Gary Cockrell, James Mason, Peter Sellers

A professor finds himself in a struggle of temptation of desire for a young teen nymphette.

Flixster Users

80% liked it

36,413 ratings

Critics

97% liked it

38 critics

Unrated, 2 hrs. 32 min.

Directed by: Stanley Kubrick

Release Date: June 13, 1962

Invite friends to see

DVD Release Date: June 29, 1999

Stats: 1,615 reviews

Get movie widget Recommend it Add to Favorites

Your Rating



clear rating
Share on: Facebook Twitter

Flixster Reviews (1,615)


  • October 14, 2009
    A much older film than I?d first realised, interesting story, I?m sure very controversial in it?s day ? as seems to be Kubrick?s taste.

    The ending was quite unusual for it?s time I felt, good, but more of an unfinished style which I relate more to a modern style of storytellin...( read more)g.

    Slightly overrated perhaps, but nonetheless watchable.
  • September 4, 2009
    Lolita is visually beautiful as you'd expect from Kubrick but unfortunately it's also unnecessarily long in my opinion. There are great performances from Mason and Winters and a hint of whats to come in Kubrick's next film from Sellers.
  • August 23, 2009
    No matter how you slice it, it still boils down to a 40 year old man lusting after a 14 year old girl. I love the movie but, not surprisingly, I always feel a little creepy about it.
  • July 22, 2009
    Watching Lolita again recently I was struck by the way Kubrick and his cast flesh out the story without resorting to the 'show everything' approach taken in the '97 remake. Of course Doleres and Humbert are having a sexual relationship, but you get the sense she's done the same p...( read more)attern before and certainly knows how to lead him on. Sue Lyon has Lolita's sly looks and mannerisms perfectly attuned to the sleazy confusion of the lodger who marries her overbearing mother just to stay close to the 'little girl' he first spotted in the garden ... I find Lolita the most disturbing character in the film for many reasons - she is directly responsible for the ultimate fates of her mother, Humbert and Quilty (although all contribute in some way to their own destruction). James Mason is great in a difficult role (I read somewhere this was at one point intended for Noel Coward, which would have been fascinating ... Peter Sellers put his mimicry talents to good use again as Quilty, but manages to invest this character with a true personality as well, you sense he is as much a victim as Humbert. The only false note is Shelley Winters, who is simply frightful with her cherry pie and her shrine to a 7 years dead husband. Lolita is a slow paced film with many layers and its circular structure where we see the 'ending' first and return to it at the end is an excellent trick.
  • March 25, 2009
    Watching Kubrick's "Lolita" is like talking to a virgin who's trying to convince you that he/she knows something about sex. Since he/she is underneath uncomfortable with the subject and does everything so his/her ignorance wouldn't get exposed, there's a lot of work of imaginatio...( read more)n. In fact, from one point on, there really nothing else besides imagination. But we know that where there's too much imagination, there's not much substance since imagination is always a part of storytelling, not its fundament. And what seems almost abstract to me, after I watched this flawed film is that I felt as if
    this powerful story about love, lonlieness and suffering was told by some old nun in Sunday school, a non-experienced creature who could use a reach around once in a while, so maybe that way her way of storytelling would gain some power and necessary spice to adds up its character.

    Not that I'm mocking Kubrick here. In fact, I'm mocking screenwriter, the great Nabokov himself who must've thought that the screenplay is still a book where he can deliberatly leave plenty for readers to imagine. He must've forgotten - or he simply didn't know - that certain elements in cinema simply must be shown, otherwise it's a deep black hole. As Roman Polanski once wisely said: "When you tell the story of a man who is beheaded, you have to show how they cut off his head. If you don't, it's like telling a dirty joke and leaving out the punch line." The problem is that Kubrick agreed on it, as if he was thinking too that having Humbert ask Lolita: "Do you love me?" was enough for us to be engaged in the drama of the two.

    Maybe that was Kubrick's point. To focus mainly on consequences, not on the tension between the two. Maybe. Well, if so, it remains unconvincing and even Winters' lovely acting and Mason's absolutely brilliant performance can't compensate a non-existen sexual vibe that is a fundament of their relationship. I don't wish to sound like someone who wanted to see a unstimulated sexual act - not only because it's was impossible to show it back then - but as far as Kubrick went, I believe he could've gone a little but further than leaving at painting Lolita's toenails. That way it looks like classical story of a boy showing a girl his penis and her running away. Not only it is safe. Archaic. Its makes this provocative, important story childish and laughable. Of course there's always a flip side to that coin, that maybe he couldn't go as far as he wanted. Well, to that question the answer is very easy. He might've want to wait till the 80's or 90's with it, I'm sure he would be better off that way, simply by looking at what he accomplished in his masterful "Eyes Wide Shut".

    On the technical level, it is overlong, and for the most of the second part, boring. And why in the hell it starts with the last scene making the ending absolutely terrible, I still wonder. Fortunately, the undeniable genius of multi-characterization of Peter Sellers shines here with all its brightness.

    Adrian Lyne's "Lolita" might've not been a perfect adaptation either but at least it
    presented a sheer emotion of what was happening between the two, and what's more important, it gaves us a reflection of what Humbert was going through in his masochistic, confused mind - madly in love and being ashamed of it at the same time, deeply alone with the great force of wanting something pure, innocent, putting up bit by bit with Lolita's infantility.

    I'm still waiting for a man with the guts and vision who will tell this story as it should be told since the story itself hasn't dated a single day, like all what's great in literature.
  • November 20, 2009
    Un clasico. Muy bueno. Peter Sellers hace muy buen papel. Y la chavita si llena su personaje.
    No he visto el refrito con Jeremy Irons.. pero dicen que esta mas erotica que esta.
  • October 30, 2009
    Something else entirely. Loved it to death.
  • October 29, 2009
    I love this "Lolita" the movie directed by Adrian Lyne. I don't really like the Kubrick's version since it was really really...really.. (I mean it) boring! I've read "Lolita" the novel by Vladimir Nabokov, and I think Lyne's version is much better than Kubrick's.
  • October 10, 2009
    Lolita is a good character study. Mason and Lyon played their roles equally well. However, I'm not a fan of the film's length. There's nothing wrong with long movies, but this one didn't work. And I don't understand why it's such a touchy movie with some people. It's only a movie...( read more) from 1962 that incorporates pedophilia and statutory rape. What's so bad about that? Never mind... Well done, Mr. Kubrick.
  • October 5, 2009
    "Lolita (1962) is an influential comedy-drama film by Stanley Kubrick based on the classic novel of the same title by Vladimir Nabokov. Lolita tells the story of the affair between Humbert Humbert and Lolita Haze, a middle-aged man and a newly pubescent "nymphet." Kubrick's movie...( read more) opens with a perfect image of obsessive fetishism: a soft-focus close-up of Humbert cradling Lolita's bare leg as he paints her toenails, the music dripping with sarcastic melodrama. The black humor and dramatic story of juvenile temptation and perverse, late-flowering lust was centered on a pubescent nymphet and a mature literature professor in an aura of incest. Rather than a film of overt sexuality and prurient subject matter, its content was mostly suggestive, with numerous double entendres and metaphoric sexual situations. Just Brilluant"

Critic Reviews


Comments


  • samskli
    March 27, 2007
    i like this movie ,but , the book is more interesting ,very very interesting
  • samjohnstone
    March 21, 2007
    Quite craptaculous-worse than the remake

Critic ratings and reviews powered by RottenTomatoes.com

Fresh (60% or more critics rated the movie positively)

Rotten (59% or fewer critics rated the movie positively)

More Like This


Click a thumb to vote on that suggestion, or add your own suggestions.

  • Dr. Strangelove Or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb
    Dr. Strangelove Or How I Learned to Stop Worr... (53%)
  • Lolita
    Lolita (81%)
  • Circle of Two
    Circle of Two (100%)
  • The Prince of Tides
    The Prince of Tides (100%)

Facts


No facts approved yet. Be the first

Lolita : Watch Free on TV


Lolita Trivia


  • Rumor has it, the relationship between Charlie Chaplin and Lita Grey was the basis of a book by Vladimir Nabokov. This book was turned into one of the most controversial movies ever. Which movie was it?  Answer »
  • name the director of Lolita and 2001?  Answer »
  • Which one of these Stanley Kubrick films was based on a novel of the same name?  Answer »
  • Which actress won a Golden Globe for playing Delores Haze in Stanley Kubrick's "Lolita"?  Answer »

Video Clips


No video clips yet. Want to upload one?

Recent News


No recent headlines. Got one?

Most Popular Skin