Review of Lolita (1962) by Chris W — 27 Feb 2011

Boy, here's a film that sure got the public's attention. I've heard so much about this film and the book (which I have but haven't read yet), but I didn't really know what to expect.

This is so far the weakest film of Kubrick's that I've seen, but it does have its merits. I went back and forth a lot with how I was going to rate it, but let's just be a little decisive and give it a B+. Censorship bugs me, but I can see why it was enforced in 1962. Even then though, I do actually like the subtlety and appreciate it over viscerality (and that's in general) anyway. I think it works better if the audience has to leave it to their imaginations.

The biggest issue with the film is that it's too damn long (and unnecessarily so) and that it really drags a lot in the second half. The film was actually a lot funny than I thought it might be, even though it is not a completely lighthearted farce. In fact, the movie is really two in one: a funny first half, and a really dark dramedy. It may be a mixed bag, but, as I said, there's a lot of strong stuff, too.

The performances, cinematography, and music are fantastic. None of the characters are really likeable, but they are a joy to watch, especially Peter Sellers- hinting at what he and Kubrick would do following this film. Mason is an ass, but it's hard to take your eyes off him. Winters is a joy too.Sue Lyon though, is the real find here-from that iconic shot of her on the poster, to her first appearance in the film, to the reveal of what she looks like at the end- throug hall of that and more she is fantastic, and it's a shame she didn't become a superstar like she could have.

Don't think that becuase this is lesser Kubrick that it sucks. It doesn't. It's just really flawed and compromised, but is still an entertaining and engaging film, even if it is really mixed and muddled.