Lolita

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.

Vladimir Nabokov's 'Lolita' is a brilliantly written, beautifully constructed, hilarious (in a black-comedy way), poignant, luridly shocking (but not gratuitously so) and very daring for its time book.

Despite me considering it one of the finest books she's ever read, when describing it to people they often give me "is she mad?" looks due to its subject matter. Don't let the subject matter turn you off, no matter how it sounds, to me 'Lolita' is an essential read. Stanley Kubrick's film adaptation, which saw Nabokov's involvement, is not exactly faithful and elements are downplayed, but, considering how difficult to adapt the book is and how films had to deal with censorship constraints and studio interference often, Kubrick's film is a very brave and worthy attempt.

Kubrick's 'Lolita' also succeeds incredibly well on its own terms, reminding one of Kubrick's 'The Shining' where it is very far removed from the source material but was so much scarier, more atmospheric and more shocking than anything in the more faithful mini-series. It's not quite one of Kubrick's very finest (in a very solid career where to me his only misfire was his debut 'Fear and Desire) but it is one of his most fascinating. Quibbles are very few, with my only quibbles being some over-obvious back projection representing Nabokov's nightmarish vision and the Elstree locations even more so as a result of problems with the economy and censorship.

'Lolita' however is brilliantly shot, lit and made with incredible atmosphere and directed with Kubrick's unmistakable masterly touch, meticulous but not as cold as some of his critics have criticised his directing and films for being. It's hauntingly and beguilingly scored too with a memorable main theme. While one does miss some of the book's funniest moments and the subject matter is a little more shocking in the book (with the age gap being more believable), 'Lolita' achieves an ideal balance of hilarious black comedy and affecting drama.

The story is lurid, but in a sensually captivating way and never in a vulgar way. It is also relentlessly entertaining and has moments of genuine poignancy. The characters are intriguing and the acting is terrific. Sue Lyon, while slightly too old age-wise (only by a few years though), more than holds her own against her more famous colleagues and is positively alluring. In an incredibly bold career move, James Mason superbly brings cruelty and pathos (his begging at the end is heart-breaking) to Humbert, here a complex character rather than the total creep that he could have been in lesser hands than Mason's. Shelley Winters is riotous and surprisingly poignant, while ever the scene stealer Peter Sellers brilliantly steals every scene he's in in multiple roles, especially great as Quilty, a creepy chameleon sort of character.

Overall, a fascinating film and gets better and funnier with each viewing. Not one of my favourites, but one this reviewer appreciates highly. 9/10 Bethany Cox

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.

A riveting transposition from page to screen. The accomplices are two giants in both fields. Nabokov adapts his own infamous novel for the screen and Kubrick, no less, translates it into images in a way that makes it unique, unforgettable and transcendental without ever putting himself in front of the camera. A Kubrick film can't be recognized by its style. Kubrick never made two films alike but there is something that, unquestionable, makes them stand out. In "Lolita"'s case the mere idea of touching the controversial novel with its taboo subject at its very core seem like a provocation from the word go. Pornography for the thinking man in which the only explicit act is the intention written in the character's eyes. Nothing is excessive and nothing is pulled back. James Mason - villain or victim - is monumental, mo-nu-men-tal! The unspeakable truth never leaves his brow. He is the most civilized man trapped in the lowest echelon of his own psyche. So aware, that it is painful to watch. Shelley Winters goes for it, taking her Mrs Hayes for all its worth and dives into the void of a desperate housewife, craving for sex. It is one of the most entertaining, shattering human spectacles, I've ever seen. But unlike Mason, she's not aware of it. There is a horrible innocence attached to her sickness. Peter Sellers's character from hell, the torturer comes in three riveting characterizations and Sue Lyon's temptress, the child, is the devil incarnate in a performance that defies description. None of them were nominated for Oscars and the film was condemned by every moral group in America and beyond. As film experiences go, this is one of the most provocative, enthralling, disgusting, entertaining and satisfying I've ever been through. Yep, I really mean that.

A significant part of Stanley Kubrick's genius was his ability to translate a literary style into a visual one. It is demonstrated nowhere more brilliantly than in LOLITA and A CLOCKWORK ORANGE.

LOLITA is perhaps the more stunning accomplishment, in that Nabokov's style is complex and multi-layered. Yet Kubrick captures the effect of it in camera angles and movements, in timing and point of view.

The broadest layer of Nabokov's novel, the parable of the aging culture of Europe trying to revivify itself by debauching the seductive young culture of America, is really missing in the film. But everything else is there, despite the fact that the film departs from the exact events of the novel.

Not to say that the film depends on the novel. It stands by itself quite easily. But it succeeds brilliantly in conveying the ideas and feelings that are the core of the novel, and it does so in completely cinematic terms. If films are to be based on works of literature, this is the way to do it, and the way it is almost never done.