Lolita (1962)

Featured Audience Ratings

• Graham J

  
  It feels more tame than I would have expected but Mason's performance is brilliant.

• Zach B

  
  By now in Stanley Kubrick's career as a film director, he has already made his name known with the films Fields Of Glory and Spartacus (winner of Best Supporting Actor). So, film companies were basically fighting over who was to have him direct their next film. And the film that… More
  By now in Stanley Kubrick's career as a film director, he has already made his name known with the films Fields Of Glory and Spartacus (winner of Best Supporting Actor). So, film companies were basically fighting over who was to have him direct their next film. And the film that Kubrick had in mind, would be one that shocked the world (and the first wave of change Kubrick would do with cinema). Around the world in Russia, there was a man by the name of Vladimir Nabokov who was enjoying his life as an author. He had recently released a rather interesting and risky novel by the name of LOLITA which was about a forty two year old man that falls in love with a twelve year old girl and vice versa. The novel stunned and shocked critics with the main idea behind the novel was that it is the most realistic and true romance tale of all time. When Kubrick took the script and made it into a film, well, the question that everyone asked was "How did they ever make a movie out of Lolita?". Well, in terms of direction, there never was a direct adaption. One thing about Kubrick and all of his films that followed after LOLITA was that we would take the source material, read threw it, then make his own interpretation of the story. When Kubrick received Nabokov's original screenplay, it was about four hundred pages long which, in turn, would have made a film that was about seven hours long. So, Kubrick had to rewrite the script to make it fit a two and a half hour long time span. But one thing he, Kubrick, allowed with his direction was to have the actors improvise any lines that they saw fit for the screen play if wanted. So, with the direction, Kubrick took a mega risk with altering the script and allowing the actors to do what they want with it. The end result would be one of the first of many masterpieces made by Kubrick. Now, with acting, with most people improvising their lines, I must admit that they all do a beyond fantastic job. But, we all know who the two best actors are: James Mason and Peter Sellers. For Mason, there is just something heart breaking about him and his rather unorthodox love for Lolita in the story. For Sellers, he just does his own terrific job that would end up leading him to be in Kubrick's next film. Before Kubrick went all Classical with his music, his early films had a contemporary style that reflects the time it was made. For me, the music in this film was something that just did not affect me nor was noticeable like other film scores. So, overall, this is an early example of what Kubrick would later do with the genres of film and the power he had behind camera.

• Lucas M

  
  Lolita, a powerful adaptation made by Stanley Kubrick. Great acting of Peter Sellers. High drama and dark humor.

• Spencer S

  
  Expecting a film built solely on shock value, I was disappointed to find a tame adaptation of Nabokov's novel, Lolita. Adding three years to the feral Lolita's age downplayed the true nature of this film's predatory intention. The attraction between Mason and Lyon never… More
  Expecting a film built solely on shock value, I was disappointed to find a tame adaptation of Nabokov's novel, Lolita. Adding three years to the feral Lolita's age downplayed the true nature of this film's predatory intention. The attraction between Mason and Lyon never reaches any type of climax, every hint of sexual unease masked by fadeouts and inuendos. Sue Lyon is an exceptional choice for the role, playing up her childish mannerisms, yet being manipulative with her affections. You're never quite sure if she is attracted to her stepfather, or simply using him to satisfy her every whim. Mason's usual suave demeanor is downplayed in order to contrast to the desperation of Shelley Winter's character, who he uses to get closer to her daughter. He believes he's a ladies man, not needing the romanticism of a relationship with Winters, and yet he can't even hold the attention of her daughter. Not one of Kubrick's stronger films, the best part is the ending, revealing the intentions of Peter Sellers' character Clare Quilty. Known for playing multiple roles, Sellers pops up at every turn, the comic relief in a film about pedophilia. I feel there was no need to include his sometimes extended scenes when the plot slowed, as it only made this film longer than it needed be. Overall, not anything all that original.

• Chris W

  
  Boy, here's a film that sure got the public's attention. I've heard so much about this film and the book (which I have but haven't read yet), but I didn't really know what to expect. This is so far the weakest film of Kubrick's that I've seen,… More
  Boy, here's a film that sure got the public's attention. I've heard so much about this film and the book (which I have but haven't read yet), but I didn't really know what to expect. This is so far the weakest film of Kubrick's that I've seen, but it does have its merits. I went back and forth a lot with how I was going to rate it, but let's just be a little decisive and give it a B+. Censorship bugs me, but I can see why it was enforced in 1962. Even then though, I do actually like the subtlety and appreciate it over viscerality (and that's in general) anyway. I think it works better if the audience has to leave it to their imaginations. The biggest issue with the film is that it's too damn long (and unnecessarily so) and that it really drags a lot in the second half. The film was actually a lot funny than I thought it might be, even though it is not a completely lighthearted farce. In fact, the movie is really two in one: a funny first half, and a really dark dramedy. It may be a mixed bag, but, as I said, there's a lot of strong stuff, too. The performances, cinematography, and music are fantastic. None of the characters are really likeable, but they are a joy to watch, especially Peter Sellers- hinting at what he and Kubrick would do following this film. Mason is an ass, but it's hard to take your eyes off him. Winters is a joy too.Sue Lyon though, is the real find here-from that iconic shot of her on the poster, to her first appearance in the film, to the reveal of what she looks like at the end- throug hall of that and more she is fantastic, and it's a shame she didn't become a superstar like she could have. Don't think that becuase this is lesser Kubrick that it sucks. It doesn't. It's just really flawed and compromised, but is still an entertaining and engaging film, even if it is really mixed and muddled.

• David S

  
  Anyone ever notice that the bulk of Kubrick's work is adaptations? Not that I'm complaining, just seems fascinating that Kubrick was more interested in bringing other people's work to the big screen rather than try something of his own (with the most notable exception… More
  Anyone ever notice that the bulk of Kubrick's work is adaptations? Not that I'm complaining, just seems fascinating that Kubrick was more interested in bringing other people's work to the big screen rather than try something of his own (with the most notable exception being 2001: A Space Odyssey). But then, when you look at it, if you wanted your work to be translated to the film medium, you'd want someone like Kubrick on hand. Dr. Humbert Humbert (James Mason and as to why someone would name their child after the last name is beyond me. But then, there is a Doug E. Doug out there so people in real life are just as stupid when it comes to this) is looking for a place to stay in Ramsdale, New Hampshire, as he will take on a professorship in Ohio after the summer. He finds lodging with Charlotte Haze (Shelley Winters) and her daughter Dolores (Sue Lyon) with whom he is instantly obsessed with. Over time, this obsession consumes him to the point where he marries her mother just to stay with her and then takes her on the road when her mother dies in an accident. During their time together, it's never clear who is using who. James Mason's acting is superb throughout, rarely ever losing his composure and almost always maintaining a dignified stance. He has a natural voice for narrating and you get the feeling that he really does have an authoritative presence. Likewise, despite the character being 14 (after being bumped up from 12 in the original novel), Sue Lyon plays Lolita with a little bit more maturity than would be expected. The fact that she was 14 at the time and a newcomer makes it all that more impressive as I expected her to have been slightly older (which is known as Dawson Casting in Troper circles, it's when you get people playing teenagers who are usually well in their 30's). And Peter Sellers shouldn't be discounted here either, juggling multiple roles with ease. Though my least favourite part of the film (and arguably, the only flaw in the film to me) is at the very beginning, which is actually the end. Mainly, due to the fact that it IS the end of the film, and Kubrick only put it at the start because he felt the book almost goes south in the middle even though he did say it does sacrifice a great ending. And that's exactly it. It's a confrontation, and it would have worked better staying as the ending. Now at the start, it just makes Peter Sellers look like a drunken jackass who has always been a drunken jackass, a hedonist who thinks sobriety is a foreign concept. If it had remained at the end, it would have made more sense and the drunken nature would have had slightly more explanation to it. I could say that Shelley Winters as Charlotte was a bit too whiny and needy but that appears to be the point of the character, a widower taking a chance on any man showing the least bit of affection, hoping that her home and presentation will somehow make men want to stay. So, rather than fault Shelley for playing the character like she was supposed to, perhaps I should just say that it should have been scaled back just a bit. But what really draws me to this film is the employment of the "less is more" technique. Or rather, a subset in this case, the idea that things aren't so clearly spelled out in the relationship between Dolores and Humbert. I mean, we get what's going on but not who starts what and to what end. The general consensus is that Humbert seduces Dolores and is trying to mold her into a perfect little playmate for him, his "Lolita" but it is often hinted that Dolores herself twists him around her finger to get something out of it. He exerts power by forbidding certain activities and constantly moving, she acts out by defying him whenever possible and threatening exposure of their "relationship". It's a constant battle for the ultimate state of control. They have nothing in common and each sees the other as a means to an end. His attempts to introduce her to culture fall flat, probably because he's forcing it upon her rather than let her discover it on her own. Which actually makes sense. If he were to let her venture out on her own, she would gain independence and possibly leave him. By monitoring her every action, he maintains what he believes is dominance over her. By not making it so clear as to who initiated what, the film makes itself that much more compelling. While he in every way should not be indulging in such behavior, Delores is not 100% because she takes advantage of it. Both are villain and victim, using each other in what would be a never-ending cycle if not for repeated attempts to break out of the circle. Subtlety is the film's key to success and that's why I hold it to be a provocative piece of film-making.

• AJ V

  
  This is a fantastic film based on a novel, it's brilliantly directed by Kubrick, and the cast is just perfect. I highly recommend this movie.

• Conner R

  
  Probably one of the greatest stories of obsession ever told. Maybe it's because it's manipulated to feel like a romantic drama for the most part and never feels quite as creepy as it might given the subject matter. Humbert is in terms of protagonists one of the most low… More
  Probably one of the greatest stories of obsession ever told. Maybe it's because it's manipulated to feel like a romantic drama for the most part and never feels quite as creepy as it might given the subject matter. Humbert is in terms of protagonists one of the most low down, yet somehow we still root for him. I even caught myself hoping him and Lolita would run off together. It's utter brilliance on Nabokov and Kubrick's part. James Mason is great, but it's really Sue Lyon that wins over your attention, it's almost no wonder we sympathize with Humbert; she's a goddess. This looks flawless, even though it's one of the more traditional movies that Stanley Kubrick had partaken in. It's just an unmissable and essential movie that was way ahead of it's time and still is in some ways.

• Chris G

  
  Lolita provided a watershed for Stanley Kubrick's career. Sure, he made Spartacus and Paths of Glory before 1962, but Lolita proved one thing to the world: that Kubrick had the balls to do whatever film he wanted to do. This film made him that untouchable, mad genius that… More
  Lolita provided a watershed for Stanley Kubrick's career. Sure, he made Spartacus and Paths of Glory before 1962, but Lolita proved one thing to the world: that Kubrick had the balls to do whatever film he wanted to do. This film made him that untouchable, mad genius that everyone believes he was, but it really proves that he can make a great movie no matter the subject matter or the constraints put against him. Lolita is based on the 1955 novel by Vladimir Nabokov about Professor Humbert Humbert (James Mason) and the lodgings he has taken in the town for his new position. He is a boarder in the home of Charlotte Haze (Shelley Winters), a widow who seems to be hopelessly in love with any man that breathes and knows about her existence. Also living in the house is Charlottes teenage daughter Lolita (Sue Lyon). Humbert becomes obsessed with this "nymphet" and goes out of his way to be near her, even marrying her mother for the chance to show her affection. A relationship develops that's hot and cold between the two and is also strained by the presence of another "beau", Quilty (Peter Sellers). James Mason scores as Humbert, pocessing the European demeanor of the character while being able to transmit the lust, the longing, and the conniving throughout the film. This was a ballsy move for Mason and it pays of in his performance. Sue Lyon is also excellent as Lolita, playing a girl that's a bit younger than her actual age. You can tell that she's grown way beyond her years and has more experience than her mother and even Humbert. Peter Sellers pulls out his thousand faces and voices routine throughout the film and delivers a nice performance, though it is brief. Honestly, the real standout is Shelley Winters. Sure, she's Lolita's mother, but it almost seems like there's a competition between the two. It's like a sort of jealousy that Charlotte holds against her daughter because of her relationship with boys and even men that mother just doesn't seem to get. So she's mean to her. Winters expresses all of the e,motions at the same time and can turn them on and off at will. She's briefly in the film, but she makes an impression. Kubrick continues to hone his craft into his classic period which would start with his next film, Dr. Strangelove. The opening scenes in the mansion are shot masterfully with Kubrick making you uneasy just being in the place without using cob webs and coffins lying around. You know something's going to happen, you just don't know what it is. The film feels like a comedy/thriller. Sure, the hilarity is right there for all to see, but you have the thrill of Humbert getting caught in his games throughout the film that actually keeps you on the edge of your seat. Nabokov gets the writing credit, but the film is built by Kubrick. As I said in the beginning, Lolita was a turning point in Stanley Kubrick's directorial career. For many, it was his first true film and set up that golden age of Kubrick films that ran from Lolita through A Clockwork Orange. It's a masterpiece of playing by the rules while breaking them all at the same time.

• Lady D

  
  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 storytelling.… More
  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 storytelling. Slightly overrated perhaps, but nonetheless watchable.

• Anthony L

  
  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.

• Randy T

  
  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.

• Cassandra M

  
  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… More
  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 pattern 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.

• Jennifer X

  
  The thing that amused me most was that Humbert Humbert called Lolita "Lo". I don't know why. Battle of the pedophiles at the beginning was probably the best thing I've seen in my life. Sue Lyon is marvelous as the eponymous nymphet even though Hayley Mills… More
  The thing that amused me most was that Humbert Humbert called Lolita "Lo". I don't know why. Battle of the pedophiles at the beginning was probably the best thing I've seen in my life. Sue Lyon is marvelous as the eponymous nymphet even though Hayley Mills could've given her a run for her money. James Mason is good at being the slightly creepy character that jibes well with his burned-out actor in A Star is Born. I sympathize with noone but I'm drawn to everyone.

• Pierluigi P

  
  It wasn't proper to give Peter Sellers' Quilty such protagonism. despite that flaw, Nabokov's screenplay (though drastically changed) and Kubrick's direction are correct, some passages are quite lighthearted in contrast to the serious subject matter. Shelly… More
  It wasn't proper to give Peter Sellers' Quilty such protagonism. despite that flaw, Nabokov's screenplay (though drastically changed) and Kubrick's direction are correct, some passages are quite lighthearted in contrast to the serious subject matter. Shelly Winters is a lot of fun; Sue Lyon shines as Lolita; and James Mason, well, there wasn't a gesture or word that could escape from that magnificent performer.

• Veronique K

  
  an offbeat stanley kubrick flick adapted from nabokov's notoriously controversial "lolita" about the most famed pedophillia in literature and cinema, hubert hubert...somehow kubrick de-sexualizes the horrid taboos described vividly in the original by casting our lolita… More
  an offbeat stanley kubrick flick adapted from nabokov's notoriously controversial "lolita" about the most famed pedophillia in literature and cinema, hubert hubert...somehow kubrick de-sexualizes the horrid taboos described vividly in the original by casting our lolita as some burgeoning lace in her late puberty. it is more of a quirky black comedy of absurdity than a distorted tragedy of intensely haunted obsessions. the most sexually scarstic scene in the movie would probably be that james mason tops shelly winters as observing lolita's picture by the lamp while the sex-crazed winters moans "oh! you man!"....except the age issue, sue lyon's lolita preserves its original spirit of voluptuosness blended with girlish naivety and raw vulgarity by staring into your pupils boldly with a seemingly presumptous knowledge that you dig her a lot.....all the sex in this movie is suggestively implicit, considering its time and censorship. some metaphors about hubert's gluttonish lust and slavish submission toward lolita are only hinted in some scenes such as she lets him nibble the scrambled egg but he desperately gulps it...or he bends down meticulously paints her toe-nails while she overlooks him on bed....of course, you can not omit the kaleiscopic performances of peter sellers as impersonating multi-roles in this movie with a contempted mockery to hubert's gullibities.... once some critic praised nobokov for depicting sex without any abusive profanity of phrases....same could be applauded about kubrick: interpretating the forbidden lecherousness with well-strategied symbols, dissolving the poignant harshness with the proper-dosed facetious nuances as embroidery of his own trademark signature. as the two men trifles hide-and-seek killing in the beginning, the youthful innocence of lolita is attainted furiously as the bullets penetrates the little girl painting just on the facecheek firecely. the same marred portrait hangs there when the movie ends as the dirge of lolita's exploited juvenescence.

• Ken S

  
  Great character study. It's Kubrick of course it's great

• Michael S

  
  Underrated as far as Kubrick's films go. One of his best.

• Michael G

  
  Not too faithful to the book, but what do you want from a movie about statutory rape?

• Dillon L

  
  Pretty ballsy subject matter for the era it was made in, but that's always been typical of Kubrick. A good film, not a great one.

Read all 20 featured audience ratings