Great review. I watched this in college while going through all of Kubrick's movies and was underwhelmed. But I found it enjoyable overall. Haven't had the desire to watch it since.
Thanks for the review... this is interesting in that Lolita is generally considered one of the major classics of 20th-century literature... the film is not generally considered its equal (despite one of the comments below). Anyway I think you're spot on about the Dr. Zempf character being a proto-Dr. Strangelove. Sellers also liked to ape Kubrick's voice, which he did as the President in Dr. Strangelove and I think as the most normal-sounding American character that Quilty does here. It's a little like how Mike Myers used Lorne Michaels' voice for Dr. Evil? Not sure why THAT springs to mind first, but...
The media and history departments of any university would welcome your talents, but it would be a pay cut for you. Fully agree, it's about a bunch of creepy old men ... Your social comment about eating deviled eggs and drinking highballs is priceless. Congrats.
I'd say the Kubrick film is a lot better than the novel. The storytelling is a lot tighter. The novel focused a lot on putting you in the shoes of Humbert and obfuscates a lot of the obvious moral questions the audience would be asking while reading, the plot jumps around in the second half to show Humbert's panic and anxiety, this is effective but honestly kind of frustrating to read.
You must know that Sellers IS NOT doing different roles: He is doing QUILTY doing different roles . . . because Quilty is an ACTOR. And he is ONE person. Additionally, it's apparent that not ONLY the comedic aspects of this film were lost on you! 🙄
You keep saying "did Humbert seduce Lolita?" This seems amazing since the 'seduction' is more on the part of Lolita than Humbert. Humbert is a pederast, sure, but Lolita KNOWS it and USES him. If you missed that, you missed A LOT!
Great review. I watched this in college while going through all of Kubrick's movies and was underwhelmed. But I found it enjoyable overall. Haven't had the desire to watch it since.
Thanks for the review... this is interesting in that Lolita is generally considered one of the major classics of 20th-century literature... the film is not generally considered its equal (despite one of the comments below). Anyway I think you're spot on about the Dr. Zempf character being a proto-Dr. Strangelove. Sellers also liked to ape Kubrick's voice, which he did as the President in Dr. Strangelove and I think as the most normal-sounding American character that Quilty does here. It's a little like how Mike Myers used Lorne Michaels' voice for Dr. Evil? Not sure why THAT springs to mind first, but...
@@steveclark3032 didn’t know that thank you!
The revent comparisons would be nice to see
The media and history departments of any university would welcome your talents, but it would be a pay cut for you. Fully agree, it's about a bunch of creepy old men ... Your social comment about eating deviled eggs and drinking highballs is priceless. Congrats.
I'd say the Kubrick film is a lot better than the novel. The storytelling is a lot tighter. The novel focused a lot on putting you in the shoes of Humbert and obfuscates a lot of the obvious moral questions the audience would be asking while reading, the plot jumps around in the second half to show Humbert's panic and anxiety, this is effective but honestly kind of frustrating to read.
You must know that Sellers IS NOT doing different roles: He is doing QUILTY doing different roles . . . because Quilty is an ACTOR. And he is ONE person. Additionally, it's apparent that not ONLY the comedic aspects of this film were lost on you! 🙄
@@mrtriffid OMG NO WAY
You keep saying "did Humbert seduce Lolita?" This seems amazing since the 'seduction' is more on the part of Lolita than Humbert. Humbert is a pederast, sure, but Lolita KNOWS it and USES him. If you missed that, you missed A LOT!
@@mrtriffid HOLY COW