Superior to the 1997 version as the sharp black humour is more welcome than titillating lewdness or graphic violence. Not to say the Jeremy Irons one is a poor effort, it's pretty good. This 1962 effort however has more to say, and makes more of an impression.
Offsetting the sometimes edgy yet always welcome comedy is a sense of risque danger which most men I'm sure have experienced.
First-class performances from all. James Mason manages to be debonair and pathetic at the same time...quite a feat! Sue Lyon is very effective, and correctly cast (the book Lolita at just 12 years of age really would've made viewing impossibly-uncomfortable). At first I felt Sellers was jarringly-clownish but when his character's role became clear I was able to accept his take.
Lolita is the kind of rare film one still thinks about days after. Lust can be a curious thing. If we let it, lust can be the main driver of our lives...for better or worse.
I tried to read the book but struggled with Nabokov's style, finding it too conversational and meta. Gave up after a few dozen pages. So for me, Kubrick's Lolita is the definitive telling.
Offsetting the sometimes edgy yet always welcome comedy is a sense of risque danger which most men I'm sure have experienced.
First-class performances from all. James Mason manages to be debonair and pathetic at the same time...quite a feat! Sue Lyon is very effective, and correctly cast (the book Lolita at just 12 years of age really would've made viewing impossibly-uncomfortable). At first I felt Sellers was jarringly-clownish but when his character's role became clear I was able to accept his take.
Lolita is the kind of rare film one still thinks about days after. Lust can be a curious thing. If we let it, lust can be the main driver of our lives...for better or worse.
I tried to read the book but struggled with Nabokov's style, finding it too conversational and meta. Gave up after a few dozen pages. So for me, Kubrick's Lolita is the definitive telling.