Call number
DVD-DRAMA 455
Collection
Publication
Warner Home Video (2007)
Description
The story of the passion of a middle-aged man for a young teenager.
Media reviews
Esquire
Lolita is a good movie which might have been much better. For the title role, Stanley Kubrick discovered a teen-age television actress named Sue Lyon whose moods, accent, facial expressions, and body movements seem to me remarkably authentic—quite different from the cliches we usually get in such
Show More
roles...
One can understand why Kubrick, as a businessman, didn’t want to offend the bluenoses. But he is also an artist, and he missed a chance to challenge the worst aspect of our movie censorship: its disapproval of the erotic and its tolerance of the sadistic. Thus he dared to do Quilty’s murder right out of the book, but he gives us no comparable love scene. In fact, sometimes one thinks that the only way to get real sex past the censors is to combine it with sadism; rape seems less objectionable to them than seduction, perhaps because it is less enjoyable. Show Less
Cahiers du Cinema
Kubrick began flashily by making glacial copies of Ophuls's tracking shots and Aldrich's violence. Then became a recruit to intellectual commerce by following the international paths of glory of another K, an older Stanley who also saw himself as Livingstone, but whose weighty sincerity turned up
Surprise: it is a simple, lucid film, precisely written, which reveals America and American sex better than either Melville or Reichenbach, and proves that Kubrick need not abandon the cinema provided he films characters who exist instead of ideas which exist only in the bottom drawers of old scriptwriters who believe that the cinema is the seventh art.
Show More
trumps at Nüremberg, whereas Stanley Junior's cunning look-at-me tactics foundered in the cardboard heroics of Spartacus without ever attaining the required heroism. So Lolita led one to expect the worst. Surprise: it is a simple, lucid film, precisely written, which reveals America and American sex better than either Melville or Reichenbach, and proves that Kubrick need not abandon the cinema provided he films characters who exist instead of ideas which exist only in the bottom drawers of old scriptwriters who believe that the cinema is the seventh art.
Show Less
Partisan Review
The surprise of Lolita is how enjoyable it is: it’s the first new American comedy since those great days in the forties when Preston Sturges recreated comedy with verbal slapstick. Lolita is black slapstick and at times it’s so far out that you gasp as you laugh. An inspired Peter Sellers
Show More
creates a new comic pattern — a crazy quilt of psychological, sociological commentary so “hip” it’s surrealist...
Quilty — rightly, in terms of the film as distinguished from the novel — dominates Lolita (which could use much more of him) and James Mason’s Humbert, who makes attractiveness tired and exhausted and impotent, is a remarkable counterpart. Quilty who doesn’t care, who wins Lolita and throws her out, Quilty the homewrecker is a winner; Humbert, slavishly, painfully in love, absurdly suffering, the lover of the ages who degrades himself, who cares about nothing but Lolita, is the classic loser. Mason is better than (and different from) what almost anyone could have expected. Show Less
User reviews
LibraryThing member comfypants
A man obsessed with a teenage girl marries her mother.
It isn't until the very end of the movie that we're given any sort of hint that everything we're seeing might not be real, which kind of defeats the purpose. I guess it would consequently be more interesting on a second viewing, but I have zero
Concept: D
Story: C
Characters: C
Dialog: C
Pacing: C
Cinematography: B
Special effects/design: B
Acting: B
Music: B
Enjoyment: C
GPA: 2.3/4
It isn't until the very end of the movie that we're given any sort of hint that everything we're seeing might not be real, which kind of defeats the purpose. I guess it would consequently be more interesting on a second viewing, but I have zero
Show More
interest in watching it a second time. There just isn't anything in it to get you to care. At least they made Lolita older. A story about taking advantage of a promiscuous teenager (which the movie is) makes for a decidedly less miserable movie-watching experience than a story about child-molesting (which the book is) would.Concept: D
Story: C
Characters: C
Dialog: C
Pacing: C
Cinematography: B
Special effects/design: B
Acting: B
Music: B
Enjoyment: C
GPA: 2.3/4
Show Less
UPC
012569648661