 |
Lolita (1962) [VHS] by Stanley Kubrick
Buy this VHS video movie at online store in your country
Canada
Product detailsActor: Gary Cockrell, James Mason, Jerry Stovin, Shelley Winters, Sue Lyon Director: Stanley Kubrick Cinematographer: Oswald Morris Writer: Stanley Kubrick Editor: Anthony Harvey Producer: Eliot Hyman Producer: James B. Harris Writer: Vladimir Nabokov Edition: VHS Tape Audio: English (Original Language), Analog Format: Black & White, Closed-captioned, NTSC, Original recording reissued Running Time: 152 minutes Release Date: 1999-06-29 Audience Rating: NR (Not Rated) Publisher: Turner Home Ent Studio: Turner Home Ent
VHS Movie Reviews of Lolita (1962) [VHS]Movie Review: STAY AWAY Summary: 1 StarsLet me start by saying that I am not a professional movie crictic or writer, this may not be as "piquantly" written as some reviews on here, but I am an avid reader of literature, and relatively bright.
I've read Nabakov's book Lolita, as well as seen the 1997 version of Lolita and the 1962 version. I think I've gotten the full view and scope of things, so to speak. I must, with heavy heart, tell you honestly, that this movie was a huge let down. The charaters were very one dimensional and almost cookie cutter. There was a complete lack of any of the emotional turmoil Humbert suffered, as in the book. This movie felt like it was made JUST to be made. Not heartfelt. Lacked insight into any of the characters. Poor chemistry. Certain scenes from the book were either changed completely, or the most annoying, was they were followed thru up to a point, THEN changed. Very frustrating. There was NO sexual relations between Humbert and Lo. Ok, I understand that it was taboo back then and some stuff had to be sensored. But nothing sexual happened. At ALL! Thats what the book was aBOUT. A pre-teen girl having sex with a much older man. It was only even HINTED at very few times. Why did he bother making this kind of movie if the entire thing had to be sensored? All subtle nuances of love, of first touchings, of Humbert's past were absent. Even an explanation of WHY Humbert was like this in the first place was missing!
Lo, in the novel was a plain girl. A girl attractive enough, but definately able to be overlooked. Its important to remember this, for nymphets arent necessarily pretty, but possess a certain aire and charm about them. Sue Lyon was beautiful and much older looking than 12 but possessed nothing nymphet or innocent at all. Much OLDER acting than 12. The whole atmosphere was thrown off by this. High heels? Um, not for Lo! But they were worn here.
"Lolita". Another thing... Lolita was a pet name given to Lo by Humbert. Only by him, but no, in this version, EVERYONE was calling her "Lolita". Even her MOTHER! (I wonder what lurid info mamma had).
The mad Quilty was at most a silly nusance here. Not the menacing, forboding quiet giant of the novel. Just laughable. Why she even would be attracted to him in the first place from this version, I'm utterly perplexed.
I must say, watch the 1997 version staring Jeremy Irons. It was lush and warm,beautiful and atmospheric, full of subtlties and true character insight. Dominique Swain captured the true essence of a nymphet. Charming, bratty, innocent, but not at all innocent, in sneakers sucking a jawbreaker.I almost cried at the end of that movie there was so much emotion. You actually feel BAD for him that he cant be with his step-daughter. Sick, yes, but it follows the novel expertly. I'm sorry I was so hard on this movie, but Kubrik was hard on the book. I give it a D+.
Movie Review: Muy buena! Summary: 4 StarsHab?a escuchado hablar mucho de esta pel?cula, pero no hab?a podido verla. Pues bien, por fin la vi y no me decepcion?. Muy buena en todos los sentidos. Grandes actuaciones. La recomiendo.
Movie Review: Not the Novel, but a Good Film Summary: 4 StarsMaybe I'm more favorably disposed toward this film because I have no loyalty at all toward the novel. I had to put down the book, never to return, after the hotel scene in which Humbert screws his 12-year-old stepdaughter. That may be a vulgar way of putting it, but one of things I disliked about the novel was how the ugly facts of pedophila and child molestation got embellished in long passages of thick purple prose, the suffocating inner workings of Humbert's sick mind, which may ultimately have been the writer's objective but I found the whole premise too repulsive to continue.
As noted in another review here, Kubrick takes us out of Humbert's mind and observes Humbert objectively in context with others. And his Lolita is older than Nabokov's, looking more like 16, and acting like a wily and precocious femme fatale who makes fools of men of all ages. And since the men act like fools, it's natural that this would become a comedy, albeit a dark one. I can appreciate reviewers who object to the inclusion of Peter Sellers' shtick because it tends to trivialize the tone of the film; the bit with Sellers as the cliched Austrian psychoanalyst was maybe too TV, though the juxtaposition of this Goon Show-like character and Mason's carefully mannered, uptight Humbert was truly funny, especially the expression on Mason's face--almost as though he was thinking, "Kubrick, what the hell is going on here??". I think that Kubrick used Sellers to much better effect later in "Dr. Strangelove", which may have been the result of his experimenting with Sellers in "Lolita".
Anyway, on the whole the performances are good and there are great comedic moments. There is a tragic feel toward the end of the film as we see Humbert's pathetic attempts to maintain and protect his idealized life with Lolita as it rapidly falls apart, and Mason delivers a standout performance of this.
So, see the film on its own terms, don't expect the novel, and enjoy.
Movie Review: 3.5 stars out of 4 Summary: 4 StarsThe Bottom Line:
As long as you don't go into Lolita expecting to see Nabakov's novel put literally on screen, you'll probably be impressed by this fine (if a tad long) adaptation; the acting is top-notch, the B/W cinematography very effective and the conclusion surprisingly poignant
Movie Review: "Don't Stand So Close to Me" Summary: 5 StarsAlthough this movie does not really accurately portray Nabokov's story, it is a work of art in itself. Sue Lyon is perfect as the object of sexual obsession. James Mason is perfect as the obsessed. Shelly Winters is perfect as Shelly Winters. Sue was never able to continue on with different roles and we wonder what she would have been like if she had. We are able to start to see some of Stanley Kubrick's genius in this early movie of his career. Although, I don't personally approve of this type of situation, I am highly entertained by it and we have all known characters that resemble the characters in the movie. They are people we snicker about behind hand-covered mouths. The song by the Police, "Don't Stand So Close to Me" serves to conjure up scenes from the movie and provides a romanticized and fitting musical tribute.
Summary of Lolita (1962) [VHS]When director Stanley Kubrick released his film adaptation of Vladimir Nabokov's controversial novel about a hopelessly pathetic middle-aged professor's sexual obsession with his 12-year-old stepdaughter, the ads read, "How did they ever make a film of Lolita?" The answer is "they" didn't. As he did with his "adaptations" of Barry Lyndon, A Clockwork Orange, and, especially, The Shining, Kubrick used the source material and, simply put, made another Stanley Kubrick movie--even though Nabokov himself wrote the screenplay. The chilly director nullifies Humbert Humbert's (James Mason's) overwhelming passion and desire, and instead transforms the story, like many of his films, into that of a man trapped and ruined by social codes and by his own obsessions. Kubrick doesn't play this as tragedy, however, but rather as both a black-as-coffee screwball comedy and a meandering, episodic road movie. The early scenes between Humbert, Lolita (a too-old but suitably teasing Lyons) and her loud, garish mother (Shelley Winters in one of her funniest performances) play like a wonderful farce. When Humbert finally fulfills his desires and captures Lolita, the pair hit the road and Kubrick drags in Peter Sellers. As the pedophilic writer Clare Quilty--Humbert's playful doppelg?nger and biggest threat--Sellers dons a series of disguises with plans of stealing Lolita away from her captor. It's here more than anywhere that Kubrick comes closest to the novel. He extends Nabokov's idea of the games and puzzles played between reader and writer, Quilty and Humbert, Lolita and Humbert, etc., to those between filmmaker and audience: the road eventually goes nowhere and Humbert's reality is exposed as mad delusion. Perhaps not a Kubrick masterpiece, or the provocative film many wanted, Lolita still remains playfully fascinating and one of Kubrick's strongest, funniest character studies. --Dave McCoy
|
 |