Lolita (1962) Reviews

Lolita (1962)
Play Trailer and Clips
Member Rating:  
"How did they make a movie out of Lolita?" teased the print ads of this Stanley Kubrick production. The answer: by adding three years to the title character's age. 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. ~ Hal Erickson, Rovi

 Read More


Starring:
James MasonShelley Winters, (more)
Director(s):
Stanley Kubrick
Format(s):
DVD
View All Versions to rent and buy
 
 
 
 

Average Ratings

(21 member reviews)  


Member Reviews


Susan G.

A Classic with great performances by Sue Lyon, James Mason and Shelly Winters. Peter Sellers was a great actor but not so great in this movie - his character is the only one that seems over the top and unbelievable. Shelley Winters was fantastic as the fat, whiney mamma who tries to stuff too much into too small a dress and tries so hard to seduce her boarder, James Mason (cha cha cha). The "cool" 60's clothing and dancing is great! And James Mason, as the brooding, studious boarder who can't take his eyes off the young daughter, Sue Lyon. He eventually gives in and marries the mamma just so he can be near the daughter, but he keeps a daily journal discussing his desire for the daughter and his disgust for the mamma. Of course, keeping that sort of journal is risky with a clingy, nosey wife around...

Yes   |   No


Jen T.

The movie was entertaining, the performances were good. I liked it. I think it is a solid movie that maybe seems less impressive today than when originally released, but it is worth watching.

Yes   |   No


Ken C.

Except I'd rate the movie 3 stars. As a stand alone story, without reading the book or seeing other movies on this, the black and white genre of the period is interesting as a moment in film making, but other b/w are better for the period. Peter Sellers way over acted, garbage, however James Mason played a truyly pitiful character fairly believable. Had to be a hard movie to make with censors running about in those years. See it with that in mind and forgive the missing elements. Final say - it was successfully disturbing.

Yes   |   No


Erika S.

I really though it dragged on for a long time and the characters became annoying. The movie did not have enough substance for me unfortunately.

Yes   |   No


Catherine S.

What a great movie, whether or not you have read the book. I recently re-read it, using The Annotated Lolita version this time around, and loved the intelligent way the movie used the language, the punning, and the oddities of the book. The casting is absolutely perfect, too. (Including Sellers, who manages to be both distinctive and variable in his multiple guises, rather like Alec Guinness in Kind Hearts and Coronets.) But this movie also stands on its own -- it is funny, odd, sad and beautifully filmed. What a great flick, in short.

Yes   |   No


Donald K.

This story is much darker than I ever imagined it was. James Mason is a brooding presence as the besotted Humbert Humbert. Sue Lyon is fresh enough as an actress to carry off the sexy ingenue. Peter Sellers is both darkly perverted and humorous as the lecherous Quilty. The theme of sexual exploitation is handled very well. No awards for this movie that deserved best direction, writing, and acting recognition.

Yes   |   No


Andrey R.

Too much is missing from the novel: without his inner dialogue H.H. cannot fully reveal his intense longing and desperation (e.g. long-winding narrative passages from the book detailing H.H's sick obsession translate to the actor repeating "I will never leave you" several times). If you read the book, then my suggestion is to stay away from this film -- it is somewhat flat. In its own right, the movie is dated (presumably it was a shocking subject decades ago). I agree with the opinions that Sellers "over-acts".

Yes   |   No


Ronald D.

I thought this movie was very well made. The casting was excellent, and each of the main characters really played their parts well. I know some folks out there felt like Peter Sellers overacted, but I thought he was excellent in the film. You have to remember what type of character he's portraying, so everything he does in the film makes perfect sense.

Yes   |   No


Linda D.

Totally enjoyed James Mason (his bathtub scene is priceless) as well always amusing Peter Sellers who keeps this from ever getting too serious. Sue Lyon was good, though perhaps a little too old for this role; however this was 1962 so I'm sure an older almost grown girl was the only way to pull it off (originally she was 12 in the book). Enjoyable and a brave endeavor for it's time of the story of a lack-luster lonely middle aged writer (and also a pedophile) that becomes obsessed with young Lolita and once he has her, begins his creepy struggle to hang onto her.

Yes   |   No


Walter A.

Very disappointing ... Since I watched the 1999 Film first, with Dominique Swain, this movie just does not come anywhere near the entertainment level. Compared to the newer Lolita I had to give it a half of a star. See it for yourself to compare.

Yes   |   No


 
 
 

BY MAIL

Monthly Subscription
NEW! 7 - Day Rental
No subscription required. Usually ships in 24 hours.
 
Buy New  $14.99
 

IN-STORE

 

What's Your Take?

Add to FavoritesIn Favorites  |  Share:     Email to a friendShare on FacebookShare on Twitter
    YOUR REVIEW
    WRITE A REVIEW
     
    1000 
     
    Member Reviews
     
    Susan G.

    A Classic with great performances by Sue Lyon, James Mason and Shelly Winters. Peter Sellers was a great actor but not so great in this movie - his character is the only one that seems over the top and unbelievable. Shelley Winters was fantastic as the fat, whiney mamma who tries to stuff too much into too small a dress and tries so hard to seduce her boarder, James Mason (cha cha cha). The "cool" 60's clothing and dancing is great! And James Mason, as the brooding, studious boarder who can't take his eyes off the young daughter, Sue Lyon. He eventually gives in and marries the mamma just so he can be near the daughter, but he keeps a daily journal discussing his desire for the daughter and his disgust for the mamma. Of course, keeping that sort of journal is risky with a clingy, nosey wife around...

    Yes   |   No

     
    Jen T.

    The movie was entertaining, the performances were good. I liked it. I think it is a solid movie that maybe seems less impressive today than when originally released, but it is worth watching.

    Yes   |   No

     
    Ken C.

    Except I'd rate the movie 3 stars. As a stand alone story, without reading the book or seeing other movies on this, the black and white genre of the period is interesting as a moment in film making, but other b/w are better for the period. Peter Sellers way over acted, garbage, however James Mason played a truyly pitiful character fairly believable. Had to be a hard movie to make with censors running about in those years. See it with that in mind and forgive the missing elements. Final say - it was successfully disturbing.

    Yes   |   No

     
    Read All 21 Reviews