What is it with TO reviewers and Kubrick?

'A sexless, inhuman film, whose power derives from a ruthless subordination of its content to the demands of telling a good story.' This is a nonsensical criticism. I thought good storytelling was a laudable ideal. The film doesn't really even subordinate its content, ie: Burgess' novel, it is a remarkably lucid adaptation, masterfully transforming Burgess' poetic prose into a cinematic symphony riffing on the theme of individual free will V's society.

It is only 'inhuman' if one is willing to believe that the primal urges its protagonist displays aren't human impulses, for good or bad. It is not my favourite Kubrick film, (I find the ending a little inadequate), but its still a powerful film that demands to be seen.