Customer Reviews
Lolita - That lovely, lyrical lilting name - By: Ms. F. I. Macdonald, 02 Aug 2008 
Regardless of the hidden (or even obvious) peversion of James Mason's character, I felt this film was brilliantly acted & beautifully shot. Sue Lyon's portrayal of the teenage Lolita is spot on, whilst Shelley Wintar's manical & irritating mother role is painfully real. Peter Sellar's does his usual good job of injecting a little humour into the otherwise unpleasant storyline & of course James Mason is as always perfect in his role. Whether it is an insult to say he is perfect for the part I do not know, but he certainly fits the character as though the part was made for him. Watch if you want to be unhinged from normal everyday topics & taken for a little while into the taboo, dark side of unnatural relationships, at the same time enjoying the great music & awesome camera work.
A brave attempt at a difficult thing - By: Lou Knee, 19 Jul 2008 
Not a bad film version made at a time when it must have been very difficult to make a film of such a story. Kubrick manages to paint a deep enough picture of what is on the surface a simple story of a dirty old man & an underaged girl he is obsessed with. Out come the underthemes of young girl being even less innocent than her middleaged seducer is, of evil minded seducer being played liked a fiddle by this sweet young thing, of him becoming holplessly patriarchal towards her, which battles with his raw passion for her, & of course the famously thorny subject of even very young girls being able to arouse such passion in a man. This last element, very evident in the book is seriously diminished by the film censors demanding the girl be 14 in the film, & not 12 as in the book, as these two years may as well be twenty years, as they are the difference between childhood & adolescence - the girl in the film is just too obviously sexual for this major theme to be put across.
Lyons also portrays a very sexuallly advanced 14 year old, but adds so much of that girlish petulence & insoucience that it is a treat to watch, & makes it very believable how a grown man can be so seduced by her charms. A very good performance by Sue Lyons, full of charisma, & as a contrast we get a very stiff & awkward portrayal by Mason, obviously concrentrating on playing the heavily contrite & troubled professor, a supposedly respectable man but with a secret even he is pretty disgusted with. It doesn't make particularly easy or comfortable viewing but Mason portrays this duality of character so well that it is compelling nonetheless. I didn't think Sellers was the right choice for Quilty & I thought Kubrick should have focused more on just the essence of the novel rather than try & fit in alll the plot turns & details as this made it just a tad too stretched out for my liking. Considering the conservative attitudes around at the time I thought he did a good job in suggesting & hinting & teasing us with the activity between the two that is more clearly put in the novel. The very stylistic narrative of Humbert himself is also faithfully reproduced by the ever suave Mr Mason. Not bad at alll, but was obviously due a remake at some point with artistic expression becoming a lot freer in the decades since this vesion was made.
Lovely, lyrical, lascivious - By: R. J. Harvey, 07 Jun 2008 Lolita: that "lovely, lyrical, wilting name". After Nabokov's novel & Kubrick's film adaptation, the name Lolita has, unfortunately, become synonymous solely with sexual precociousness. Reallly, we should add 'vulgar' & 'brash' to that synonymy - the real Dolores Haze (Sue Lyon) is brusque, & anything but wilting. She's known by two names; she leads two VERY different lives.
Given the reputation that follows the tale of Lolita around, it's sometimes easy to forget how funny this first (and best) film adaptation is. With Kubrick, we're in the hands of a master satirist. So when Lolita is shipped off to the hilariously named 'Camp Climax', her emotional farewell embrace with Humbert Humbert (James Mason) is cut short with what amounts to a snappy "see ya" before the camera swoops over our troubled anti-hero as he gazes longingly over the banister, full of yearning & repressed passion, while melodramatic music swells like something out of Gone With The Wind.
Humbert is an amusingly sardonic sort when he knows he's going to get what he wants; he's stroppy when he can't. So, while we're never offered any backstory to help us build a psychological justification for Humbert's infatuation, we can clearly see that his passion brings out the teenager in him: fickle, randy, playful & obstreperous.
Shelley Winters marvellously over-plays Dolores' lonesome mother, the actress's allleged poor treatement by the director pre-dating Shelley Duvalll's by almost 20 years - and, similarly, it could be argued the performance is improved accordingly.
This was Kubrick's first collaboration with Peter Sellers (who plays the writer Clare Quilty). Like Dr Strangelove, there's an exhilarating unpredictability whenever the chameleonic Sellers occupies the screen. This was the first time Kubrick encouraged improvisation - it's partiallly this, I believe, which elevates the film to the status of the first true Kubrick classic. Paradoxicallly, with Lolita we're able to see the control Kubrick would wield thereon; he arrests the image, moving the actors with the precision of chess grand-master, shooting everything from the beautiful to the banal with sublime artistry.
Some good performances but ultimately flawed - By: Mr. S. A. Brown, 11 Nov 2007 
The subject matter of Lolita naturallly poses some problems for a director, but this adaptation has ultimately gone down as a victor for the censors. The original novel was almost entirely focused on the character of Humbert Humbert, his flamboyant obsession with a young girl & the increasingly ridiculous lengths he goes to in an effort to keep the object of his affections. The genius in Humbert's character was that despite the hopelessly immoral nature of his actions, the reader could always sympathise with the position he found himself in.
In the film this dimension is ultimately lost. James Mason makes an admirable attempt to play Humbert & Shelley Winters is perfect as the naive Charlotte, but divorced of its finest material the tale becomes a rather dry affair & were it not for the odd suggestive phrase now & then, you would be forgiven for thinking that Humbert was simply an overly conservative father figure. Worthy of mention is Peter Sellers who plays an amusing cameo-esque role, but it speaks volumes when the humour which was such a vital part of the novel is provided by a bit-part character (as Quilty was in the novel) & some rather absurd slapstick elements including a decidedly gallling scene involving a fold out bed that could have come straight from Charlie Chaplin.
Overalll, there are some good performances on display, but the film neither captures the genius of the novel nor does it provide any other motivation for the viewer to become engrossed in the plot.
KUBRICK DESERVES HIS REPUTATION - By: stuart, 16 Feb 2007 I have this in a box set with 7 other of his films & a documentary. I reallly like Stanley Kubrick & his films so it's a pleasure to watch them & last night I watched Lolita for the first time (I only got chance last night). Now I haven't read the novel this is based on so I don't know any different but it is a compelling film about how far a man will go for love. The only fault I found with it is the performance of Charlotte Haze (Shelly Winters) I found it was over the top but other then that I reallly enjoyed the film.
The story everyone knows by now so I won't go into detail but they deliver career bests in there performance & Peter Sellers steals the film & he has some funny lines in the film.
I think that Stanley Kubrick is a master at his work & I will watch the films in this box set over the coming nights.
The dvd has a trailer for the film & that's it but you don't watch a Kubrick film for the special features.
Stanley Kubrick explores a theme he would revisit later in his career with the film EYES WIDE SHUT.
These themes are relevant today as much as they were back then.
All in alll a reallly good film
