Review of Lolita (1962) by Anis T — 06 Nov 2008

Stanley Kubrick is and will always be one of my top ten favorite directors, even though only two of his films fall into my top 100. But, the more Kubrick I devour, the more critical I get. I loved Clockwork & 2001, liked Full Metal Jacket, and abhorred The Shining.

This falls somewhere in the middle. From what I hear, it's a huge departure from the novel, which is acceptable, due to the fact that Lolita should actually be twelve, among other things. James Mason is a privilege to watch; his descent into madness is well done and his lines flow effortless, save for a instances where it seemed like the exchanges between him and Lolita seem unrehearsed.

Sue Lyon (Lolita) is also a joy to watch. Yes she's fourteen, and yes, she's hot; get over it. That's what the movie's about. The way she flirted and walked around seemed so ahead of her time; it's hard to explain.

It's a shame her career never took off after this. And of course there's Peter Sellers; Dr. Strangelove shot to the top of my Netflix queue. He is delightfully quirky and I can't wait to see how he handles a lead role.

So they didn't delve too deep into pedophilia; they just pussy-footed around with the idea. But, it was 1962, and I get that. But they seemed to push aside that aspect and go forward with thriller as a genre; their where bits and piece that felt forced and made up.

I excused the pedestrian sets and soundstage outdoor scenes, and focused on the performances, and they were good. I particularly enjoyed the wide, swopping shots during the cross-country journey. So, I won't say I was disappointed; I'll say I expected something a little more daring, engrossing, and heady.

It makes want to see Adrian Lyne's 1997 version that much more. Supposedly, it's a lot more risque, faithful to the novel, and, those shamefully, admitted by most as better. And by the way; those heart-shaped glasses in the poster? Not in the movie.