The only reason I finally brought myself to watch this film was because Stanley Kubrick directed it and being a cinephile, I thought I had an obligation to myself to watch it. I have to admit that the movie was extremely competently made (with one exception which I'll get to in a bit) and did keep my attention despite being a very long movie. However, and here's the problem, who exactly is the intended audience? Seeing a movie all about a pedophile just felt very, very creepy--especially since, in some ways, the film seems to rather sensitively portray this depraved man--almost making you feel sorry for him. I wonder...had Sue Lyon been a little less physically developed or if the role had been played by a boy, would people have accepted it? Life is just too short for this sort of film and I hope never to see another one like it--it just made my skin crawl at times.
And, as I said above, the film was very competently made...except when it came to Peter Sellers' very bizarre and over the top roles in the film. While Sellers was great in THE MOUSE THAT ROARED and DR. STRANGELOVE in multiple roles, here it just seemed out of place and dumb. This wasn't just because of the bizarre characters he played but because in the role as Quilty, he just seemed to be overacting horribly and confused me--was this supposed to be a serious drama or a very broad comedy? I really don't think Kubrick made that clear to Sellers, as Sellers could do well in dramatic or comedic roles--but here, the role just didn't fit the rest of the film at all. Good actor--bad role.
Now if you look at all the reviews for this film, most are extremely positive. I wonder (and I'll never know for sure) that if this film had been directed by William Beaudine or some other lesser-name director, would people have gone into such rapturous praise for it? Often, it seems that having the right name at the helm of a film almost guarantees critical acceptance.
And, as I said above, the film was very competently made...except when it came to Peter Sellers' very bizarre and over the top roles in the film. While Sellers was great in THE MOUSE THAT ROARED and DR. STRANGELOVE in multiple roles, here it just seemed out of place and dumb. This wasn't just because of the bizarre characters he played but because in the role as Quilty, he just seemed to be overacting horribly and confused me--was this supposed to be a serious drama or a very broad comedy? I really don't think Kubrick made that clear to Sellers, as Sellers could do well in dramatic or comedic roles--but here, the role just didn't fit the rest of the film at all. Good actor--bad role.
Now if you look at all the reviews for this film, most are extremely positive. I wonder (and I'll never know for sure) that if this film had been directed by William Beaudine or some other lesser-name director, would people have gone into such rapturous praise for it? Often, it seems that having the right name at the helm of a film almost guarantees critical acceptance.