Lolita (1962) User Reviews

Humorous, disturbing, and everything in between!

[ACitizenCalledKane · 7/10 · 3 December 2004]

I think Stanley Kubrick was the only director who had any ideas of how to tackle a film version of Lolita. I also believe that he was the only director who could have succeeded, and I believe he did succeed. This film was everything I could have expected it to be, and maybe even a little more.

Shelley Winters' performance was wonderful! James Mason delivered a strong effort in a very difficult part to play. Peter Sellers was Peter Sellers, four or five times throughout the movie, but that's Peter Sellers, and that's why I am really starting to admire his work. The real surprise performance in this movie, however, came from Sue Lyon in the title role. Her intensity was incredible. She seemed perfectly natural as a teenage girl enjoying the attention of older men, or just men in general. You could really see the wheels turning in her head as she schemed her way from one situation to the other. Some have criticized that her Lolita was "too old" in comparison to the novel's Lolita. One could make that judgment, however, what twelve year old actress would have been able to provide the emotional depth required for the part? Let's face it, in literary adaptations, some license must be allowed. All in all, I thought it was a very good movie, and I would recommend it to anyone who enjoys the work of Stanley Kubrick and/or Peter Sellers.

A controversial masterpiece

[FrenchEddieFelson · 9/10 · 26 April 2019]

Inspired by the eponymous novel (Vladimir Nabokov, 1955), this film admirably describes the sulfurous relationship between a middle-aged writer and his nymph Dolores Haze, aka Lolita.

By chance, looking for a furnished rental, the professor Humbert Humbert encounters Charlotte Haze and her beloved daughter Dolores. From the very first sight, the professor irrevocably accepts the rental conditions! A triangular relationship settles quickly between 1) an intellectual sensitive to beauty and youth, 2) a desperate widow impressed by this professor, both unable to fight against theirs own obsessive desires, and 3) a manipulative and nonchalant teen. Consecutively to a fatal accident and because of the inquisitive and invasive look of Clare Quilty, the teacher will progressively and ineluctably descend in the depths of the abyss.

James Mason is awesome and monumental. He is also excellently seconded by Sue Lyon, Peter Sellers and Shelley Winters. And Stanley Kubrick is definitely a regular of successful and even improved literary adaptations, with Shining (1980), 2001, A space odyssey (1968), Barry Lyndon (1975), A clockwork orange (1971), The Killing (1956), ...

This movie is truly a masterpiece.

Why have the comical Sellers character?

[valleyjohn · 8/10 · 30 May 2020]

I'm going to say something that Kubrick fans and are not going to like. I think the 1997 remake of Lolita , directed by Adrian Lyne is a far superior film. Granted , i saw the remake first which may have had some influence but i am adamant it's a better film.

I'm not saying this version is bad , its not. In fact its really good but there are some real problems with it and they are mainly down to one person - Peter Sellers. His character Clare Quilty is so over the top . It's like there is a character from the Goon Show inserted into a serious drama and it feels wrong in every way. Why Kubrick felt this was necessary is beyond me. Frank Langella played Quilty in the remake and got it spot on. No childish voices or Pink Panther esq disguises.

James Mason is superb ( That Voice!) as is Shelley Winters and Sue Lyon who played Lolita. You have to admire Stanley Kubrick for making a film in 1962 with such a controversial subject . It was a brave thing to do. Sue Lyon plays the innocent ( or not so) teen brilliantly and i love the subtle looks she gives Humbert . The question is , is she encouraging him or is he just a sexual predator ?

Despite my thoughts on the remake being a better film , i still think this one of Kubrick's best.

Whispering, Loudly

[littlemartinarocena · 10/10 · 7 April 2007]

A riveting transposition from page to screen. The accomplices are two giants in both fields. Nabokov adapts his own infamous novel for the screen and Kubrick, no less, translates it into images in a way that makes it unique, unforgettable and transcendental without ever putting himself in front of the camera. A Kubrick film can't be recognized by its style. Kubrick never made two films alike but there is something that, unquestionable, makes them stand out. In "Lolita"'s case the mere idea of touching the controversial novel with its taboo subject at its very core seem like a provocation from the word go. Pornography for the thinking man in which the only explicit act is the intention written in the character's eyes. Nothing is excessive and nothing is pulled back. James Mason - villain or victim - is monumental, mo-nu-men-tal! The unspeakable truth never leaves his brow. He is the most civilized man trapped in the lowest echelon of his own psyche. So aware, that it is painful to watch. Shelley Winters goes for it, taking her Mrs Hayes for all its worth and dives into the void of a desperate housewife, craving for sex. It is one of the most entertaining, shattering human spectacles, I've ever seen. But unlike Mason, she's not aware of it. There is a horrible innocence attached to her sickness. Peter Sellers's character from hell, the torturer comes in three riveting characterizations and Sue Lyon's temptress, the child, is the devil incarnate in a performance that defies description. None of them were nominated for Oscars and the film was condemned by every moral group in America and beyond. As film experiences go, this is one of the most provocative, enthralling, disgusting, entertaining and satisfying I've ever been through. Yep, I really mean that.

Lolita 55 years later

[damian-fuller · 10/10 · 4 December 2017]

I sat to watch Lolita for the third time. The first time I was too young to truly understand what I was seeing. Then I read the book a few years later and saw the film again. That time it left a mark. I detested James Mason's Humbert Humbert to such a degree that stopped me from accepting him in other roles other than utter villains. To see it now after two decades is a whole other story - All of a sudden James Mason's Humbert Humbert has become human, very human. Corrupt and haunted by the awareness of his own weakness. What a performance. Shelley Winters is superb, unafraid and bold bringing to life an embarrassing human spectacle. What a performance. Peter Sellers is chilling in all of his Quilty incarnations. Sue Lyon is sublime as the innocent torturer. Stanley Kubrick never made 2 films alike but I'm starting to suspect that as literary adaptations go, this is his finest.

A Masterwork of Translation

[metaphor-2 · 8 March 1999]

A significant part of Stanley Kubrick's genius was his ability to translate a literary style into a visual one. It is demonstrated nowhere more brilliantly than in LOLITA and A CLOCKWORK ORANGE.

LOLITA is perhaps the more stunning accomplishment, in that Nabokov's style is complex and multi-layered. Yet Kubrick captures the effect of it in camera angles and movements, in timing and point of view.

The broadest layer of Nabokov's novel, the parable of the aging culture of Europe trying to revivify itself by debauching the seductive young culture of America, is really missing in the film. But everything else is there, despite the fact that the film departs from the exact events of the novel.

Not to say that the film depends on the novel. It stands by itself quite easily. But it succeeds brilliantly in conveying the ideas and feelings that are the core of the novel, and it does so in completely cinematic terms. If films are to be based on works of literature, this is the way to do it, and the way it is almost never done.

The book's better.

[plasmawisp6633 · 6/10 · 14 July 2010]

The primary appeal of Nabokov's Lolita is the narrative style, and what it reveals about Humbert as a character. When entering the medium of film, I would say that it's almost impossible to convey the entire character of Humbert without the narration. Unfortunately, and it pains me to say this, Kubrick didn't even come close. It's most easily understood that this movie got all of the plot line of Lolita, but none of the substance behind it.

This movie focuses on only one real role of Humbert and that is Humbert the father. In the book, it is impossible to picture Humbert as JUST a father; he is also a justified pedophile, a nymphologist, a cultured intellectual, and most importantly, a murderer. Nabokov left the murder scene for last in the novel in order to demonstrate a build-up of malaise in Humbert. When Kubrick put the murder scene first, it makes it easy to forget by the time you reach the conclusion of the film that Humbert is capable of murder.

Not only is the development of Humbert neglected, but so is Lolita's. When we encounter Lolita as a pregnant 18-year-old in the book, Nabokov paints the scene with Lolita being a much more mature and developed character. Kubrick, however, portrays her as the same 12-year-old we spent the movie with.

I also can't blame everything on Kubrick. Cultural trends at the time of the movie didn't exactly allow for the full exposition of ALL the vulgar subject matter contained in the novel. Quite frankly, the "sex with minors" theme was so kept under the surface, I probably would have completely missed it had I not read the novel first. Lolita's a ballsy story put on the silver screen, and it takes a filmmaker with guts to even think of making it. I thought someone like Kubrick would be that kind of film maker, but its possible that he was just 20 or 30 years too early when we made this film.

The movie itself is completely average, and not anything to shout about. However, context is important. With knowledge that this is based on an unforgettable piece of literature, it greatly degrades the movie. Read the book folks.

A delicious, adult meditation on youth, obsession and sex.

[ags123 · 10/10 · 16 August 2005]

This film remains my all-time favorite. It's a delicious, adult meditation on youth, obsession and sex. While not entirely faithful to the novel, it captures the book's spirit and is nonetheless a masterpiece on its own terms. To fully appreciate what Kubrick has done, compare this version to Adrian Lyne's anemic remake.

Kubrick chose his cast wisely for the most part. James Mason conveys both the tormented inner soul and the outwardly polite gentleman with such charm that you simply can't despise him for his treachery. Shelley Winters was never better as the shrill, man-hungry shrew. Sue Lyon is enormously credible in a complex role - physically attractive, childish at times in her behavior, but quietly calculating and manipulative. The weakest link is Peter Sellers, who Kubrick found amusing enough to let him run on too long. Sellers was a brilliant performer, but just not right for this film. As Quilty, he's fine. When masquerading as others, he's mostly intrusive and tends to alter the tone of what's going on.

The need to tread carefully around the censors in 1962 actually works in the film's favor. There's a sophisticated subtlety that counterbalances the lurid subject matter. In fact, I even prefer the edited-for-television version of the scene in which Humbert and Lolita first have sex. Here she merely whispers in his ear before a suggestive fade-out. In the complete version of the film, the scene continues with them discussing a silly game played at summer camp. The less said, the better.

"Lolita" has aged remarkably well. Its topic is relevant today, and the careful craftsmanship that went into this production holds up beautifully. I think it's Kubrick's best film - they tended to get more self-indulgent as time went on. This one's a gem. Not to be overlooked are the aptly provocative title sequence and Nelson Riddle's luscious piano score.

In many ways, very well made...but who would want to see this?

[planktonrules · 6/10 · 7 February 2008]

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.

Both Lolitas are good

[Spleen · 10/10 · 1 September 1999]

Someone commented that if you want to acquaint yourself with Nabokov's `Lolita' without actually reading it, the best you can do is to see Adrian Lyne's version. This is surely true. And, I might add, if you want to acquaint yourself with Nabokov's `Lolita' without actually reading it - to hell with you. You don't stand a chance anyway. Humbert's narration cannot possibly make it to the screen in one piece. Kubrick, at least, made no attempt. He even invents his own material, which Lyne is afraid or unwilling to do.

Something about Lyne's authenticity is even shocking. He opens the story in 1947, which is when the story in fact opens - yet everything looks jarringly old-fashioned, whereas Kubrick's indeterminate 1950s setting looks right. The bulk of the story might as well take place in the 1950s as any other time. The crucial point is that the story cannot begin any EARLIER than 1947 - we need a post-war America with motels dotting the landscape. Humbert has little contact with contemporary culture; he only encounters the snippets of music and film that obsess Lolita, and he finds them unendurably vulgar. Kubrick captures this very well. There's this boppy little pop tune we never hear the end of - although most of the time we only hear it subliminally - for the first half of the movie, and it sounds like exactly the kind of tune that drove Humbert up the wall.

Kubrick's cast is a strong one. It's crowned by Peter Sellers as Quilty - and before you complain that we see too much of him, ask yourself what scene featuring Quilty could you possibly want to be removed? Admittedly, since this is 1962, we have a Lolita who is merely sixteen - but maybe this isn't just because it's 1962. After all, the book does two things at once. It makes us understand perfectly why Humbert is attracted to Lolita - we see her through his eyes - while constantly reminding us that Lolita is not someone that we would be attracted to, ourselves. Both are worthy goals, but when it comes time to film the book, the director must make a choice between them. Kubrick picked a genuinely attractive, but still obviously young, Sue Lyon. I can't fault this choice. As for Humbert - well, here Kubrick was actually MORE daring than Lyne was. Humbert Humbert is a sympathetic character who is also calculating, manipulative and - now and then - shockingly brutal. James Mason allows Humbert to be all of these things. This doesn't prevent him from being sympathetic. The story takes care of that.

It comes down to this. What, exactly, does Humbert do that's so wrong? Is it that he has sex with a minor? Considered in itself this is the least of his crimes. What's really wrong is the way he attempts to be Lolita's lover and guardian simultaneously, and, of course, he makes a hash of both jobs. THAT is what's essential to the story of Lolita, and that's what Kubrick transfers to the screen at least as well as Lyne.

Having said that I must add that both versions are very good. They're also different enough to scarcely even be competitors. See them one after the other, if you like.

The anti-Spartacus in every conceivable way

[davidmvining · 7/10 · 26 November 2019]

This is the anti-Spartacus. Where Spartacus was about the pure ideal of a man sacrificing himself for the good of humanity, Lolita is about a selfish man-child who kills the man who stole his under-aged sexual conquest from him and dies in prison. Spoilers, I guess.

It's obvious that Kubrick struggled through the filming of Spartacus, and one of the ways that he dealt with that frustration was by buying the rights to and writing the script to the unfilmable novel Lolita by Vladimir Nabokov. It's almost a mirror image of the film that was giving him headaches every single day.

Humbert Humbert is a British man of mediocrity who has made enough money off of a translation of some French poetry to vacation in a small New Hampshire town. As a home owner is guiding him around her house, hoping to convince him to rent her free room, it's obvious that Humbert wants nothing to do with her. He tries to extricate from the situation several times until she virtually drags him into her backyard where her fourteen year old daughter, Dolores, is sunbathing. Immediately Humbert is very keen on staying, and her mother, Charlotte, has no clue as to why. She's a dim, earnest woman who is desperate for attachment, mostly physical, with a man.

The infatuation Humbert has with Dolores, nicknamed Lolita, is screamingly obvious, but neither Charlotte nor Lolita seem to notice. Charlotte is so overcome with her physical infatuation with Humbert that she can't see any faults and Lolita is simply too innocent or unconcerned at the beginning. As the summer progresses, Charlotte sends Lolita to camp for the rest of the season and Humbert agrees to marry Charlotte after he reads a confession she wrote for him (that he laughs through) outlining her love for him. He's happy to take advantage of the situation to remain close to Lolita, giving him a permanent place near her for when she returns from camp. Charlotte dies in what is somewhere between an accident and suicide when she finds Humbert's diary that describes his real feelings for the "cow" Charlotte and his love for Lolita.

Freed from the shackles of any remnant of a traditional family, Humbert essentially takes Lolita on the run, moving to Ohio for a couple of years before running across the country as he feels that his sexual relationship with this young girl is prone to be found out, especially by Clare Quilty, a writer of some fame that seems to follow them from place to place. Eventually, Lolita runs away for several years. When Humbert finds Lolita again three years later, she tells him that she was having an affair with Quilty as long as she had known Humbert and it was he who had taken her away, but that relationship is over and she has cast off the shackles of new love for the shackles of an older model of love in the form of a monogamous marriage with a nice young man. She's even carrying his child. Dejected, Humbert gives her all the money he has and runs off to find Quilty, killing him in his messy and cavernous mansion.

Each time I see this film, I like it a tad bit more. It's certainly good, but I think it's a good bit from greatness, though time may change that opinion. I think the biggest little issue I have is that I don't find Peter Sellers that funny. Humor is extremely subjective (which is why I rarely try to critique it), but Sellers' performance as Quilty is amusing most of the time and far from hilarious which seems to undermine the amount of screentime he gets. I do think his bit as a German psychologist, though, is really funny.

The bigger issue I have is with the treatment of Humbert. He's the protagonist and he doesn't grow at all. I have no problem with that (Lolita is the one who grows, and that contrast is handled really well), but the tone of the film is an ironic romanticism that centers around a sexual predator. It's hard to tell if the movie wants me to feel bad for him, and it makes an unusual viewing experience. He's a despicable monster, a mediocrity in his life, and unable to form anything remotely like a real relationship. In a movie built on irony, it's interesting to watch him completely spurn Charlotte but fall head over heels for Lolita because they share all of the same personality faults. They're both incurious about the world with very low tastes in art and with an inability to really follow what Humbert considers greatness. The way Lolita dismisses Edgar Allen Poe's poem that Humbert recites to her is exactly the same sort of behavior Charlotte would give. It's only their youth that differentiates mother and daughter. That character trait that makes him an immovable man child without any growth makes him interesting, but the movie's almost coddling of him feels a bit wrong. It may be intentionally ironic (especially with the romantic swells of music that come during his worst moments), but I'm not sure it's really successful.

Lolita, though, is the character that really grows. She starts the movie as innocent as a fourteen year old girl sunbathing in a bikini can be, becomes knowledgeable about how to manipulate men, and evolves into the one person in the film who embraces the idea of family. Humbert walks into a family to destroy it for his own pleasure while Quilty happily dances around them to pursue nothing else than his own sense of pleasure. Lolita, though, ends the film in a marriage with a baby on the way and her inheritance (that Humbert, in a fair reading of his actions, stole from her for several years). They are off to Alaska to start a new life in a place far removed from the kind of life she had lead up to that point.

I was in a conversation with someone a while back and this someone made the assertion that much of Kubrick's filmography was set against the idea of the family. The discussion was really around The Shining, but I couldn't help but recall that conversation as I rewatched Lolita. Trying to view the film through that lens, I could only come away with the idea that Lolita was, perhaps, an affirmation of family, but maybe it's more of a refutation of the refutation of the family. Humbert wants nothing but his own pleasure, and he destroys lives. Quilty wants nothing but his own pleasure, and he destroys lives. Lolita wants a family, and she eventually finds it, being used along the way. It's an interesting take, at least.

Brilliant--not really the book--but still brilliant

[middleburg · 10/10 · 10 January 2004]

What a surreal, dreamlike world Stanley Kubrick creates with this intriguing film! The book, a recognized 20th century classic, is at times disturbing, hysterically funny, uncomfortably erotic, and heartbreakingly sad. The film, made in the 60s, captures many of the same feelings generated by the book--but the censorship

of the time could only allow Kubrick to suggest the more intimate and erotic

aspects of the book--which he slyly succeeds in doing. It is hard to believe now, but when this film was released, it was considered to be unbelievably

provacative and absolutely for adults only.

The movie becomes its own artistic statement---Kubrick doesn't merely try to

recreate the scenes and storyline of the book--although much of it is there--but he uses the period music, speech, clothes and mannerisms to create his own

imaginative and fascinating world. At the same time, we sure do end up caring about the characters. Within the exceptional cast, note the special performance Shelly Winters gives--her character is at once funny and so achingly sad and

pathetic. This is a real tour-de-force of acting. In several instances we go from laughing at her to really disliking her, to feeling so very sorry for her. She creates a truly memorable character.'

The film ranks right up there with all of the spectacfular films Kubrick made during his amazing and very singular career---each of his films was so

distinctive--and Lolita is one of the most distinctive of them all.

For those who wish to burn the book or worship it, we have a solid picture here.

[GiraffeDoor · 7/10 · 30 April 2019]

A straight forward and intriguing drama that takes Nabokov's postmodern exercise and reduces it too a simple (but elegant) story of a man who wants something more from life and his struggle to get it.

Mason plays Humbert with a suavity and charm that belies a vulnerable core that is much more sympathetic than the sociopath of the original novel.

Done in a cool, almost off-hand yet stylish fashion that is not above getting seductive, it is at once gleeful and eerie in its smouldering inter-generational romance. it's easy to root for Humbert as he tries to pursue the forbidden fruit in a petty bourgeois purgatory and the effect is subtle, effective and never lascivious.

The sultry performance of Lolita is presented with a sophistication and feather touch that makes her the centre of the picture but appropriately not the focal point.

As good an adaption as you could hope for that honours the original story but makes it its own. Whether the premise entices you or repulses you there is much to like here.

I wish Kubrick had stuck to just directing other people's screenplays. That's where his talent lies. Oh well.

An unbiased review of the worst Kubrick film I've seen

[tonysharp · 5/10 · 17 May 2008]

Considering how brilliant 2001: A Space Odyssey and Barry Lyndon were, it's kind of hard to imagine Stanley Kubrick making a bad film. Unfortunately, throughout his prolific career, he did make a couple of clunkers, and Lolita is definitely one of them.

The comedy was misplaced and unfunny, the creepiness was corny and uncreepy, and the overall mood was as dry as sandpaper. The deepest, and the most artistic, scene in the entire film was the introduction. Aside from that, barely anything was impressive or accessible enough to draw me in. For most of the 2 1/2 hours, I watched each scene lumber by, and barely cared for what I was seeing.

Why was Clare Quilty such a front and center character? Was it because Peter Sellers agreed to play the part, and they wanted to see as much of him as possible? Is that why they chose to over-develop his character, give him more lines than anyone, have him play two characters, and stray completely from the poetic chords that made the book so moving? And why was Humbert Humbert's background so under-explained? If you had never read the book, the deeper reasons behind his sickness, and everything else, would be mostly unknown.

The story and the character development jumped about with hardly any subtly. For example: Humbert, out of the clear blue, begins to rant about his controlling wife, and a few moments later, he contemplates on ways to kill her with a gun. There were no hints about him having murderous tendencies within the story's chronology, but all of a sudden he does? And there is no sexual tension or chemistry between Humbert and Lolita; you can barely tell that they have a relationship at all. Maybe the 1960s censors are to blame for this. Nevertheless, the relationship still feels very shallow, unbelievable, and unjustified. Why would a beautiful young girl want to have sex with a man who was as old and as ugly as James Mason? This is never explained.

As a longtime Kubrick fan, I'm not afraid to say that this film downright sucked. I only give it a 5 out of 10 because it wasn't entirely awful. There were moments when Kubrick's trademark directing and cinematography sparkled through, but, overall, I was extremely disappointed.

One of the finest films of The Sixties

[dantbrooks · 14 August 2003]

8/10

Kubrik's version of Nabokov's tale of a middle-aged professor's self-destructive obsession with a young schoolgirl. Making a film that dealt with underage sex was considered impossible in 1962 due to the strict censorship regulations. Kubrik manages to get round this by merely alluding to sexual encounters and subtle wordplay and symbolism creeps into several scenes. He also raises the girl's age from 12 in the novel to 14 in the film. Lolita is also rich in Kubrik's trademark dark humour.

The three central characters of the novel are all portrayed more than adequately in the film; James Mason as the smitten professor, Shelley Winters as the suburban widow with pretensions of culture and Sue Lyons as the young nymphet. However, it is Sellars' performance as the creepy eccentric Clare Quilty (a relatively minor character in the book) that steals the show and, ultimately, makes the film. The opening scene (which is the ending of the film) is an outstanding testament to his talent and versatility. The said scene gives the film the same "circular structure" used by David Lean in "Brief Encounter".

My favourite moments include; Quilty's re-introduction to the film at the school's summer ball as the camera pans across the dancefloor and subtly reveals a look of comic ambivalence on his face as he dances with his lover, Humbert awkwardly trying to book the only remaining hotel-room at the police convention and Humbert again trying to teach the cynical Lolita the joys of Edgar Allen Poe's poetry.

I thoroughly recommend this film. My only complaint is the length - the final third seemed to drag a bit.

Absolutely fascinating, gets better and funnier with each viewing

[TheLittleSongbird · 9/10 · 19 June 2016]

Vladimir Nabokov's 'Lolita' is a brilliantly written, beautifully constructed, hilarious (in a black-comedy way), poignant, luridly shocking (but not gratuitously so) and very daring for its time book.

Despite me considering it one of the finest books she's ever read, when describing it to people they often give me "is she mad?" looks due to its subject matter. Don't let the subject matter turn you off, no matter how it sounds, to me 'Lolita' is an essential read. Stanley Kubrick's film adaptation, which saw Nabokov's involvement, is not exactly faithful and elements are downplayed, but, considering how difficult to adapt the book is and how films had to deal with censorship constraints and studio interference often, Kubrick's film is a very brave and worthy attempt.

Kubrick's 'Lolita' also succeeds incredibly well on its own terms, reminding one of Kubrick's 'The Shining' where it is very far removed from the source material but was so much scarier, more atmospheric and more shocking than anything in the more faithful mini-series. It's not quite one of Kubrick's very finest (in a very solid career where to me his only misfire was his debut 'Fear and Desire) but it is one of his most fascinating. Quibbles are very few, with my only quibbles being some over-obvious back projection representing Nabokov's nightmarish vision and the Elstree locations even more so as a result of problems with the economy and censorship.

'Lolita' however is brilliantly shot, lit and made with incredible atmosphere and directed with Kubrick's unmistakable masterly touch, meticulous but not as cold as some of his critics have criticised his directing and films for being. It's hauntingly and beguilingly scored too with a memorable main theme. While one does miss some of the book's funniest moments and the subject matter is a little more shocking in the book (with the age gap being more believable), 'Lolita' achieves an ideal balance of hilarious black comedy and affecting drama.

The story is lurid, but in a sensually captivating way and never in a vulgar way. It is also relentlessly entertaining and has moments of genuine poignancy. The characters are intriguing and the acting is terrific. Sue Lyon, while slightly too old age-wise (only by a few years though), more than holds her own against her more famous colleagues and is positively alluring. In an incredibly bold career move, James Mason superbly brings cruelty and pathos (his begging at the end is heart-breaking) to Humbert, here a complex character rather than the total creep that he could have been in lesser hands than Mason's. Shelley Winters is riotous and surprisingly poignant, while ever the scene stealer Peter Sellers brilliantly steals every scene he's in in multiple roles, especially great as Quilty, a creepy chameleon sort of character.

Overall, a fascinating film and gets better and funnier with each viewing. Not one of my favourites, but one this reviewer appreciates highly. 9/10 Bethany Cox

Kubrick makes you despise yourself

[Jithindurden · 9/10 · 6 December 2017]

With characters that appear sympathetic at the beginning and turning more and more despicable as the film goes on and showing the unstable mental condition of the main character without throwing it at your face, Lolita manages to keep you uneasy throughout the film. Kubrick's attempt in dark comedy is highly successful here which he will perfect in a much more comedic Dr Strangelove. Lolita could have been a much more complexly woven tale if not for the censorship of the time. From what I've heard the original novel is much better and a lot are omitted here which makes this looks like more sided with the character of Humbert but the way I see it Kubrick have made the audience uneasy and to an extent made them despise themselves for sympathising with these characters by the end of the film. He never wants everything to be too black and white which is what I believe he tried to implement here as well.

Very annoying film.

[Kdosda_Hegen · 6/10 · 24 March 2021]

I can't believe that Stanley Kubrick made a sex comedy. In this film almost all characters are extremely unlikeable, most of them are extremely flawed and selfish people and the whole plot revolves around their selfishness. It has a surprisingly dark ending, but why did they show it at the beginning of the film, spoiling the whole film? Some films, which show ending in the beginning, show the wrong glimpse of the ending and that makes the last act very different knowing that you were fooled, but in this film, the ending is exactly what you see in the beginning making it a direct spoiler and an abysmal storytelling decision.

brilliant visual translation of the novel

[krullie · 8/10 · 1 November 2001]

It was very hard to get a hold of lolita. I couldn't rent it anywhere, 'till one day i stepped in the library and i went to their video section. And yes, they had it, Lolita. I was very happy to have found it, cause i had already read the novel by Vladimir Nabokov, which made a big impression on me, though sometimes i had to force myself to reading it. When i saw the movie, it was everything i hoped it would be when i read the novel. The images and environment that Kubrick put on film were exactly the same as the visual world that I created in my mind while I was reading the book. The actors were perfectly cast and the whole atmosphere, ambiance and tension, that Kubrick created in his film, felt exactly like they felt in the book.

The screenplay could not have been written better by the master himself. When someone has read the book they'll know what i mean when i say that it seems almost impossible to make a film of it. The book is so complex, psychological and plays at so many different levels, that on screen, people wouldn't be able to make sense out of it. But the screenplay that Nabokov wrote was a lot more accesible and could therefore reach a bigger audience.

The controversial novel was talked about a lot in its time and i think Stanley Kubrick, always controversial and provocative, was the perfect director to make a film out of it. And he did. The theme of sexual obsession is handled very subtle, but it IS being handled, and that gives the film the tension and controverse that we find in all of Kubrick's films.

The film made a big impression on me, as the book did, but even more, they made the same impression on me, which satisfied me a great deal.

Great film of a great book.

Opportunity Missed

[WriterDave · 7/10 · 24 January 2006]

Somehow, even though I am an ardent fan of Kubrick, I didn't see this film from 1962 until just recently. It certainly was worth a look, though it definitely ranks among Kubrick's lesser films and explores themes he readdressed in his last film, "Eyes Wide Shut" over thirty-five years later. There are some classic Kubrick scenes in this flick, like the pan down from the bedroom into the kitchen after Humbert and Mrs. Hays get into a fight, or when Humbert is visited by "friends" while soaking in a bathtub after his wife's tragic accident, and of course the iconic scene of Lolita lying on her stomach on the bed in the hotel playfully cocking her head back and forth at Humbert and then slipping off her shoes.

How much you can tolerate Shelly Winters' whining and James Mason's overt perversions will make or break this film for you. You also have an even more perverted Peter Sellers doing his typical man of a thousand disguises bit that just never seemed right to me in this film. The actress playing the title character made little Lolita come across as a sniveling brat with nary the seductive properties so overwhelming in the novel. Due to the social mores of the day, Kubrick really wasn't able to channel the aching lyrical poetry of Nabokov's controversial tale of older men lusting after a nymphet. Here, Kubrick, always the sly master, guises the sexual deviances in two polarizing ways: at times he plays the film like a comedy of manners (especially in the Sellers' scenes which become all the more disturbing because of what he is trying to get at from all the comedic shenanigans), and at other times the film is a formulaic and staged melodrama. The shifting tones are interesting, but don't really work, and then the film literally ends mid-scene with Mason's Humbert finally tracking down Seller's Quilty and all the viewer is left with is an anti-climactic epilogue. All in all, an interesting film to view in the context of the time it was made and against Kubrick's other works as a thematic whole, but definitely not the classic you thought it could be and a missed opportunity to fully tap into Nabokov's art.

Genius...with a bit of magic

[davidbaldwin-11838 · 8/10 · 21 August 2023]

Yes, it is probably 60 years since I last saw this film. But this year I discovered Nabakov and have just finished being blown into space by Lolita, the novel. And what a brilliant honourable job this film is. Superb and very hard working performances from James Mason and Shelley Winters...the audacious opening up to the Peter Sellers and his outrageous offering...but then you need the magic. For that, thank you Sue Lyon...a kind of perfect foil, a gem of lifeforce, amidst the power of professional craft force displayed in all other aspects of this great film. Lolita was not included in my list of 10 favourite films. It sure is now....and near the top.

A weirdly funny film about a disturbing subject !!!

[avik-basu1889 · 6/10 · 15 December 2015]

'Lolita' is a controversial Stanley Kubrick film based on an even more controversial novel by Vladimir Nabokov. Nabokov himself co- wrote the screenplay for the film along with Kubrick. The plot follows a European professor named Humbert Humbert who relocates to an American suburb. He rents a room from a lonely window Charlotte and then comes across her young teenage daughter Lolita. He ends up feeling an instant attraction towards Lolita. Humbert ends up marrying Charlotte with the sole intention of being close to Lolita and pursuing her. This attraction towards Lolita slowly and gradually becomes an obsession which engulfs Humbert and pushes him over the edge and into a state of paranoia and constant jealousy.

The original novel which I have not read, was considered to be a hugely controversial piece of work as the disturbing nature of the storyline was taboo and far too risqué for the fifties. The film could have been even more controversial as this was the adaptation of the controversial story on the screen in the visual medium. But Kubrick used interesting and subtle ways to hint and imply certain things without actually being explicit about them. I think I noticed an underlying theme of two cultures coming into contact. There is Humbert who is the European who goes to America to find a home and work. He comes across an overly sexed up society of the upper-middle class, but he is only interested in the young Lolita. In a twisted way, Humbert's obsession for Lolita could have been used to symbolise the European immigrant's desperate attempt to own and be a part of America's future. The atmosphere and environment that surrounds the characters is messed up and filled with lust and greed and manipulation. Every character is pursuing someone else with a fair share of lust, but it is Humbert's pursuit of Lolita that gets the attention because of her age. A sex crazed and obnoxious society similar to this one was also present in 'A Clockwork Orange', another Kubrick film.

Having said all that, overall I don't think the film is supposed to be analysed and scrutinised so minutely. Kubrick treats Nabokov's story almost like a comedy. There are so many sexual innuendos and euphemisms which will remind you of sex comedies like 'American Pie' and 'Eurotrip', there is a significant amount of slapstick comedy, there are the antics of Peter Sellers,etc. All the aforementioned things makes me believe that this was meant to be a comedy even though it deals with pedophilia, a very sensitive and disturbing issue.

I think Kubrick's career as a filmmaker can be divided into 2 parts: the pre Dr. Strangelove era and the post Dr. Strangelove era. I think from Dr. Stangelove onwards, Kubrick managed to distinguish himself from the other filmmakers and created his signature Kubrick style. Along with Dr. Strangelove, all the subsequent films that he directed can be easily identified as Kubrick films just by looking at any random scene. 'Lolita' is a film from the pre Dr. Strangelove era of Kubrick's filmography and so it does not have that distinctive Kubrick touch and feel that all of us love. The only film that he made before Dr. Strangelove that I love is 'Paths of Glory'. 'Lolita' is a good film, but it didn't have that wow factor that you get from other Kubrick films. Kubrick tells the story well, but the style is very reminiscent of the other Hollywood films of the late 50s and early 60s. It didn't have a lasting impact on me. It's a very standard noir-ish film, the likes of which became very popular during that era of Hollywood filmmaking.

To finish, I will have to say that 'Lolita' is certainly not one of Kubrick's best films. It is technically well made, the plot moves briskly and the pacing is good as for a 2 hour 30 minutes long film, it didn't seem to overstay its welcome and it has a good performance from James Mason. However, it didn't overwhelm me and it didn't linger in my thoughts for too long. It's good, but not 'Kubrick good'.

Best Lolita ever

[moviola-2 · 10/10 · 16 January 1999]

An excellent film that has Kubrik's name stamped all over it.

We see how the skillful Director is able to translate and adapt the book to reach a bigger audience and become a timeless Classic.

Rather than worry about truly reflecting the book on the silver screen, Kubrik changes and experiments with the screenplay to obtain a refreshing, intellectual and fun version of the boring Nabokov's novel.

The Master of Directors shows also great skill in his precise direction of the well selected star cast.Who would challenge that Sellers is precisely the hyperactive, witty character who could undoubtedly seduct a young teen. Could there be a better fit to Lolita's mother than Shelley Winters, who conveys so well the impression of being the desperate, lonely widow?

Even James Mason IS the perfect sexually repressed, intellectual pervert, who tries to hide so well his persistent, hypocritical thoughts and desires behind that mask of academic honorability.

In conclusion, this is not a replacement for the book. It is also true that to bring the book to life a boring multi-part mini-series would be necessary. This is, however, a better screenplay than the one we saw on the 1997 version.

"Cha-cha-cha..."

[moonspinner55 · 7/10 · 9 April 2001]

All the acting in Stanley Kubrick's "Lolita" is top notch, but I could not get enough of Sue Lyon's sleepy/sexy gaze, the suspicious eyes and crooked smile, the flip talk and deep voice. She was given a bad rap at the time because she's of course much older than the character was in Nabokov's book (critics seemed to blame this on Sue!); however, she's more than capable in the role, at times excellent, always a presence and a very exciting one. James Mason--despite a monotone British voice which exudes masculinity but little inflection--is a decent Humbert Humbert, the lover of little girls (when I read Vladimir Nabokov's book, I pictured Rex Harrison). Shelley Winters is a scream as Lolita's mother, though the picture really picks up once she's gone. Peter Sellers is indeed overused as Humbert's walking paranoia, and the story-threads involving his character fail to come together. Still, the photography, most of the writing, Kubrick's direction, and Nelson Riddle's score are marvelous, as is Sue Lyon. What a temptress this one is! *** from ****

Morally dubious and superficial: Kubrick's worst movie?

[Teyss · 5/10 · 11 October 2019]

A great novel from one of the greatest 20th century authors adapted by one of the greatest directors... must produce a great movie, right? Wrong.

THE NOVEL

First, let us not undervalue the novel, a reference in world literature: for instance, it is included in the Norwegian Book Club's famous list of the 100 best books of all time and in Nobel laureate Vargas Llosa's selective list of his 9 favourite novels. Amongst many qualities, it is a moral opus on humanity and monstrosity: Humbert is a paedophile, yet he is also intelligent, seducing and pathetic. We understand and pity him, to an extent, regarding his shattered childhood love for Annabel, his mother's early death, his divorce, his stays in psychiatric hospitals, etc. On this perilous path, Nabokov treads carefully by avoiding two opposite pitfalls: depicting Humbert as a complete monster, which would be of limited interest; finding excuses for his behaviour, which could represent a justification for any crime. Hence everything in the novel is put into perspective: Humbert's mental illness, his thoughts about this, his intelligence, his humour and, most of all, his narration.

Indeed, Nabokov remarkably handles first-person narration: we slowly realise Humbert is unreliable, not about actual facts (we could not say if they are accurate or not, since he is the only narrator), but their interpretation. For instance, he depicts Lolita mostly as greedy, vulgar, selfish, insensitive, cheating... but we progressively realise it is largely inaccurate. Hence we question narration itself, down to its style: it is very articulate and humorous, but too much so. Isn't Humbert fooling us, as well as himself, with his neat "Confession" about his otherwise despicable self?

THE MOVIE

Kubrick makes two unfortunate major artistic decisions.

1. The movie barely criticises humbert. Granted, it is not easy to represent unreliable narration on screen, but Kubrick does worse: he adopts Humbert's point of view. Lolita is just a little brat, Charlotte a brainless dragon, Quilty a devilish manipulator. Notably, essential elements about Lolita are omitted or downsized:

• She feels miserable only once, when she learns about her mother's death, but it is short. In the novel it lasts longer and there are other depictions of her despair.
• We do not see how sincerely she loves her disabled husband at the end.
• The tennis coach's important comment saying Lolita is talented but loses because she is "so polite", is discarded.
• The fact everybody calls Dolores "Lolita", while in the book only Humbert does so, is revealing: his perception of Dolores as a nymphet invades the whole story.

Hence characters are not only shallow: they fit Humbert's vision.

Humbert himself is rarely shown committing fiendish acts, as opposed to the novel:

• Lolita seduces him in the hotel whilst in the book it is less clear.
• There are no other innuendos about their sexuality.
• There is no account about Humbert's plans to rape her whilst in the book he tries twice, by giving sedatives to Charlotte and then Lolita.
• He does not blackmail her.
• There is no indication about his attraction to other young girls, so he almost appears as a person truly in love instead of a paedophile.
• He just considers shooting Charlotte but quickly dismisses the idea whilst in the book he comes very close to drowning her.
• After Charlotte dies he gets drunk whilst in the book he gloats with joy.
• Eventually he is not arrested, as if the director's verdict were "not guilty".

Granted, there are naturally other omissions, yet the above-mentioned constitute important choices because they exonerate Humbert. Also some alterations, notably concerning sexuality, might have been necessary because of censorship; but then, is it excusable to film such dynamite without the full possibility to do it ethically?

Apart from omissions, the original story is marginally modified in other ways: Quilty's role is expanded and minor differences are introduced (e.g. Lolita is a 14 year-old blonde instead of a 12 year-old brunette). However these changes have no effect on the movie's ethical ambiguities. Critic Greg Jenkins said: "A story originally told from the edge of a moral abyss is fast moving toward safer ground." As a direct consequence, the movie lacks depth. Indirectly, instead of being scrutinised, monstrosity becomes unchallenged, almost acceptable.

2. The movie mainly focuses on action. Kubrick could have gone down a morally perilous path by compensating with other qualities, for instance dark humour or strong themes. However there is little more than a simple account of events without perspective.

• Artistic direction is plain. The only scene worth mentioning is when Humbert kills Quilty, which is grotesque enough but far from the novel's level.
• Social satire is limited. Mental illness is not investigated.
• The US road trip remains abstract: we see little of the 50,000 km the main characters travel, probably because most was actually shot in England.
• The few humorous elements are only partly convincing: ironic music is sometimes added; Quilty's character is expanded and provides somewhat funny but unnecessary scenes; humorous lines extracted from the novel lack impact.
• The multiple sarcastic remarks, wordplays, witty literary references and the intriguing puzzle to find Quilty are mostly discarded.
• The tragic dimension is absent, for instance Lolita's above-mentioned despair or the eventual deaths of Lolita, her baby and Humbert (disregarding Quilty's ludicrous death): the atmosphere remains very tame, without asperities.

All this emphasises the moral issues mentioned in point 1, since they are not offset by interesting features.

What can be saved in the movie? Acting is excellent, notably James Mason in the lead role and Peter Sellers in three impersonations: himself, a policeman, Dr Zempf (this incidentally inspired the idea to have him play different characters in "Dr Strangelove" two years later). Action unravels seamlessly, despite the fact the last scene where Humbert kills Quilty is placed at the beginning for no valid reason (in the book it is towards the end since narration is strictly chronological). It is sometimes comical. If it can console Kubrick's fans, "Lolita" is arguably his only failure ("Spartacus" being debatable).