MovieChat Forums > Lolita (1962) Discussion > why do people like this film?

why do people like this film?

posted 7 years ago by liv911
14 replies | jump to latest

Hi could you please explain what made this movie great/stand out in your oppinion if you liked it.

Did i miss something? cause i thought it was incredibly dull:/

I have seen maybe 5/6 other stanley kubrick films and thought they were all amazing but i hated lolita, i had nothing against the plot but i had a really hard time getting intruiged, i was waiting for it to engage me but it didn't and i found it boring. I dont get why it is considered great, to me it feels like people just say that cause kubrick directed it.

i have not read the novel btw

[–] Barbed_Wire_Strawberry 7 years ago

Well, read the novel. Then you'll understand that it is a masterpiece and Kubrick made a masterpiece film of it.

Everything about it is crisp and excellence. The acting, the music, the story..everything. It's also one of Kubrick's most hilarious films.

Buy The Ticket, Take The Ride

[–] liv911 7 years ago

I dont think you should have to read the book to measure how good the film is. It should stand on it's own feet?

[–] Barbed_Wire_Strawberry 7 years ago

Yes but you are talking about one the classic novels of the 20th century. Learning more about the films helps you appreciate how rich they are, and reading the source novel often helps illuminate this. Kubrick was known to 'invert' the source material for the film - to make a mirror version with key thematic and narrative differences.

The film above all for me has a wonderful atmosphere, presents a time and place with wonderful aesthetic and feeling.

Buy The Ticket, Take The Ride

[–] artisan278 (106) 2 years ago

When it's based on a famous novel, it's interesting to see what they changed or left out, and to see which parts were exactly like the book.

[–] Shuggy 7 years ago

Well, it's full of subtext. Just about every main character is hiding something, or acting with a concealed motive. Each is after someone. It turns our notions of innocence and guilt on their heads. And it's very funny. Peter Sellers' speech on the balcony is a star turn, a wonderful case of revealing by trying to conceal.

[–] Funky12345 7 years ago

Reading the book is not going to make someone like the movie. That's just common sense, so stop giving him/her all this mumbo-jumbo.

Personally, I like the film because I think it's funny and also heartbreaking in some parts and also very perverted. But to each his/her own. I read the book, but I don't feel that that enhanced my liking of the film.

"What's this regarding, Mr. Grizzle?"

[–] mls4182 7 years ago

I think it is a beautiful film about people who are ugly and a mess inside.

[–] TheFearmakers 7 years ago

I ask the same question to people who like the 1000 Plots A Minute THE DARK KNIGHT. Never do get an answer to make me like the thing.

We all have "classic movies" we despise and just cannot believe others like because we don't. It's like the high class New York Intellectual who said, after someone she hated was elected President, "I can't believe it... No one I know voted for him."

It's a big, big world out there. If one movie confuses you, don't mind us. We just love great art.

My Cinema Site at www.cultfilmfreaks.com

[–] [deleted] 4 years ago

To TheFearMakers - Your quote "I ask the same question to people who like the 1000 Plots A Minute THE DARK KNIGHT. Never do get an answer to make me like the thing."
You are looking for an answer to make you like "The Dark Knight"? There isn't really any. Either you like a film or you don't. It's all subjective. You don't like "The Dark Knight". I can accept that. I did. There may be a movie you like or love that I don't.

[–] Bosdog6777 (817) 5 years ago

Deep down hidden depressed desires

[–] Garyandfilm (513) 2 years ago

I agree with the OP. The film has three intriguing characters - all in a dull, mess of a film.

There is absolutely NOBODY to root for. The film's central failure is that Mason's character is completely unsympathetic. We should sense his personal obsession and torment, but we don't. He's just a creepy old man and feels incredibly - and oddly - one-dimensional.

Yes, the acting is great, and all three stars have several fine moments, but, at two-and-a-half hours, the film is sluggish, unmoving, repetitious and dull.

As for it's shock value...well, it isn't 1962 anymore, so even that no longer resonates.

[–] artisan278 (106) 2 years ago

Three things:
James Mason, Shelley Winters and Peter Sellers were brilliant in it.

[–] SandyR (7347) 2 years ago

It's a bit of a boring movie. One of Kubrick's weaker efforts. It has its moments, but I've never felt compelled to rewatch it the way I do Clockwork Orange or The Shining or even Dr. Stangelove. Peter Sellers just about saves it from being a complete snoozer.

[–] BrandNewPoster (6215) 10 months ago

It's a well made film with good performances. I thought Kubrick did a good job with the story and found it an interesting film.