An action-packed slog

Absolutely amazing

It’s an especially fun movie from a director and cast who are clearly having a good time allowing themselves to let loose.

Instead, you get a movie that's enjoyable enough, but leaves you feeling like it could have been much, much more.

A daring drama, full of irony and nutty relationships. At the center would be Lolita, very well portrayed by Sue Lyon. Shelley Winters, as her mom Charlotte, sees her more as a rival than as a daughter. She jealously calls her "a homely child." On the other hand, James Mason, who could be a surrogate parent to her, wants Lolita as a lover. Charlotte's problem is that she's stuck at the same emotional level as Lolita. She says she still "feels young" but has become a pretentious bore with her "Van Gawk" Van Gogh. Humbert's relationship with Charlotte is an ironic inversion of his affair with Lolita. He could care less about Charlotte, but uses her to get closer to Lolita. As much as he adores Lolita, she uses him to suit herself.Her character can't really be faulted. She's certainly aware of the effect she has on guys of all ages; but she's a confident outgoing teen who likes to have fun with people...sometimes a little too much fun. Humbert knows exactly what he's doing, even if he doesn't know why. We don't get to see what his ex-wife was like, so we don't know why he ends up in strange relationships. He must be miserable when he's with Charlotte, and he's never really secure with Lolita either. Even if she weren't underage and technically his stepdaughter, she's so mercurial she would annoy him anyway. In some ways, though, she's the most mature one. She's a little unsure of herself, but isn't afraid to try new activities, and fits in well with all of her peers and mentors (Humbert being a special case, to say the least). Her most poignant line "I want you to be proud, really proud of me," even though it would better said to her mom instead of Humbert, shows that she feels good about herself.By the end, she's very much a young adult. She still seems cheery, even with the huge responsibility of marriage, running a house, and carrying a baby. In these rather desperate circumstances, one has the impression that she'll be fine. Strangely enough, when Humbert comes to visit, he seems to almost fit in. He's given the respect due to an older relative who's also a benefactor. But she wisely refuses to junk everything and run off with him.The one who seems out of place is Peter Sellers. He tends to throw the drama off-track with his idiosyncratic characters. The scene at the hotel when he pretends to be a cop is especially distracting. It's amusing for a few seconds, but he just goes on and on. He's a sort of grotesque foil for Humbert. I don't see the point of the frame story either. Why would Humbert kill him? Sure, he's a 'rival' of sorts; but by this point, Humbert has seen Lolita settle down permanently. Every guy but her husband is banished to the fantasyland she once lived in.Another bit I couldn't figure out was why Humbert would wait to tell Lolita that her mom was dead. It seemed unnecessarily cruel to make up a story about her being in the hospital. It's also odd that Lolita spends the total of one night grieving. Anyway, a really well-made film on a difficult topic with some fine performances.

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.

Whether the film is faithful to the classic Nabokov novel or not, I would like to read the book soon in order to compare the two and to determine whether the printed version is as enjoyable as the movie. I recently did this with the "Cider House Rules" and, after struggling through 600 pages of the most graphic depictions of very detailed human anatomy, as well as the gloomiest of characters and locales in Maine, a state that I love, I should have let well enough alone, but I will always crave apples of all varieties for the rest of my life, and an apple a day keeps the doctor away. But I digress.Aside from Kubrick's excellent direction, what makes this film succeed are a well chosen cast, a sharp and thoughtful screenplay, visually appealing locales, and a beautiful musical score by Nelson Riddle. James Mason's brilliant portrayal of Humbert Humbert transforms an ordinarily, dull professor into a fascinating, psychologically complex character as he is gradually consumed by his infatuation with Lolita, a fourteen year old girl who becomes his step daughter. Shelley Winters, cast once again as an unpleasant and often whining matron type with a grating, irritating voice ("Night of the Hunter", "Place in the Sun", "Patch of Blue"), perfectly fits the part of sexually frustrated Charlotte Haze, who is Lolita's overbearing and obnoxious mother. While several other reviewers did not appreciate Peter Sellers as Quilty, in addition to his portrayal of several disguised characters who stalk Humbert and Lolita during their road trips, I found him to be very entertaining and don't believe that the film would have held my interest as much without him. Watch how he throws himself into that German accent and the characters who accompany it. A whimsical, unpredictable Quilty sharply clashes with a dead serious, humdrum Humbert, as an inevitable explosion continues to build.As to Sue Lyon, I found her to be exactly as she was in "Night of the Iguana" without much of a variation--very cute but aloof and, for the most part, emotionally detached from everyone and everything around her. Yes, she cries when she learns of mother Charlotte's fate but not for very long. That was how she was supposed to play the role, and she performed it very well. Once in possession of her desperately needed inheritance, what are her last words to a shattered, destroyed Humbert, "I hope that we can see each other some time!" or something like that.While I found Bob Harris's "Lolita Ya Ya" theme song annoying and can't blame composer Bernard Hermann for not wanting to have anything to do with it, Riddle's score was otherwise quite pleasing to the ear, strongly enhancing the drama on the screen.I'm always curious about film locations, especially when they contribute significantly to the overall atmosphere, as is the case here. Although most of the film is supposed to take place in New Hampshire and in Ohio, it was actually filmed in England, Rhode Island, and the Albany, New York area. In case you were wondering, Lolita's ramshackle neighborhood at the end of the movie is located in Rensselaer, New York with a view of Albany, the state capital city in the background. While there supposedly aren't as many double entendres and word plays as in the novel, they pop up quite often in the film. Naturally, Mr. Swine would be a friend of Quilty's. Why would we ever doubt that? Did you get the one about Quilty's uncle who was Lolita's dentist and who urgently needed to fill her cavity? Oh, never mind.

Yep. If ever there was a particular motion picture that has made me lose total respect and admiration for its highly-regarded director - That motion picture would have to be, none other than - Stanley Kubrick's detestable "Lolita".Had this 1962 film presented the Lolita character in a more favorable light, and not as a despicable, snot-nosed, demanding, 14-year-old slut, then, yes, I would have definitely reconsidered my initial opinion of film-maker, Kubrick.But here I found myself absolutely loathing the young (but not naive) Lolita about 10x more than I did the men who were clambering to seduce this white-trash tart.In other words - Lolita certainly deserved everything that she got from these lusting old farts.And, come to think of it - I seriously believe that that's exactly the point that Kubrick was trying to get across here in Lolita's sordid, little story.He was clearly telling all the horny males in his audience that pedophilia was OK in his eyes, especially if the "under-aged-one" was, in fact, a total bitch (as was the case here).