frankwiener 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.

charlieehrlich The original Vladimir Nabokov novel caused no end of scandal by detailing the romance between a middle-aged intellectual and a 12-year-old nymphet. The affair is "cleansed" ever so slightly in the film by making Lolita a 15-year-old (portrayed by 16-year-old Sue Lyon). In adapting his novel to film, Nabokov downplayed the wicked satire and sensuality of the material, concentrating instead on the story's farcical aspects. James Mason plays professor Humbert Humbert, who while waiting to begin a teaching post in the United States rents a room from blowzy Shelley Winters. Winters immediately falls for the worldly Humbert, but he only has eyes for his landlady's nubile daughter Lolita. The professor goes so far as to marry Winters so that he can remain near to the object of his ardor. Turning up like a bad penny at every opportunity is smarmy TV writer Quilty (Peter Sellers), who seems inordinately interested in Humbert's behavior. When Winters happens to read Humbert's diary, she is so revolted by his lustful thoughts that she runs blindly into the street, where she is struck and killed by a car. Without telling Lolita that her mother is dead, Humbert packs her into the car and goes on a cross-country trip, dogged every inch of the way by a mysterious pursuer. Once she gets over the shock of her mother's death, Lolita is agreeable to inaugurating an affair with her stepfather (this is handled very, very discreetly, despite the slavering critical assessments of 1962). But when the girl begins discovering boys her own age, she drifts away from Humbert. One day, she leaves without warning. This is humiliation enough for Humbert; but when he discovers who her secret lover really is, the results are fatal. We are prepared for the ending because the film has been framed as a flashback; what we are not prepared for is Stanley Kubrick's adroit manipulation of our sympathies and expectations. An incredibly long film considering its subject matter, Lolita is never dull, nor does it ever stoop to the sensationalism prevalent in the film's ad campaign.

framptonhollis How DID they ever make a movie of "Lolita", the famous and greatly controversial novel. It's the type of novel that seemed absolutely unfilmable back in 1962, but, somehow, the film did manage to get made, and it is excellent!Despite having very mature themes, Stanley Kubrick's "Lolita" is quite tasteful. Of course, it seemed extremely tasteless back in 1962, but over 50 years later it seems pretty tame and mild.While it is tasteful, it's still disturbing and even shocking in places, but it's also really funny. As a matter of fact, it seems more like a dark comedy than a romantic drama. The humor is scattered all throughout this film, and sometimes it's roaringly funny. Peter Sellers's performance is one of the funniest in screen history, and he's hysterical in the brilliant opening sequence. A lot of the film's humor is not only dark but a little unsettling, and very uncomfortable-it almost reminds me of an extremely tame version of a Todd Solondz film, like "Happiness" or "Storytelling".If there's any Stanley Kubrick film that deserves a little more praise, it's this one. So far, it's definitely within my top 3 favorite Kubrick films, and it's easily his most underrated one. Although it is fairly well known and well liked, it's not hailed as the masterpiece that I feel it truly is. It's a hilarious, shocking mix of tragedy and comedy that deserves to be considered one of the greatest novel adaptations of all time.

roddekker 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).