Ebert
Ebert disliked it based on the tone of his criticisms alone, being generally disapproving of the main character, Alex, the setting of the film, and Stanley Kubrick's intentions in making the film. This is largely the focus of the review: Ebert is trying to understand why Kubrick spends so much time trying to make the despicable main character into a hero, especially when this "hero's" violent urges seem to be caused by nothing at all. The film, according to Ebert, is not about a fictional future society with a resounding statement, but instead is about Alex committing violent and horrible deeds because Kubrick wanted the movie to entertain in that way. The setting is merely a "trendy decor" with no purpose or valid criticism of modern society. Ebert also references "2001: A Space Odyssey" in the latter half of the review, explaining that near the end of "A Clockwork Orange", Kubrick manages to insert some overt references to "2001", including a shot of Alex that is strikingly similar to a shot of the Star Child, making it seem that Kubrick wants the audience to identify with twisted little Alex. And in the end, after all of that, Ebert concluded that the movie was simply boring.
Canby
On the far opposite end is Vincent Canby of the NY Times, who wrote a review that is quite the far cry from Ebert's. Canby initially discusses the disorienting and dangerous feel of the movie, as it remains seemingly disconnected from the subject matter it discusses, and then goes on to discuss Alex, much like Ebert. Also much like Ebert, Canby is horrified by Alex; however, he sees this as a critical success. Canby believes that Alex allows the viewer to witness a character that they cannot, or should not, identify with, all in a world that's so repulsive, and yet so attractive thanks to Kubrick's directing chops. Because of this contrasting nature, Canby believes that the movie is a satire, and even an extremely dark comedy, in some respects. On commenting about the violent nature of the film, Canby believes that it's far too stylized for a mature audience to respond to it as literal in any way.
Personal Analysis
After reading Ebert's quote, "I don't know quite how to explain my disgust at Alex," I realize that I'm in exactly the same boat. While Alex may not be all that varied personality-wise, he has this overtly despicable nature that manages to trump a lot of other intentionally awful characters, with his song-like cadence contrasting his brutal deeds. Some viewers can't help but feel disgusted by his actions, but simultaneously enthralled by the actual freedoms he has within them. I definitely agree with Ebert here: Alex is horrible, but I do find him interesting.
As for a quote from Canby, I found the quote, "It is an almost perfect example of the kind of New Movie that is all the more disorienting--and thus, apparently, dangerous--because it seems to remain aloof from, and uninvolved with, the matters it's about," to be something I firmly agree with. I feel like the whole reason so many people dislike this movie (and there are many good reasons to not like it) is because it does feel so disconnected. This is a movie that revels in the repugnant nature of its characters, and yet it never directly addresses the violent acts occurring onscreen, or the despicable main character. It never seems to say to the viewer, "This violence, and these actions, are bad". And yet it never seems to support this violence either, all while making the viewer question what freedoms each and every one of us should be able to have in society if this type of violence exists.
Out of the two reviews, I would have to pick Canby's as the most convincing. Despite being a reasonably big Ebert fan, I thought that Canby's review covered most of the bases, discussing characters, a little bit of the plot, the filming style and overall tone, and even a little bit of the philosophy behind the film. Ebert seems to rant a little bit in his review, choosing to focus on Alex, and Kubrick's love for him, for the entire duration of the review. Ebert also flat out stated how the movie made him mad, and therefore he inserts a few sarcastic comments (such as, "weep, sob, we're making excuses") that loosen his credibility a bit, and made me feel like he wasn't really taking the movie seriously when he wrote the review, regardless of his overall opinion of it. He also manages to throw a jab at the New York Times (appropriately) because of their positive rating of the film, which seemed a bit unfair.
To say of my own review of the film, I would discuss the main plot to some length, followed by an analysis of the main character (especially for this film). I would then really like to discuss a lot of the stylistic choices, such as the quick editing cuts that correlate with the blasting classical music, all while chaos unfolds onscreen. What I'd most want to talk about, though, are the ideas behind freedom that the film discusses, like the question it poses on whether society can impose restrictions on a person simply because they have taken advantage of these freedoms, and therefore, their society. I would really want to try to delve into this movie's ideas.
