[.ca] Lolita

Amazon.com essential video:
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 doppelgänger 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

Additional Features:
EDITOR'S NOTE: According to a Warner Home Video technician involved in the production of The Stanley Kubrick Collection, Kubrick authorized all aspects of the Collection, from the use of Digital Component Video (or "D-1") masters originally approved in 1989, to the use of minimalist screen menus, chapter stops, and (in the case of 2001: A Space Odyssey and The Shining on DVD) supplementary materials. Full-screen presentation of The Shining and Full Metal Jacket was also approved by Kubrick, who recomposed his original framing, reportedly believing that those films looked best on video in the full-screen format. (In fact, the original theatrical aspect ratio of The Shining was 1.66:1, meaning that a relatively small portion of the image is lost.) Kubrick also chose mono over stereo, believing that inconsistencies in theatrical sound systems resulted in loss of control over theatrical presentation. In every respect, the Warner spokesman said, the films in the Collection remain as Kubrick approved them. Any future attempt to remaster or alter them would have to be approved by an appointee of the Kubrick estate.

most of you are correct:
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.

The Remake is a Better Film:
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 . . .

Pretty great:
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.

Nice movie, but it's not Nabokov's "Lolita":
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 "glamor 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, Humbert 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 geography and 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 pre-Lolita first wife, Valeria. He was not always just into nymphets. B. No mention of his post-Lolita second wife, Rita, (and taping a goodbye note to her navel so she would find it as he goes off to track down Lo). C. The last page-and-a-half from the book was left out. This is possibly the most moving passage of the novel - when Humbert 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 (Shelley Winters) and Quilty (Peter Sellers). 2. Cinematography - nicely filmed, in black-and-white. This is a good movie - but it certainly is not Nabokov's "Lolita".

An Innovative Sixties' Look:
"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.