Female. I have watched A Clockwork Orange in its entirety several times. It’s disturbing, but it didn’t trigger in me the “I must get out of here right NOW” reaction. The movies that have are Pet Sematary (even though I had read the book) and Jurassic Park (although I was later able to read the book and to watch the movie on small screen). Apparently, I can tolerate incredibly explicit violence against women, but cannot stomach children in peril.
I’ve always wanted to see it, but my husband says I shouldn’t. I would rather judge for myself; I’m familiar with the premise and I’m curious about it.
Dating myself, I saw it when it first came out and fortunately was warned by a (male) friend that the opening was very, very disturbing, but to stick around anyway. I was grateful for the warning; otherwise, I definitely would have walked out on it. As it was, I didn’t, and I’ve since seen it again and still appreciate it. (I was going to say enjoy it, but I’m not sure that’s a word I want to apply to this movie!)
I’ve never read the novel so can’t complain about it being a bastardization. I generally try to avoid movies when I’ve read the novel, though, since my reaction is almost universally like Stranger’s.
Understand that I’m not just saying that it’s different from the novel; in fact, it follows the plot and actions of the novel quite closely, using much of the same ‘Nadsat’ dialogue, and with the exception of the final chapter, doesn’t omit any significant detail. But the presentation of it is very different than Burgess’ novel; Kubrick positively delights in laughing with Alex, while the reader of the novel is in horror of his banal justifications for such acts. Kubrick reportedly wanted to make a commerical porn film, and essentially used the explicit sex of the novel as a jumping off point for that.
I’m not opposed to violence or sex in films; I think Reservior Dogs is a very good, albeit almost unbearably violent film. Sex and Lucia is a favorite of it’s kind. But I think A Clockwork Orange is a reprehensible adaptation of the source work.
Stranger
I disagree with Stranger’s assessment of the differences between the novel and the movie. I read the novel first and loved it (went out and bought a bunch of his other books as a result). Saw the movie and thought it was great. Different from the book, sure, but still good. I got the Rolling Stone magazine issue that published the final chapter and enjoyed that (totally changes the book) and then bought the full version of the book when that became available in the US. I think it’s a great book, and I think it’s a great movie. I have the book. I have the DVD. I have the soundtrack. Love 'em all.
Oh, and I’m a woman.
I’m a guy, but WTH.
Except for the rape scene, it didn’t have much of an effect on me, because the rest of the movie seemed far-fetched. But that scene did get to me.
For really violent movies, I always found Straw Dogs to be much more disturbing. In some ways it’s a lot like Deliverance, but more realistic, and without all those annoying Burt Reynolds sermons.
Maybe I should forget about that nice quiet place in the country.
Oh, so anyway, I’d watch it again any time. My wife wouldn’t, though.
Haven’t seen it since I was a teenager, but (perhaps because I was forewarned) I was able to watch it. Yes, the violence was disturbing, but it had a point. It’s pointless violence that I find most objectionable.
I’m male and it didn’t bother me.
Deliverance bothered me, but not because of the rape scene per say. A movie which boils down to being a rape scene and otherwise nothing else is just stupid. I’m not going to try and enjoy a film that thinks that shock value in and of itself is a redeeming virtue, and can make a movie. Exploiting rape and calling it art is disgusting. A Clockwork Orange and American History X both had real plots and dialogue. The rape scenes of these were justifiable to the story and pointful, and hence didn’t bother me in the slightest.
I’m a woman. I’m 28. I own it on DVD. I watched it when I was 15 - my dad recommended it to me. But we have always had very similar tastes in film, and he knew I would see past what most people might consider “weird” or even unwatchable to get to the story underneath. It fascinated me enough to want to read the book, which he also recommended after I’d seen the movie. We both like the book better, but we are both rather fond of Kubrick movies, albeit a little sheepishly.
You want to know what was weirder? My mother giving me her copy of Flowers in the Attic (book) when I was 12. Blech. I managed to avoid sleeping with my own brother, though. 
I’m a woman and watched it in college (plenty of other women there, too). I was bothered by the various forms of coersion portrayed, but had read the book and knew what I was getting into. If it had been somebody other than Kubrick, it might not have been sufficiently well-done to get me to stay. The same year I walked out on Last Tango in Paris because it was boring.
Don’t be stupid. I mean good for you, I can watch Thelma and Louise too. But there’s a small difference between a rape that’s portrayed as a bad thing that befalls the protaganist, and a one where the protaganist is the rapist, its shown from his perspective as just some hijinks, and we’re supposed to sympathize with him. That’s the whole point of what Kubrick’s doing. It’s supposed to be freaking disturbing, because it’s NOTHING LIKE Deliverance or American History X.
Femme here. I own the movie, and it doesn’t bother me at all, despite my own rape experience. My parents did a pretty good job of instilling in me that what’s in a movie IS NOT REAL (unless otherwise noted,) so I wrote it off as I would any horrible thing.
Or maybe I’m just really screwed up in the head, who knows?
Female. And yes it’s disturbing. It’s suposed to be. That’s one of the things art is for. Do I just want to be fed pablum?
I have to say it’s better if you’ve read the book first. It get more into the psycology whereas the movie is about striking images. Myself, I like both.
Female - and I love it. One of my top 10 films of all time. I’ve loved it since I first saw it in the seventies, and I’ve caught it every time it’s been on TV. I loved the book, too, but I’m surprised to find there is another chapter that changes the ending. I guess I’ve gotta get me to Amazon and fins a copy for myself…
I have it in my “to watch list.” It’s one of the most common posters in independently-owned video stores, but they never have it.
I suspect the eye scene will give me lots of trouble.
Having read the book, I have absolutely no desire to see the movie. I really do not like watching rape portrayed on film.
Femme here, I managed to read the book (thanks to the glossary in the back) and wanted to see the movie. While I can’t say that I loved it, I liked it well enough and watch it whenever it’s on cable. The eye things were the worst for me since I have a weird eye phobia but WTH. On the other hand, Sin City was very disturbing to me.
I’ve seen it a couple of times. I thought it was a good movie, not on my top ten or anything, but good nonetheless.
Female, here - I’ve watched it, and though it was disturbing, I think some more “realistic” films have more of an impact on me. This was kind of a surreal film and helps me distance myself from it. (I was sexually assaulted.) Movies like The Accused were worse. (And oddly, some no-name SF film where a monster/alien/something rapes a woman and impregnates her - maybe it’s because you could hear the thrusting or something, ew.)
Regarding the eye scene, I work in ophthalmology these days, so I don’t think it’d bother me at all.