In light of having just read and reviewed the Nabokov classic Lolita, I decided to watch the film version. In my review I make the argument that Lolita is a very good book but not a great one, and that's one of those books that critics have overpraised throughout the years, all the while just repeating from one another.
Although we own both the 1962 Kubrick version, as well as the 1997 film by Adrian Lyne, both films have their merits. On one hand, it is hard to top Peter Sellers as Quilty. Yet, I think Jeremy Irons makes a perfect Humbert, and Dominique Swain makes for a good, bratty Lolita. The 1997 film is more sensual than the Kubrick film, and even the die-hard Kubrick fans (such as myself) view Lolita as a good film, but one of his lesser works by comparison.
It's been a while since I've watched the Kubrick version, but I plan to watch it again in the near future. For one, the 1997 Lolita bears a lot more skin, throws her legs around more, and she is physically wet a lot of the time. The 1962 Lolita has her in more conservative attire--something more appropriate for its time.
Here is the scene when Humbert first sees 1997 Lolita:
And to contrast, here is where Humbert sees 1962 Lolita:
Still a bit risky for it's day, but the later film is much more sexualized.
