Lolita

Rating:
Summary: a kubrick style case study of adult infatuation
Review: This movie can entertain as well as educate. The flashback as a way to introduce the story and attract attention seems strange but effective. Excellent performances with Sellers again assuming many disguises, a brilliant case study but can get tiring at times. Kubrick made this film when others were putting to screen stories about lovesick teenagers. Buy it, watch it, treasure it like any of Kubrick's films.

Rating:
Summary: Good, but obviously inferior to the novel
Review: I can't believe that Nabokov wrote this--though I've read that his screenplay was butchered and that the final product had little to do with his original plan. The acting is great, especially James Mason, but the way that Peter Sellers' "Quilty" character kept intruding into the picture was distracting and annoying. In the novel (and in Adrian Lyne's recent version) Quilty's character is foreshadowed, but doesn't make an actual appearance until the very end. Shelly Winters makes her third appearance as a disposable love-toy (she made a career out of those roles; ever see "A Place in the Sun" or "Night of the Hunter"?) and is perfect in the role. Sue Lyons is amusing, but obviously a little more "womanly" than the original Dolores Haze. Worth seeing, but read the novel to understand the magic of Nabokov's creation.

Rating:
Summary: Good if you haven't read the book before
Review: It's a Kubrick movie, so it just cant be a bad one. Nonetheless, Lolita-Sue Lyon- is supposed to be twelve and looks at least eighteen. Sellers is completly out of place. The most unapealling thing about this movie is that it has, basically, nothing to do with the book itself. And you just don't read Nabokov's Lolita. You LIVE it. So it's kinda desappointing. However, apart from that, Mason's excellent, Sue Lyon even more and Winters extraordinary. Sure, if you don't want to watch Nabokov's Lolita, this movie is one of the best inspirated and courageous of Kubrick.

Rating:
Summary: strong start, impotent finish
Review: The beginning of the film is exquisite, with Winters' heartbreaking portrayal of a delusional matron, Mason's deadpan detachment, Sellers' low-key condescension, and the tension evoked by little Lo (I always forget the actress's name; this film was her debut and I never saw her again--very much the fate of Dolores Hayes). But after that it drags a bit. Even though the screenplay was written by Nabokov, Kubrick could not match the seductive quality of the text's drawn-out transcontinental chase. The book keeps the reader going because it is a confession but we don't know who is the victim. The film by necessity takes a different tack and all the allure is lost in translation. Still, it's worth seeing, if only for the perfect first half and to see a pre-Clouseau Sellers dance.

Rating:
Summary: WOnderful movie; unfortunately spoiled by Sellers
Review: This is a wonderful adaptation of the novel although very tame in comparison. Mason is superb as is Lyons and Winters but SEllers seems really out of place. It's such a shame because he spoils the movie.

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: Kubrick's Weakest Masterpiece
Review: Although Stanley Kubrick took meticulous care when making his movies, "Lolita" doesn't quite measure up to his later masterworks ("Dr. Strangelove," "2001," "Clockwork Orange"). I enjoyed the movie very much for its naughty charms and double entendres (Camp Climax, and so on) when I initially saw it several years ago. Unfortunately, after having seen Adrian Lyne's 1997 cinematic interpretation, and after having savored several times Vladimir Nabokov's intricate manipulations of the English language (as well as others that make cameos throughout the book), the film seems like it has much missing. For instance, gone is Humbert's proto-Freudian rationalization of his predilection for nymphets. And gone from Nabokov's screenplay are such gems as Lolita watching the film "Stan and Izzy" (starring Mark King), and the character whom Lolita calls the "Nut with the Net." (An intended Hitchcockian cameo by the author, hunting butterflies.)

Kubrick assembled quite a good cast. James Mason is superb (as usual) as Professor Humbert, infatuated with the twelve year old titular character. His iciness and sang froid work well in contrast to the poisonous bubble of lust within, although he is not nearly as malevolent as Nabokov's Humbert. Mason is Humbert the Humble in this film, while in Lyne's version Jeremy Irons comes closer to Humbert the Horrible: part-tragic, part-sardonically humorous, part-swine. Shelley Winters is perfect as vulgar bourgeois phillistine Charlotte Haze, mother of Lolita and (briefly) wife of Humbert. Unlike the book, however, Kubrick allows us to see a bit of pathos in her character (Something Humbert, in his musings, never would have allowed "The Haze Woman."). Perhaps the most maligned casting is of Peter Sellers as Clare Quilty, the playwright who takes advantage of Humbert's disadvantage by luring Lolita away from him. Sellers may overindulge (under the tutelage of Kubrick, of all people), but, in the end, his resourceful Quilty comes closer to the one inhabiting Nabokov's novel than Frank Langella's jaded pervert in the newer film. Sellers mimicks the accent of an American smooth talker well, accompanied by the Ayn Rand-like "Vivian Darkbloom." Finally to Sue Lyon, who plays Lolita herself. She is attractive in an early 1960s sort of way, and certainly more willful than the one in the book. Unfortunately, she hardly resembles that Lolita. For greater accuracy (especially in appearance), look at Dominique Swain's brave and mature portrayal for the ideal celluloid counterpart to Humbert's rhapsodies.

After having seen Adrian Lyne's more faithful and overall better movie (Sorry, Stanley.), and after having read Nabokov's masterpiece, I feel that Kubrick's vision of "Lolita" does not quite fulfill its potential. To its credit, Kubrick's darkly humorous "Lolita" is still better than most of the insipid, over-extended sit-coms that make it to the cinema today (or, for that matter, many of the ones that came out when it was new). But thinking about Lyne's film, and after having seen what little we've been allowed to view of Kubrick's final opus "Eyes Wide Shut," one cannot help but imagine how he could have made a true masterpiece of "Lolita."

Rating:
Summary: Appropriate adaptation
Review: When asked what he thought of Kubrick's film of Lolita, Vladimir Nabokov said it was a "first-rate" film by an "artist." Even though only about twenty percent of his script made it into the final movie product, Nabokov was obviously impressed. The theatrical trailers ask the question, "How did they ever make a film of Lolita?" The only way, in 1962, a movie could be made about such a controversial subject was if it was presented as a comedy. James Mason as Humbert Humbert is excellent--speaks volumes with his eyes. Perhaps Sue Lyon as Lolita is a bit too old--she certainly doesn't fit the strict definition of a nymphet (aged 9-14, as the book mentions), although she was, I believe, 13 when the filming started. Maybe Peter Sellers as Quilty isn't as serious as his character may warrant, and may steal some scenes with his impersonations. But so what? We're talking about a movie made in the early sixties--the theatre audience has certain expectations.

Rating:
Summary: The Pedophile Got a Little Help From His Teenage Friend.
Review: This movie wasn't as controversial as the book simply because they upped the age of the namesake character, or the project would never have seen its fruition on film. What I don't get is how some people think that Humbert Humbert (James Mason) was the only one to blame in this film adaptation. He may have had an evil gleam in his eyes from the first time he saw Lolita (Sue Lyon), but look at her: she's laying around in a bikini with a come-hither expression on her face. From the moment she sees him, she makes a career of hanging around him simply because mommy (Shelly Winters) doesn't like it.

There's another point in case: A girl that looks like that is competing constantly with her insecure, selfish, hysterical mother, and she's loving every moment of torture simply because her mother really resents her. The entire point I am making here is that for all of Humbert Humbert's sick fixation, Lolita seems more than willing to cater to his whims because it gives her kicks. Naturally she will quit when something else happens to stop that situation--enter Peter Sellers' character finally getting her away from Humbert after following the two of them around.

I don't like the girl because she reminds me of so many teenagers I have ever known who have mothers similar to hers. Maybe its the cockiness that seems prevalent as well in Lyon's own performance, bouncing along passively from one scene to the next until she feels like screaming "let go of me!" Even when she's married with a baby and destitute, you still feel nothing for her and simply want to smack Humbert for not letting go of the rotten brat. Like mother, like daughter.

All the while, you have to suffer that awful doo-wop elevator music in the background that sounds like it was recorded underwater. Still, I like to watch this movie when it's run on TCM, but I'm not exactly sure why. Maybe I just love train wrecks. Maybe I like how a teenage girl is always seen as an adult male's victim even if she ends up voluntarily flinging herself at the likes of Led Zeppelin and crew. Maybe it's just that soundtrack music that has me annoyingly intrigued: OOOOOH-WAH-WAH-WAH-WAH...


Rating:
Summary: A Trip
Review: You know I have been hearing in most of these post how Humbert Humbert just "loved" Lolita so much, but not one time have I heard how Lolita felt about Humbert. Old Humbert was just another (...)to me; Why would he go and get with this woman looking for love(just as desperate as u please) just to get to the daughter? what does that look like to you? And if Kubrick had used a younger Lolita than Sue Lyons(one that was truly around 12 as the book said)I don't think that movie would have been made at that time; That would have been a bit profane and out of order; Then why lie to the child about her mother's death? going about the country acting like a bunch of lovesick controlling cows and having folk looking at you all cockeyed. Then having another man(...)follow you, even to come into your house to "advise" you on what to do; Uhh Uh;Just another (...)beating you to your own game;