Lolita
|
List Price: Our Price: $4.80 You Save: $15.17 (76%) Availability: Usually ships in 1-2 business days Buy Used: from $4.68 (click here) Category: DVD See more DVD releases |
|---|
Buy this DVD movie at online store in your country
Canada
Canada
Movie Reviews of Lolita
Movie Review: Lolita
Summary: 3 Stars
The movie "Lolita" is simply a fair film; and only if you understand the book. In 1958 Hollywood was not permitted to investigate some of the themes Nabokov employed in the book. Nabokov, agreed to write the screen play because naively he fancied that would have a chance of influencing the screenplay. The final film and screenplay use almost none of Nabokov's work, and early in the process, it became clear that the screenplay would be written by Hollywood hacks and the movie would have little to do with the book.
Sue Lyons looks nothing like the typical "nymphet" which Humbert/Nabokov carefully outlines in the beginning of the book. Sue Lyons was a good actress, but was necessarily miscast for the movie ( e.g.,Lolita, in the book, was 12 years old). Only in her final scene where she is pregnant and married does she look and play the part well.
Also, there are now several different cuts of this movie. This is a lesser cut and is missing several great scenes with Peter Sellers. Sellers Plays Claire Quilty and steals the movie.
If you want to understand the book "Lolita"; buy the annotated version and the book "The Keys to Lolita". Plan to read the book 3 or 4 times, taking the time to cross reference the literary illusions and read the passages slowly. The book has NO sex scenes and it and is intended as a literary epic. I have a degree in English Literature, yet it took me about 3-4 close readings of the book to even begin to understand "Lolita". I have spent over 20 years reading this book and finding new things about the book each time.
It's not only that 1958 Hollywood could no make a film of what most people THOUGHT "Lolita" was about, but that a literary masterpiece such as "Lolita" simply cannot be adapted to the screen. "Lolita" is pure literature and MUST be read to obtain it's full force of writing genius. I have no idea why Kubrick thought he could make a film version of such a book. I can only conclude that Mr. Kubrick did not understand Nabokov or his wondrous book. If you care anything about literature read the book as you would read James Joyce and expect no less.
I wonder if Kubrick ever finally read the book and began to understand it's literary humour, puns, playfulness, dark wit, singular narrative unique to all of English literature?
PS: The score by Nelson Riddle is the most under-rated part of the movie and worth owning on CD. But the book it the ultimate item to buy. I have read this book at least 10 times and feel like there is more to discover!
Movie Review: Watch It for James Mason Only.
Summary: 3 Stars
Viewed: 5/08
Rate: 6
5/08: If not for Peter Sellers, Lolita would have easily been classified as a masterpiece. Well, nah...Stanley Kubrick misses the target on this one by a mile since he fails to focus what was so darned taboo about the relationship between Humbert and Lolita. Of course, admittedly, Sue Lyon isn't a looker and is more of an annoying, whiny older girl than her supposed character's age. So, that undermines her as a likeable femme fatale. Really, what Lolita should be focused on the most is James Mason. He was extraordinarily brilliant, and the study of his slowly going from sensible, morally repressive to insane, infatuated lovesick of a performance is a work of art. Everything else is secondary. It's quite hard for me to believe in the subplots such as the ones with Peter Sellers and the suspicions aroused by others. I find that annoying and too good to be true. They have hurt the film as whole. But Peter Sellers, man...do I ever hate him. Watching him felt like the movie was being in under his control, and his controlling drew too much unnecessary attention onto him. He truly killed the scenes that he was in. Watching James Mason getting soured by his presence said it all for me. On the other hand, Sue Lyon...jeez, I really need to be convinced that she is worth it. She reminds me a lot of girls I used to know; those types who seem have absolute no awareness that there is a real world that revolves around their crappy existence they call life. Watching her to hoard and gallop on the junk food has me thinking of the actress/actor Divine. Shelley Winters played her part (perhaps too much of Elizabeth Taylor of Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf? in her) although she was as annoying as Peter Sellers, but still, she was a necessary component to the story. After she died, the movie practically started. I am willing to accept the premise, although very limited, behind the film because it's very interesting to see how James Mason acts. There are some good and some bad about Lolita, but primarily, I only will see the movie again for James Mason. Meanwhile, I hardly see anything so controversial about the movie; if it was the actual father of the girl, then I can see where this is going. Kubrick did a better job with Eyes Wide Shut as he explores the topic much better and more thoroughly than he does for Lolita. Imagine bunch of school-aged girls going to a summer camp called Camp Climax. That's the one that ought to be seen to be believed.
Movie Review: An unbiased review of the worst Kubrick film I've seen
Summary: 3 Stars
Considering how brilliant 2001: A Space Odyssey and Barry Lyndon were, it's kind of hard to imagine Stanley Kubrick making a bad film. Unfortunately, throughout his prolific career, he did make a couple of clunkers, and Lolita is definitely one of them.
The comedy was misplaced and unfunny, the creepiness was corny and uncreepy, and the overall mood was as dry as sandpaper. The deepest, and the most artistic, scene in the entire film was the introduction. Aside from that, barely anything was impressive or accessible enough to draw me in. For most of the 2 1/2 hours, I watched each scene lumber by, and barely cared for what I was seeing.
Why was Clare Quilty such a front and center character? Was it because Peter Sellers agreed to play the part, and they wanted to see as much of him as possible? Is that why they chose to over-develop his character, give him more lines than anyone, have him play two characters, and stray completely from the poetic chords that made the book so moving? And why was Humbert Humbert's background so under-explained? If you had never read the book, the deeper reasons behind his sickness, and everything else, would be mostly unknown.
The story and the character development jump about with hardly any subtly. For example: Humbert, out of the clear blue, begins to rant about his controlling wife, and a few moments later, he contemplates on ways to kill her with a gun. There were no hints about him having murderous tendencies within the story's chronology, but all of a sudden he does?
And there is no sexual tension or chemistry between Humbert and Lolita; you can barely tell that they have a relationship at all. Maybe the 1960s censors are to blame for this. Nevertheless, the relationship still feels very shallow, unbelievable, and unjustified. Why would a beautiful young girl want to have sex with a man who was as old and as ugly as Humbert was in this film? This is never explained.
As a longtime Kubrick fan, I'm not afraid to say that this film downright sucked. I only give it a 3 out of 5 because it wasn't entirely awful. There were moments when Kubrick's trademark directing and cinematography sparkled through, but, overall, I was extremely disappointed.
Movie Review: Very disjointed...
Summary: 3 Stars
It goes without saying that the book is better than the movie, but I just had to say it anyway because it's so true. There are a ton of great reviews of the movie here on Amazon so I'll be brief.
3 Stars were given becuase of the very fine acting, especially Shelly Winters. Winters portrays almost exactly the Charlotte Haze that I had envisioned in my mind when reading the book. Sue Lyon does a fine job as Dolores even though she looks nothing at all like how I pictured Lolita in my mind, she's too pretty.
My main gripe about the movie is the incessant fading to black after every scene and the constant appearances of Quilty!
The most annoying scene in the entire movie is when Quilty comes out to talk to Humbert at the hotel.
In the movie Peter Sellers goes on a long strange ramble that makes very little sense and was a little annoying to me.
However, this scene in the book, when the understandably paranoid Humbert is biding his time waiting for his drugged nymphet to finally go unconscious is surprised to find another guest on the patio with him, is one of my very favorite scenes in the book. The artful way that Nabokov has our "poor Humbert" mis-hear the casual conversation of his fellow guest was truly a master work of literature, the movie totally botched this scene!
OK movie of a great book...
Movie Review: CALL DR. ZEMF, THERE IS A PROBLEM HERE!
Summary: 3 Stars
Film in need of intensive care. With 2 1/2 hours of special features on the two disc version of 2001, how could this Kubrick gem come out the same way as the previous versions? I knew in advance that it was a single disc, but I was at least hopeing for a commentary track, but not even that. I know Sue Lyon would probably never consent to doing or even adding to a commentary track, that would be expecting too much, but a film historion would do. I think it took courage to make this film back then. There are a lot of black and white gems from the mid to late 50s to the early 60s that arn`t even out on DVD yet. Maybe in the next six years or so it will come out with extras. I gave it 3 stars, because it still drops my jaw when I watch it, and it really is a noir, in that a man is being lead to his doom, as are all concerned, and gosh darn it Peter is sooo creepy.