Lolita (1962)

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.

Fmovies: Not the two words that came to mind when I first read the book. This movie nicely handles the taboo subject matter and is tremendously funny as well. Peter Sellers was warming up for his triumph in Dr. Strangelove, Shelly Winters gave her best performance, and James Mason made us feel his pain. As Lolita, Sue Lyon is convincing although Kubrick makes her character a bit older (probably to satisfy the censors, which still slapped this with an X rating originally, much to my surprise). The movie could play on TV today with no edits. I have not seen the 1997 remake but can only imagine, given its director with a reputation of going over the top, that it's not as classy and tasteful as this one. Since this was made in 1962, the risque elements from the book were left to our imagination. And the movie scores highly because of it. The movie's story is stuck in the '60s (that bubblegum music, which played during Lolita's early scenes, will stick with you), and if you are bored with the story, or cannot believe what you're seeing, you can always get a culture lesson: Hula hoops, malt shops, pseudo intellectuals, faulty cots and gas stations where they still pump your gas.

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.

Lolita fmovies. 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.

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.

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.