Rating: 
Summary: Not entirely like the book, but why should it be?
Review: What makes a filmed adaptation of a novel interesting is not always utter fidelity to the source material; indeed, utter fidelity (as in the case of the Merchant/Ivory films of James and Forster) can kill a film adaptation, because what film version can utterly replicate the experience of a reader while reading a fine novel, and the version he or she imagines in his or her head? Kubrick's version is very faithful in parts, but veers away in other places; no, it is not as good as the novel (what film adaptation ever is?), but it's still brilliant, beautifully acted, and very, very, very funny--much funnier than the dour Adrian Lyne version of the book, which would never clue you in at all that Nabokov's book is so hilarious.The performances in Kubrick's film are magnificent--even Nabokov himself, who didn't care for what Kubrick did with his story, thought the four leads were just about perfect. I don't think there could be a funnier performance on film than Shelley Winters as Charlotte Haze: the sequence where she sneaks into dancing with Clare Quilty ("Hel-LO! ) alone makes this version worth watching.
Rating: 
Summary: A masterpiece, and excellent DVD !
Review: First, I would like to correct some mistakes read on these reviews : Lolita was shot before Strangelove, not after ! It is as masterful as Kubrick other movies. Sue Lyon is perfect in the role, and Nabokov has not been put apart by Kubrick. He wrote the screenplay, Kubrick filmed it (the way he wanted, it's his film), and it is to be said that Nabokov liked the film (unlike Stephen King who hated Shining). The character of Peter Sellers will be an unforgettable memory for all viewers, and I believe he's even funnier and brillant that in Strangelove. Besides, unlike 2001 (with compression problems, impossible to watch!), Lolita is the best master and image quality of the Kubrick DVD Collection. I would give a big A for the image which is simply perfect. This DVD could easily be selected as a Criterion edition. Buy it, you won't regret it. it's full of wit, subversive, humor, slapstick (in the hotel room), disguise, perversity, immorality and brillant acting (Shelley Winter is so perfect that we all want to kill her !). A MUST !
Rating:
Summary: Kubrick's Own
Review: The film sparkles no matter what anyone says about it. Kubrick truly makes it his own as he does in his other works - the characters, typically males, disregard the accepted social morals and mores and are thus, subjected to ridicule and cruelty -- typically at the hands of the female characters. Nabokov or not, Lolita is Kubrick's film -- there are no problems with the video transfer... The film is enjoyable nonetheless; Mason is superb, Lyon is sexy, Sellers is mad and Winters is wonderful...
Rating: 
Summary: Far From Kubrick's Best
Review: Director Stanley Kubrick takes Vladimir Nabokov's novel and turns it into the Peter Sellers Show. Instead of a serious treatment of Nabokov's work we get a black comedy. James Mason, Shelley Winters, and Sue Lyon are horribly miscast although Mason tries his best in the role of protagonist Humbert Humbert. If you like Sellers you'll see plenty of him although his continued presence pretty much ruins the entire movie. If you want to see a good adaptation of Lolita check out the 1997 version with Jeremy Irons. Don't waste your time with this one.
Rating:
Summary: Hmmmmmm.....
Review: After I memorized all of "Full Metal Jacket" I started going back over some of Kubrick's earlier work, and found this to be one of the more effective ones. Both funny and sad, "Lolita" proves how diverse Kubrick is (this film came right between "Spartacus" and "Dr. Strangelove".) Yet the themes of alienation and irony are prevelent here, as they are in all of his films. The performances and the dialogues are great, and while the film lacks the impact of "FMJ" or "Orange" it is entertaining and memorable.
Rating:
Summary: a catastrophe
Review: The more Kubrick I see, the more apparent it becomes that he was a very conventional film-maker. Now, I love Doctor Strangelove, love it dearly. But sadly, it's the most intelligent and original film he ever managed to make. After that nearly perfect auteur-debut, he came out with this shamefull mutation of Nabokov's famous bestseller (Warning to lovers of VN: This movie will make you want to die.), and he spent the rest of his carreer tiptoeing the line between the greatness he achieved in Strangelove and the Spielbergian depths of this abomination. Kubrick does a decent job of adapting the portions of the book that he chose to use. Unfortunately, much too little of this movie comes directly from the book, and those long segments that he apparently made up himself ruin the film beyond repair. So, this movie is terrible. Don't be fooled by the Nabokov credit for the screenplay. He wrote a script, but Kubrick ignored it. See the Adrian Lyne version, if you must see a film version of Lolita. It's got its problems too, but it's much more loyal to the text, and Irons plays a diverting Humbert.
Rating:
Summary: A Masterpiece
Review: While this version of "Lolita" is not 100% true to Nabakov's novel, it is still a great film. Stanley Kubrick adds his own unique and brilliant tuch to this story. When watching this film, you have to keep in mind that it was released in 1962, had Kubrick released a true to the novel film adaptation, it probably would never seen a wide U.S. release. This film is without question, a must see by movie lovers everywhere.
Rating:
Summary: A necessary correction
Review: Sometimes one simply must deny all decency and force a loaded fist down a fool's throat. The silly page-duster from New York - no doubt whisking pages of another great book with his feather of knowledge two woeful floors below me - has worked a misleading platitude into the impressive emphatics: "LOLITA", "SATIRE". "I can only repeat that I have neither the intent nor the temperament of a moral or social satirist." -- V. Nabokov, Strong Opinions, pg. 22 My movie review: Wonderful, brilliant, but the time was not right, the tiptoeing is obvious, a second and third viewing can be disappointing.
Rating: 
Summary: excellent expression on feelings
Review: like I said, the movie expressed feelings of a human in a very realistic manner.
Rating:
Summary: Better than the new one
Review: i just watched this the other day and found it to be better than the newer jeremy irons one. many people forget that the book LOLITA was intended to be a SATIRE, a look at that pathetic and perverse mind of a pedophile. yes, the lolita in this movie was too old, but i believe thatt he dominique swain lolita was way too sexualized. we tend to forget that humbert humbert is the one telling the story, and of course, in his eyes, lolita is a nymphet. to any normal person, lolita is a typical and often vulgar pre-adolescent. i liked the shelley winters characterization because she actually evoked sympathy from me. james mason was great as the smug humbert... i loved it.
|
