tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21463545.post8872224992576054977..comments2024-03-25T15:38:16.880-07:00Comments on Surrender to the Void: Lolita (1962 film)thevoid99http://www.blogger.com/profile/03055459287396592446noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21463545.post-16890213881776346312012-10-06T23:05:18.805-07:002012-10-06T23:05:18.805-07:00@David-Peter Sellers was also my favorite thing in...@David-Peter Sellers was also my favorite thing in the film as I really enjoyed his devious performance.thevoid99https://www.blogger.com/profile/03055459287396592446noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21463545.post-85626927513064356902012-10-06T22:42:54.930-07:002012-10-06T22:42:54.930-07:00I love Kubrick's version,but Lyne's versio...I love Kubrick's version,but Lyne's version is not far behind.Peter Sellers stole every scene he was in and was the highlight for me in this film.Davidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02579915072251488639noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21463545.post-46135496086690090462012-10-06T14:51:21.605-07:002012-10-06T14:51:21.605-07:00@Chip-I remember that the 97 version was more fait...@Chip-I remember that the 97 version was more faithful to the book. Again, I need to rewatch that film so I can express my thoughts about the film.thevoid99https://www.blogger.com/profile/03055459287396592446noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21463545.post-79104406083822010872012-10-06T14:25:37.626-07:002012-10-06T14:25:37.626-07:00"I heard some prefer the Lyne version over Ku..."I heard some prefer the Lyne version over Kubrick's"<br /><br />I'm one of them. A large part of this is that the 97 version simply could be closer to the story than the early 60s version. Part of it was the aforementioned Quilty character. I thought the main characters were fine in both versions, and the mother was irritating in both versions, so they are basically a wash.<br /><br />The 97 version was allowed to show more complexity in the Lolita character than the 60s version and I felt this made it better.Chip Laryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00787403805554027107noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21463545.post-63930454999159693402012-10-06T14:16:09.480-07:002012-10-06T14:16:09.480-07:00@Chip-I'm a sucker for Sellers and his work. ...@Chip-I'm a sucker for Sellers and his work. Though I do understand that Kubrick expanded the Quilty character just for Sellers.<br /><br />It's been years since I've seen the Adrian Lyne version with Frank Langella. If I can get my hands on it, I'll watch it and compare/contrast though I heard some prefer the Lyne version over Kubrick's.thevoid99https://www.blogger.com/profile/03055459287396592446noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21463545.post-47721087426485608942012-10-06T13:49:06.758-07:002012-10-06T13:49:06.758-07:00I really liked Mason and Lyon in this, but I'm...I really liked Mason and Lyon in this, but I'm afraid I can't agree on Sellers. He's actually the reason I ultimately didn't like this film. Yes, the limits of the time prevented them from showing Quilty as the truly evil person he is, but Sellers ended up playing him like a buffoon or clown. That completely removed any hint of menace from the character. <br /><br />Langella made a much better Quilty in the remake. (And yes, I realize Seller's made a whole career out of mugging for the camera, but it just doesn't work for this role.)Chip Laryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00787403805554027107noreply@blogger.com