Lolita

Rating:
Summary: masterpiece
Review: For years I avoided seeing the Kubrick 'Lolita' because i thought the brilliant Nabokov novel could not be filmed successfully. I was wrong. Kubrick took his own cool and darkly comic view of the novel's theme and turned it into a compelling movie which must be seen.

Of course, Sue Lyons is not the Lolita of the novel. But who could have been? Perhaps Natalie Portman, if she'd been around at the time, could have made a credible stab at this difficult role. But in the end, that doesn't matter. Lolita exists as a tortured figure in James Mason's Humbertish mind -- she is a cypher, and we see her through his lustful, craving eyes. We really do not need to see Lolita at all -- just study James Mason's reactions. His acting is the high-point of the film. Select Chapter 14 of the DVD to watch him read his landlady's declaration of love. Watch and listen to him laughing with evil glee as he reads her confession. It's a macabre performance to enjoy forever.

The recent Adrian Lyne film of Lolita was fine in its own very different way, and more faithful to the novel. But Kubrick's account is touched by genius, as befits a film treatment of a novel written by a genius! This DVD incarnation confirms its place as a cinema classic.

Rating:
Summary: Kubrick's "Lolita" is its own thing...
Review: Devoted as I am to Vladimir Nabokov's novel of Lolita, and as much good as there was in Adrian Lyne's more accurate interpretation of it, I must confess that Stanley Kubrick's 1962 film version functions better than either as social commentary. Nabokov's novel was radically subjective - not a thing happened unfiltered by its hero's own vision. Transliterated as it was by Adrien Lyne, the result was claustrophobic. Kubrick's film, by contrast, invited us to stand outside and look in at the strange behavior of mid-20th century America's "progressive" middle-class. That was the right approach. By not asking us to relate to an obvious pedophile, or any of the other characters, Kubrick allowed us to fully absorb the ethical and emotional consequences of their interactions.

The oddly named Humbert Humbert (James Mason in, perhaps, his finest performance), comes to America from some unspecified European country. Looking for lodging, he crosses paths with Dolores "Lolita" Haze (Sue Lyon), and her mother Charlotte (brilliantly played by Shelley Winters). What follows is a black comedy swirling giddily around a host of sexual taboos - pedophilia chief among them, as Humbert finds himself sexually obsessed with the teen-aged Lolita. Had this been a TV-movie of the week, Lolita would have been the saintly victim of the villainous Humbert. Instead, Kubrick and Nabokov's Lolita is a precocious manipulator - awakening to her sexual identity and the strange power she can exert over members of the opposite sex. The difference, of course, is that she is a child and doesn't know any better; Humbert is an adult and damn well should.

So, for that matter, should Clare Quilty, Humbert's rival for the attentions of the young nymphet. Quilty, though sicker than Humbert, is a farcical character, played brilliantly by Peter Sellers - the Robin Williams of his day. The edgy, blackly comedic tone is no better exemplified than in the scenes he and Humbert have together. It becomes obvious as the film progresses that, in some twisted way, Humbert actually loves Lolita, while Quilty sees her more as the object of a fetish.

By the end, Humbert is reduced to a broken shell of a man, and it does not really matter if we approve of his behavior or not: he is still sympathetic, as much a victim of his own demons as Lolita herself, or her hapless mother. Without lifting a finger to "redeem" him, Kubrick forces us to come to terms with Humbert's humanity, as well as his perversion.

Compare that to sanctimonious pap like American Beauty, a film that nearly demands that we "understand" its main character, even daring suggest that disapproving of his infatuation with a teenaged girl is akin to the homophobic excesses of his sadistic, one-dimensional ex-Marine neighbor (apparently ugly stereotypes are perfectly OK when applied to conservatives). Add to this a few patently absurd, over-the-top plot developments and Kubrick's Lolita begins looking better and better.

Many have suggested that, had Kubrick made Lolita in a more permissive atmosphere, a different (therefore "better") film would have resulted. I doubt it. At the end of the day, Kubrick's Lolita is more about foolish, pathetic, self-destructive behavior, than pushing the limits of what salacious content we are allowed to see on-screen. It is about how obsession and hypocrisy can crush a person. It is about how very funny we are as a species, with our propensity destroy each other and ourselves for the pettiest, most absurd of reasons.

Rating:
Summary: most of you are correct
Review: while most of you are correct about the DVD "lolita" one of you left out something very important.
yes both men end up dead, one shot and one from heart failue.
lolita too dies, she doesnt go on with life with the guy she met her own age, she dies during child birth less than a month after the professor dies in prison.

it is a decent movie with a good story line just don't get it thinking you will see a lot of explicit material because that is not what the movie is meant to be and you will be disappointed.

Rating:
Summary: An Innovative Sixties' Look
Review: "Lolita" is an ode to the sexually experimental sixties delivered by directorial baton master Stanley Kubrick. While the film's listed screenwriter is Vladimir Nabokov, author of the novel being adapted to the screen, when his scenario was ultimately published it became obvious that Kubrick had placed his own stylish imprint on the script of the daring film.

The film begins in the manner of 1950 noir classic "Sunset Boulevard" in that we learn that one main character has been eliminated by another. In the earlier film it was William Holden being shot by live in love Gloria Swanson, while in the 1963 Kubrick masterpiece an enraged and helpless James Mason makes good in his threat to kill Peter Sellers. Before he is shot Sellers chides him, preferring to believe that his adversary will never follow through with his homicidal plan.

We then proceed to action four years earlier via flashback, when professor of literature Mason decides to spend a quiet summer in New Hampshire before starting a new job in the fall at an Ohio college. He encounters love-starved widow Shelley Winters. She hopes that his decision to rent a room in her home is occasioned by mutual attraction. The motivator is instead an overpowering attraction toward her 14-year-old daughter, beautiful blonde Lolita played by screen newcomer Sue Lyon.

Tragedy occurs when Winters, reading Mason's private diary, learns that he thinks of her as a "love sick cow" and is passionately in love with Lyon. She runs out into the street and is killed by an oncoming car.

Mason uses his strategic wits to become more than Lyon's stepfather, making good on his romantic designs. Trouble soon looms, however, from an invading force.

The catalyst of danger is none other than Peter Sellers, who puts his virtuosity to work by masquerading as various characters such as a policeman and psychiatrist, tormenting Mason by convincing him that he knows what he is up to and that he might be perilously close to the jailhouse door.

Ultimately Lyon leaves a devastated Mason. When he realizes that the zany but wily Sellers has let him court danger through sex with a minor while he plots to successfully take her away in a cleverly subtle ploy, Mason's desperation is pushed to full throttle. The scenes between masterful tortured intellectual Mason and innovatively zany Sellers are some of the best in cinema annals, daring explorations of sexually driven psyches orchestrated by the imaginative Kubrick.

Rating:
Summary: Pretty great
Review: Do yourself a favor-and see this version of Lolita before you, or if you ever do get around to watching the 1997 film.This movie captures the novel's essence a whole lot more; not to mention, it's superbly acted and written, and feautures an array of great scenes.

James Mason is wonderful as Humbert Humbert. Stiff and charming and doomed all at the same time, he conveys his characters' feelings perfectly.Shelly Winters is an absolute riot and adds all the spunk and humor to the first part of the film.Peter Sellers works in some great lines as the pathetic Quilty, and Sue Lyons; well, she's not much of an actress, and she's a tad too old for the part.But the age gap is hardly noticeable, and one doesn't need to be much of an actress in order to convey the part of Lolita-she's more like a backdrop to the movie than an actual character. Yes, things get a bit drab in the end-the movie is certainly a whole lot more fun and irresistable in the beginning,due partly to the presence of Shelly Winters. And this film lacks the emotional impact, although I'm pretty sure it was intended as more of a dark comedy than a drama.

I don't think this movie is worthy of classic status or anything, but it's quite a great film.It's got great performances, and the script is absolute perfection,a marvel, I can't tell you how good it is(written by Nabokov himself).It's definately worth a watch, whatever your tastes.Don't expect to be blown away, but do expect to be fairly pleased, as all in all, this is a fine film.And if you're really,really curious, well then read the novel, which is more dense and difficult than one would imagine.

Rating:
Summary: Lolita
Review: Perhaps the first "real" Stanley Kubrick film, "Lolita" shines as a masterpiece. The subject matter is difficult and unpleasant: a middle-aged Humbert Humbert (James Mason) becomes..obsessed with the provocative nymphet Lolita Haze (Sue Lyon). Even Sir Laurence Olivier turned down the role of pedophile Humbert, but eventually James Mason took on the role. It is a difficult one, but James Mason gives the performance of his career in this film.

Humbert Humbert comes to America to "find a haven" for himself. He is dapper, well-mannered, and polite. He finds lodgings living with the widowed Charlotte Haze, a pathetic.. woman brilliantly played by Shelley Winters. The reason the Humbert decides to stay is because of Charlotte's beautiful fourteen year old daughter Lolita. Humbert becomes obsessed with her, and damns himself when he marries the awful Charlotte to be near her. In a brilliantly played scene, Charlotte discovers Humbert's ..obsession with her daughter and kills herself.

Now Humbert is free to indulge in his passion for the nymphet Lolita. Sue Lyon as Lolita Haze gives a performance that was worthy of an Academy Award. New to acting, Lyon's Lolita is so raw, so real, so utterly convincing that we are compelled to see more. Humbert and Lolita go on a road odyssey together, occaisionally settling down, but moving when people become too suspicious of their relationship. In one scene, Lolita cries out against Humbert, cries out of the unfairness of her life and what he has done to her. Soon afterwards Lolita disappears.

Years later Humbert finds her again. She is married to a man her own age and is pregnant with his child. Lolita has the brains to realize that she had to get out of a situation that would destroy her. Humbert stands before her exposed, and we realize that he knows how sick his obsessions are. He breaks down before the "normal" Lolita, and leaves.

That brings us to the fourth great performance of "Lolita," Peter Sellers as the quirky writer Clare Qwilty. Sellers is amusing and gripping in the role of a man who is Humbert's shadow in more ways than one. Because of the censors, Stanley Kubrick had to make the ..elements of the story merely suggestive. This heightens the feelings of the film. Such as when Lolita says that Humbert doesn't love her anymore because he "hasn't kissed her yet," the camera fades to black. We are left to imagine what happens next. These combine to make "Lolita" a fascinating psychological character study in the lives of three desperate human beings and the girl who unknowingly destroys them all.

Rating:
Summary: One of Kubrick's best
Review: Among Stanley Kubrick's four great cinematic works-the three others: Dr. Strangelove (1964), 2001, A Space Odyssey (1968), and A Clockwork Orange (1971)-Lolita (1962) is the most uneven, yet in some ways the most brilliant. (I understand that Barry Lyndon (1975) is also very good, but I haven't seen it yet.) The casting, from the improbable choice of Peter Sellers as Claire Quilty, to the exactly right choice of Shelley Winters as Charlotte Haze, to the beautiful Sue Lyon as Lolita, to the "old world" James Mason as Humbert Humbert, was inspired. The witty and intensely focused interpretation of Nabokov's black comedic novel was probably as true to Vladimir's spirit as the silver screen could hope to come, and yet the film was clearly and exactly a Stanley Kubrick work of art.

The scene (apparently a Kubrick witticism) in which friends of the dead Charlotte find Humbert in the tub with a scotch and a hand gun, and mistakenly think he is about to blow his brains out from grief when in fact he is in jubilant celebration, is a wonderful variation on Nabokov's text, as is the use of Peter Sellers disguised as a Freudian shrink at the girl's school. However, I thought the Buster Keatonish slapstick improv with the folding cot at the Enchanted Huntress a bit overdone.

Inevitably the recent Adrian Lyne film and Kubrick's must be compared. The photography in the Lyne film was superior, and Lyne more clearly demonstrated the tragic nature of Humbert's all-controlling obsession. Otherwise, Kubrick's Lolita is clearly superior both as entertainment and as cinematic art, mainly because it is free from even a hint of political correctness and passes no judgment. This is essentially a difference in tone and attitude. Lyne's film insists that we appreciate the depraved nature of Humbert's desire and how it ruined Lolita. Kubrick's leads us to believe that Lolita was a tragic figure whose very nature (through no fault of her own, of course) suggests her inevitable corruption, if not by Humbert then by Quilty, or perhaps eventually by our society itself.

But neither film was about the actual relationship depicted in the novel, since no one, given the prudish and hypocritical mentality of the American psyche, and the taboo nature of the material, can ever hope to make a film completely true to Nabokov's vision. Lolita was twelve years old. That is the singular truth that Kubrick and Lyne were not able to show. Much is lost in not understanding that Humbert desired a nymphet, shy of her full sexual development, and not a fifteen-year-old. (Both Sue Lyons and Dominique Swain from Lyne's movie were fifteen years old during the filming.) Nabokov makes it abundantly clear in the novel that it is precisely the delicate, pre-adolescent form of the girl that excites Humbert. One recalls the scene in the novel (not presented in either film) in which the perverted Humbert forces Lolita to sit with him in their vehicle near an elementary school as he watches the children cross the street hoping to spot a nymphet to excite him.

Until such time as people are able to face the broad spectrum of human sexuality without cant and prejudice, and without fear, an authentic version of Nabokov's novel cannot possibly be filmed.

Rating:
Summary: Nice movie, but it's not Nabokov's "Lolita"
Review: If ever the statement that the movie is not as good as the book is true, it applies to Kubrick's "Lolita". I really like the movie on its own, but it bears little resemblance to the novel (my favorite) other than young girl/old man, the names, and the broadest structure of the story.

Problem areas:

1. Age - by Humbert's definition, a nymphet is between 9 and 14 years old. Sue Lyons was too old, and looked even older. Mason was about 10 years too old as well, and not really the "glam man" Lo would be attracted to (as in the book).
2. Disregard for the content of the novel - by ignoring the screenplay written by the original author and making up other scenes that were not part of the book, it makes one wonder what story was being told.
3. Location - in the novel, Hubert and Lolita travel 27,000 miles in the course of a couple years, and geography plays a substantial part in the book. Filming in England provides little in the way of geography and the motel-hopping lifestyle that was so prevalent in the novel.
4. The same three things in both versions of the movie bother me, as I feel it robs Humbert of some nuance to his character:
A. No mention of his first wife, Valeria. He was not always just into nymphets.
B. No mention of his second wife, Rita, or taping a goodbye note to her navel so she would find it.
C. The last page-and-a-half from the book was left out. This is possibly the most moving passage of the novel - when Hubert offers his apology for all his nastiness, and his admonition to Lolita, and the revelation that neither Lolita nor Humbert are alive as we read the book, and his pathetic summation..."I am thinking of aurochs and angels, the secret of durable pigments, prophetic sonnets, the refuge of art. And this is the only immortality you and I may share, my Lolita." It ties everything together and completes the circle.

Strengths:

1. Acting - this was good by the 4 prime characters - Lolita (Sue Lyons), Humbert (James Mason), Charlotte (Shelly Winters) and Quilty (Peter Sellers).
2. Cinematography - nicely filmed, in black-and-white.

This is a good movie - but it surely is not Nabokov's "Lolita".

Rating:
Summary: The Remake is a Better Film
Review: I was surprised, after seeing both versions of Lolita back to back, that again and again people were calling the original a classic, even a masterpiece, while never having seen the 1997 version.

The original is drab, lacking in sensuality, atmosphere and character depth. Yes, the first hour is devoted to the household of Lo with her mother and more time is devoted to Quilty, who is distractingly entertaining in a number of unnecessary scenes.

Yes, Kubrick is regarded as one of the best filmmakers of all time. But this film is proof that even artists have their limitations when it comes to theme and mood. Kubrick has never been sexy or warm, not even perverse, as Humbert must be explored in all of these contexts as an adult in love with a child.

The story is about the exchange of power and affection between two individuals who should not be indulging in such an unhealthy intimacy. It is not about Charlotte getting drunk at a party, or how many accents Sellers can provide, it is about a human connection and the audiences' judgement of that connection.

It is interesting that Nabakov wrote the screenplay- when he had created such a lusty, colorful novel as Lolita. All color, literally, is lost in the 2 act film adaptation. Lyne made a film with vision, beauty and disturbing performances that do the novel justice. It gives a lot for an artist to think about when the best choices for a film is other than one of the world's most renowned directors and the novel's own author . . .

Rating:
Summary: most of you are correct
Review: while most of you are correct about the DVD "lolita" one of you left out something very important.
yes both men end up dead, one shot and one from heart failue.
lolita too dies, she doesnt go on with life with the guy she met her own age, she dies during child birth less than a month after the professor dies in prison.

it is a decent movie with a good story line just don't get it thinking you will see a lot of explicit material because that is not what the movie is meant to be and you will be disappointed.