How is this film 'weird'? Obviously the people calling this film that and such, have yet to see a truly weird film, or are just in need of a dictionary. This has to be one of the most overrated and dated films ever made. I just don't get it. Oh, wait, maybe because there truly is nothing to actually 'get'. Is it that hard to figure out?
Firstly, I have not yet read the book, but I know some people who have, and they say that this film is nothing compared to the book, and not as in 'better' than the book, but it's not true to the book. People who think Alex is cool, and can't wait to read about him in the book, do not get to excited, as he's someone completely different from the film. Kubrick got it all wrong, way wrong. He's like a totally different person, in fact, so is the whole damn thing. I think the director was having a bit of a laugh. Has Kubrick no dignity? He should have read the book beforehand and then have made the film, jeez, I think that's the least I could have expected from him.
Plus, this film was really boring. It's like futuristic Britain? rofl, how's that then? It just looks like it's 1970's Britain, Stanley wasn't even trying, and you people all fell for it. Ah, my, what rubbish.
He should have made up for that pretentious mess The Space Odyssey, is this his way of saying sorry? ...Not good enough!