Look at the New Mirror Server
At Second Site:
Mr. Gore's Big Page of Movies
An exploration in the cinematic medium
Look at the New Mirror Server
At Second Site:
Mr. Gore's Big Page of Movies
An exploration in the cinematic medium
This page seeks to provide criticism and insights of feature films. It should be considered as continually under construction because new material will be added frequently to increase the amount of rated movies, information, and commentary. So this page would never be "complete," so to speak, or else it would cease to be a valid current forum and for all intents and purposes be dead.
Now, having said all that, I would like to ask for some feedback. In order to better serve your needs, I need some suggestions for organizing movie listings. As it stands, films are categorized by year of release and posted by the order in which I have viewed them. This means that you now have to scroll all the way to the bottom of the pages to get the newest information. Is this acceptable or do you have an idea that would work better? I have considered alphabetizing lists, but of course, newer stuff would blend into the old. I could instate a reverse chronological system where the latest text would come first and the oldest would remain on the bottom. Feel free to send comments my way.
The site is organized with films and ratings on pages by the years viewed (beginning on Page 2). It is updated weekly. The best time to check back is after weekends when new reviews are posted. An average of two new movies will be added each week. There are midi files on each page featuring film music for your listening pleasure. Press the Play button on the midi player at the bottom of the page to start it. Sit back and enjoy!
These are the currently highest recommended movies to view:
(as of early October 1998)
The novel was first published in 1955 and later in America in 1958. The brunt of the action takes place from 1947 to 1952. I mention the dates because the book succeeds in distinctively capturing the Americana of that time. Nabokov's work is a challenging, complex masterwork of American fiction. That the author was not native to America and English was but one of several languages he learned only serves to heighten the brilliance of his prose. Lolita is deservedly regarded as a modern literary classic. The provocative narrative is a marvel of the English language, featuring intricate wordplay that is not merely superfluous but actually helps to develop the characterizations and action. Nabokov's text works on many levels, down to a scathing satire of human nature. For those scared away by controversy, they should read the book to understand how mistaken their perceptions are. It is an intellectual endeavor that is an account of an immoral obsession without condoning it.
Newcomers may prefer to read the annotated edition edited by Alfred Appel, Jr. It should go a long way helping the reader catch all the subtle jokes, literary and cultural allusions, and meanings of difficult passages, especially the French phrases which are scattered throughout. All are translated and explained. I possess this book but want to distance myself some more from the original novel before reading it again.
The tag line used in advertising this 1962 adaptation was, "How did they ever make a movie of Lolita?" Well, in short, the answer is that they didn't. Kubrick, for all his touted genius, didn't come close to capturing the book on film. It hardly seems to have much to do with Nabokov at all, instead being off the subject and its own unique creature. Although some films can (and should) be viewed as divorced from their source material, I find it difficult to regard this production without comparing it to Nabokov's creation. I wonder why Kubrick interpreted it this way. Putting aside the possible controversy a faithful adaptation may have caused, Kubrick chose to emphasize the satirical elements and update it to 1960s culture. Of course, Lolita is aged a few years to make the relationship less shocking. As played by Sue Lyon (who looks much older), she comes off as a typical '60s teeny-bopper heroine. Kubrick seems to want to parody other movies of this period and the activities of that society and set. The music here is atrocious, especially the annoying love theme, which resembles swinging go-go music of the era.
The story wanders all over the place, hardly devoting enough time to central relationship between Humbert Humbert and Lolita. The plot is slight and unfocused, preferring to diverge off into subplots that distract from the main story and themes. When the occasional scene does follow the book (many occur in a strange, seemingly random-chosen fashion), it appears almost jarringly out of place with the rest of the action. By incorporating too many elements of diffuse black humor, the comic and poignant obsession angle is considerably diluted. The film is also hampered by poor performances by all the major players save Peter Sellers. James Mason is especially weak as Humbert, Shelley Winters is unequivocally annoying, and Sue Lyon is a completely uninteresting disappointment. Sellers' character of Quilty is allowed to dominate the movie so much, I questioned whether this was supposed to be his story. The Quilty character, which was essentially a minor through pervasive presence in the novel, is brought to the forefront here, and Sellers improvises wildly to create a particularly overshadowing creep. As a movie on its own, perhaps the Kubrick version works on some level, but it fails as an adaptation of Nabokov's novel.
Briefly put, this film is a quite brilliant adaptation of the novel. While staying pretty faithful to the original source, Stephen Schiff's screenplay fleshes out the main characters and their relationship, which plays out in an essentially reserved love story. Maintaining the central themes, the plot is reduced to the essence of the major players and the linear events of the book. It's almost impossible to adapt a long book into the confines of a single average-length movie without coming across as a poor Cliffs Notes representation, but I think Schiff captures most of the important moments quite well and humanizes the characters who could have come off as bizarre interpretations from Humbert's narrative.
Lyne's movie is at once haunting, compelling, and beautifully photographed. For all the controversy, it is a mature, reflective, and subtle film. Some footage was excised due to the Child Pornography Prevention Act of 1996 from a censorship-minded Congress, which prohibits even an adult body double from appearing as a child simulating sexual situations, but the movie ultimately does not suffer for it. It is a challenging piece of work that sublimely reflects the pathos of the story and manages to retain bits of the complex humor of Nabokov. This Lolita abandons the notion of being a complete social satire and works as an intensely sad portrayal of a doomed, inappropriate romance.
Lolita features remarkable performances, centering on Jeremy Irons as Humbert Humbert and Dominique Swain as the title character. Irons is utterly perfect as the ill-fated wretch. So understated but evocative with every move and gesture, he is the definitive Old-World European whose obsession bristles beneath his timorous demeanor. He brings an incredible amount of sympathy for a wryly observant, though pathetic intellectual. The newcomer Swain delivers an on-target portrayal of the flowering nymphet who toys with her burgeoning sexuality but hasn't overcome her essential brattiness. Swain elicits both allure and pity as the wayward character whose immaturity in mindset and behavior does not excuse her complicity in her affairs. Despite what some critics may have written, Melanie Griffith is fine in the small role as Lolita's overbearing mother. She is comically obtuse, and her veneer hits all the right, grating notes. Frank Langella rounds out the cast as the mysterious Quilty, whose physical role was very brief in the novel, but his presence was implied throughout in an almost subliminal way. He is appropriately shady, vague, and sinister when he appears from time to time, slowly revealing himself.
On a final note on the subject, Nabokov wrote a screenplay adaptation himself from his novel. This is NOT the version used in the Kubrick movie. That was an uncredited rewrite by Kubrick. Nabokov's is published in book form. When I have the opportunity, I will read this (I have a copy in hand now) and provide brief commentary here.
Interesting links to visit:
Movies At Home: your guide to home videoI can be reached at:
[email protected]