Paste
16 July 2024 · Scott Wold
70*

The film is a relentlessly vicious satire of a society permissive of brutal youth culture, where science and psychology serve as countermeasures to ultra-violence. It highlights how evil ultimately wins in the end, with Malcolm McDowell's electric performance as Alex standing out.

Read the full review →
The Ringer
13 March 2019 · Adam Nayman
50*

The film is a contradiction: a classic that is also a failure and a masterpiece that falls short of its ambitions, with undeniable visceral intensity and visual imagination. It excels particularly in its contrapuntal use of music but struggles with simplistic pitting of the antihero against authority and overemphasis on his charisma at the expense of other characters.

Read the full review →

Ordered by the weight we give each publication, then by score. Scores are normalised to 100; * means inferred from an unrated review. Summaries are ours, not quotations; follow the links for the reviews themselves. How we rate