Lolita Reviews

Oh Dear!

Oh dear! What an awful film! first of all, its in black and white, the acting is terrible & the characters totally unconvincing - in fact, my boyfriend and I turned it off after 30 gruelling minutes. I love the book Lolita, its a work of art and I really enjoyed the Adrian Lyne version of film with Jeremy Irons, Melanie Griffith & Dominique Swain who is just PERFECT for the part. Honestly, dont even bother with this, if you have read the book then the Adrian Lyne version will satisfy you. They couldnt have picked a better actress to play Lolita

Very boring

I was expecting a very different film to this. I was bored to tears waiting for some action. Why others found it good I will never understand

[Highly rated reviewer]

lolita

An old englishman that falls madly in love with a young teenager. unbeknown to this teenage crush the girls mother falls madly in love with the old englishman, and then peter sellers a rich unusual novelist snatches the girl. good yeah..

Arse!

[Highly rated reviewer]

Very funny, dark and desperate

Stanley Kubrick film adaptation from 1960, starring James Mason and Peter Sellers. The marketing campaign and the original theatrical trailer both state it’s a miracle the film got made. After watching Lolita, I can see why. It’s about James Mason’s infatuation and subsequent love affair with his underage step daughter, Lolita, played by newcomer Sue Lyon. Because of the attitudes at the time, and even still today, Mason and Lyon are never shown consummating their love, or even showing any physical affection for each other. Because of this, it’s not entirely clear the nature of their relationship, however, this ambivalence lends itself to the film. This sounds like a dark picture with some quite nasty themes; however, it is more of a comedy, especially the first half. The second, although full of laughs, does get darker and more desperate. The scene that really stayed with me was when James Mason refuses the advances of his landlady, played brilliantly by Shelly Winters; she then drifts into a monologue about loneliness and desperation, which she shouts at the top of her voice. Very powerful and compelling viewing. My only problem with this great film is Peter Sellers, a playwright who is also infatuated with Lolita. Kubrick seems to have given him too much freedom. His performance is way too over the top and would have benefited from Kubrick reining him in.

Dull

Having recently read the book I was curious as to how Humbert?s back story and thoughts could be successfully translated to film without the Movie becoming too prurient.The answer for me is that in this version at least it didn't. James Mason played his part well but for me Lolita was portrayed as too old, too clean and too sophisticated.(I assume this was to get past the censors) Sorry but the film as a whole didn?t work for me. I?ll try the Jeremy Irons version.

Excellent combination

A brilliant performance from James Mason and Peter Sellers, brought together by the genius of Kubrick. A true classic.

Not much is wrong with this film. It's visually perfect, and the script is strong, moving and powerful throughout. The soundtrack works beautifully with all the scenes.

Anyone who loves films should watch this. The combination of such excellence truly works.

[Highly rated reviewer]

Worth it for Mason and Sellers alone!

Mason and Sellers are superb in this pic of an older mans unrequitted love for a teenager.This subject matter is less of an issue in our more liberated , ambiguous times but in its day, just coming out of the 50's this was shocking.Mason ,as the besotted lead carries the role off excellently as does Sellers at various points in the film.A Kubrick classic.

Flawed Adaptation

Overlong and plodding adaptation of the Vladimir Nabokov novel. James Mason is compelling but too sympathetic as Humbert Humbert. Shelley Winters as Lo's predatory mother is suitably comi-tragic and Sellers is watchable but hardly subtle as Quilty.

Lolita in this film version is too old, the details of the central relationship and Humbert's 'theories' on the nymphet (including the revolting revelation that Lolita at fifteen is too old for his taste) are skimmed over or omitted entirely, so that the film lacks the absorbing but horrifiying power of the novel, as well as it's unmistakeable style stemming from Humbert's narration.

Brilliant

The first thing to say is that Kubrick's Lolita is not a film of the book. It is a film inspired by the book. If you're looking for a film of the book then look elsewhere (I'm told the Jeremy Irons version is a much better interpretation). However, this does not make it a bad film. In fact this is easily one of the best films I've seen this year. The film plays with innuendo and word games rather than being explicit, I've heard it commented that some people failed to understand the depth of the relationship between Humbert and Lolita simply because it is played with such subtlety. However, if you can look past the story's origins and the understated relationship you'll find a film full of beautiful direction, brilliant acting and an affecting plot.

Well worth your time.

Unremarkable

Perhaps it was a mistake to see the version with Irons first, as it seems the script was hardly different (although the treatment of quilty's character are). What is exceptional are the performances from James Mason and Peter Sellers.