I just finished seeing this movie, and I know we have a dedicated thread for discussing movies recently seen, but I felt this movie merited its own thread. I'm just amazed at how they make you feel sympathy for such a disgusting character. You start out hating Alex to the core, as he commits acts of senseless, shocking violence with no sense of compassion or remorse. However, as he goes through the treatment, you start to side with him, because you realize the shit he's going through just isn't humane. As Alex faces the world he wronged without tools to defend himself, you watch with both a scared and ravenous eye. "Poor guy!" "He's finally getting what he deserves!" By the very end, as Alex reverts to his old self, your emotions are once again split, and you want to cheer for his overcoming of that debilitating damage, but are also worried about who his next victims might be.
This movie turned out to be deeper than I ever imagined it. It may even be better than Full Metal Jacket (First part of that was awesome, second part not so much)!

Is it bad that I practically cheered him on through the whole movie, apart from the rape scene? Although that did make me laugh quite a bit.

I thought the movie was horrible, but then I really don't like Stanley Kubrick's style. You should read the book, it's much better than the movie, and has way more of an emotional impact. Also, it contains the actual ending that was originally edited out of the American version of the book, because it was deemed too controversial for the American readers. Hence, it wasn't in the movie either.
Be advised the reading the book requires a lot of work. It's not written in English, but in Nat-Sat, the teenage slang that the gang uses, which is heavily influenced by Russian, and which has also been removed almost completely from the movie. Fortunately, there's a dictionary at the back of the book, but it's still hard going at first. It's definitely worth it though.

Never found the film to be interesting.

As many movies based on books, agree with that.
But comparing a Kubrick movie and the book that inspired it is pretty useless. Every movie he's made are based on a novel or a short story, but Kubrick's intention has never been to truly follow those books, he just used the basic concept of the story to make his own, the original book was juste the basics, the begining of his creative process, nothing more.

I've often thought of renting it to watch because I'm a big fan of Malcolm McDowell but I'm far from a fan of Kubrick so there's a balancing act. Perhaps if they were to do a victorian era themed remake called "A Steampunk Satsuma"...
Its sort of like the comedy version of Casino Royale, its Bond which is cool, has David Niven who is awesome but then it has woody allen who is such a massive anchor that I suspect he'd make the film intolerable.

True, but as I said, I specifically don't like his style. His "creative processes" involve WAY too many mushrooms and fine white powders, whilst eliminating every shred of meaning from the story (that last bit refers mostly to 2001).

Bone, you don't like a single film by Kubrick?
And I don't quite understand what his style would be. Most of his movies vastly differ from the other doesn't it?
Bone, you don't like a single film by Kubrick?
And what style does Kubrick have? I mean, every movie I've seen by him vastly differ from the other.
Please explain.

I know what style you're talking about, but I'm the opposite with it. The lighting he used in Full Metal Jacket the night that guy goes crazy brilliantly displays just how frightening he has become. Also, who can forget that guy riding the bomb down in Dr. Strangelove, or the elevator pouring out gallons of blood in The Shining? He's created amazing scenes that are in league with the best, and while his movie may not ever be 100% perfect, they are still amazing to watch.
Also, has anyone ever realized how critical the Amazon.com review is on a product page? Taken from the page for A Clockwork Orange:
"Kubrick not only presents colorfully arresting images, he also stylizes the film by utilizing classical music (and Wendy Carlos's electronic classical work) to underscore the violent scenes, which even today are disturbing in their display of sheer nihilism. Ironically, many fans of the film have missed that point, sadly being entertained by its brutality rather than being repulsed by it."

I assume you're talking to me. I think the only two Kubrick movies I've seen are 2001 and A Clockwork Orange. That, for me, was enough, and I've never felt the urge to watch anything else of his. Particularly 2001 is responsible for turning me off of Kubrick forever. Yes, it was innovative, but innovation is not a virtue in and of itself. He seems to have taken great pains to remove every trace of meaning from that movie. Add to that a huge chunk of psychedelic hallucinations, and you end up with a movie which I categorize as, at best, a complete waste of my time.
Basically, taste is completely individual. I'm not saying Kubrick sucks, I'm just saying he probably isn't for me.

I can see if someone doesn't fall for something like 2001. With little to no dialogue spanning how long?
But give Full Metal Jacket a try. Honestly, it's probably his most accomplished film.