Lolita poster & wallpaper
Get movie widget Recommend it Add to Favorites

James Mason, Peter Sellers, Shelley Winters, Sue Lyon, Gary Cockrell ... see more see more... , Marianne Stone , Diana Decker , Jerry Stovin , Suzanne Gibbs , Roberta Shore , Shirley Douglas , Roland Brand , Colin Maitland , Cec Linder , Irvin Allen , Lois Maxwell , William E. Greene , C. Denier Warren , John Harrison , James Dyrenforth , Terry Kilburn , Copper Penny

"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 ... read more read more...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

Flixster Users

81% liked it

41,875 ratings

Critics

97% liked it

39 critics

Unrated, 2 hr. 32 min.

Directed by: Stanley Kubrick

Release Date: June 13, 1962

Invite friends to see

DVD Release Date: June 29, 1999

Get It:

Stats: 1,955 reviews

report incorrect info

Photos

Lolita Lolita Lolita Mason, Lyon and Winters Lolita Lolita Lolita Lolita Now and then Stanley Kubrick and Sue Lyon in the set
Upload a Photo | View All Lolita Photos

Your Rating


clear rating

Flixster Reviews (1,955)

  • JonathanHutchings
    May 20, 2012
    JonathanHutchings
    Kubrick said in an interview after Lolita's release, "Had I known what I would've had to cut out, I probably wouldn't of made the film." It's a surprising irony though that what had to be suppressed or changed from the book works to his advantage. Like other works under the maste... read morer's belt, this has some comedy that is so dark that you almost (or do) feel guilty after laughing. The innuendo, even decades later, is still as provocative -- and when it gets disturbing, it doesn't go too far over the line. I have not read the book, but I have heard much about it, what was different, and I think Kubrick at least is most successful at infusing his trademark touches to the material.

    For starters, there is the acting. The supporting actors are terrific. This is not to say that James Mason (Humbert Humbert) and Sue Lyon (Dolores "Lolita" Hayes) are not outstanding in their respective roles (in fact, I'd say this may be James Mason's best performance), but in looking at Peter Sellers in his multiple roles via the curious, insanely oddball Quilty, and Shelley Winters as Lolita's mother, they are simply brilliant. Right from the first scene, which happens to take the last scene of the story in place, Sellers doesn't have me for a second thinking that he isn't perfectly off-the-wall. As was in Dr. Strangelove, his contributions to the project are incalculable. Winters, on the other hand, finds that balance with Mrs. Hayes as a lonely middle-aged woman looking for companionship, though unable to shake her over-protective tendencies.

    As for Mason and Lyon, their scenes together aren't at the least bit overtly melodramatic and at best helps define what the film is about. Mason finds the right notes, if a little anxiously and stuffy at times, in how Humbert is almost like a kid trying to break out of his middle-aged professor image. When he meets Lolita he's awestruck, and falls for her hard, very hard, which sets up what happens to the two of them for the rest of the film. What is even more interesting is how the dynamic is placed with Lolita, who is wiser in ways Humbert is not, and how the sort of idea of mutual youth is tempting, but definitely not everlasting. As the third act unfolds, the film becomes an intense kind of morality tale, where male insecurities are touched upon with Humbert, and even Quilty to a degree. Kubrick, being one of the finest of dramatic character psychologists, hardly skips a beat in making sure not to lose the strange bits (which must be some of the better bits in Nabokov's text) with humor.

    Then there is the most rewarding thing of all in a Kubrick film, which is seeing how he photographs the scenes and characters. It holds some of the moves and angles and lighting he's held to for all of his career (some shots show as a precursor to Eyes Wide Shut), and how the camera stays on the characters in many scenes (actually, almost all the scenes) adds that right tension and space between us and them. If anything else, just watch the film for the sake of watching a film moving and staying put and capturing faces in particular ways. Some Kubrick fans may come to this after seeing the essentials like 2001, The Shining, and A Clockwork Orange, however in many ways, Lolita belongs in the conversation of his best work. It certainly is, for my money, as enticing and intriguing a sexual satire as I've ever seen.
  • theylovealexis
    April 6, 2012
    theylovealexis
    A very boring view in to the life of a grown man obsessed with a bratty girl. Did it really need to be 2 and 1/2 hours?!
  • jjnxn
    February 16, 2012
    jjnxn
    Well made and well acted by James Mason and Shelley Winters but a strange film.
  • fb1664868775
    October 27, 2011
    fb1664868775
    It feels more tame than I would have expected but Mason's performance is brilliant.
  • fb100000257973100
    June 13, 2011
    fb100000257973100
    By now in Stanley Kubrick's career as a film director, he has already made his name known with the films Fields Of Glory and Spartacus (winner of Best Supporting Actor). So, film companies were basically fighting over who was to have him direct their next film. And the film that ... read moreKubrick had in mind, would be one that shocked the world (and the first wave of change Kubrick would do with cinema). Around the world in Russia, there was a man by the name of Vladimir Nabokov who was enjoying his life as an author. He had recently released a rather interesting and risky novel by the name of LOLITA which was about a forty two year old man that falls in love with a twelve year old girl and vice versa. The novel stunned and shocked critics with the main idea behind the novel was that it is the most realistic and true romance tale of all time. When Kubrick took the script and made it into a film, well, the question that everyone asked was "How did they ever make a movie out of Lolita?". Well, in terms of direction, there never was a direct adaption. One thing about Kubrick and all of his films that followed after LOLITA was that we would take the source material, read threw it, then make his own interpretation of the story. When Kubrick received Nabokov's original screenplay, it was about four hundred pages long which, in turn, would have made a film that was about seven hours long. So, Kubrick had to rewrite the script to make it fit a two and a half hour long time span. But one thing he, Kubrick, allowed with his direction was to have the actors improvise any lines that they saw fit for the screen play if wanted. So, with the direction, Kubrick took a mega risk with altering the script and allowing the actors to do what they want with it. The end result would be one of the first of many masterpieces made by Kubrick. Now, with acting, with most people improvising their lines, I must admit that they all do a beyond fantastic job. But, we all know who the two best actors are: James Mason and Peter Sellers. For Mason, there is just something heart breaking about him and his rather unorthodox love for Lolita in the story. For Sellers, he just does his own terrific job that would end up leading him to be in Kubrick's next film. Before Kubrick went all Classical with his music, his early films had a contemporary style that reflects the time it was made. For me, the music in this film was something that just did not affect me nor was noticeable like other film scores. So, overall, this is an early example of what Kubrick would later do with the genres of film and the power he had behind camera.
  • fb100002359227440
    May 22, 2011
    fb100002359227440
    Lolita, a powerful adaptation made by Stanley Kubrick. Great acting of Peter Sellers. High drama and dark humor.
  • FrizzDrop
    April 29, 2011
    FrizzDrop
    Expecting a film built solely on shock value, I was disappointed to find a tame adaptation of Nabokov's novel, Lolita. Adding three years to the feral Lolita's age downplayed the true nature of this film's predatory intention. The attraction between Mason and Lyon never reaches a... read moreny type of climax, every hint of sexual unease masked by fadeouts and inuendos. Sue Lyon is an exceptional choice for the role, playing up her childish mannerisms, yet being manipulative with her affections. You're never quite sure if she is attracted to her stepfather, or simply using him to satisfy her every whim. Mason's usual suave demeanor is downplayed in order to contrast to the desperation of Shelley Winter's character, who he uses to get closer to her daughter. He believes he's a ladies man, not needing the romanticism of a relationship with Winters, and yet he can't even hold the attention of her daughter. Not one of Kubrick's stronger films, the best part is the ending, revealing the intentions of Peter Sellers' character Clare Quilty. Known for playing multiple roles, Sellers pops up at every turn, the comic relief in a film about pedophilia. I feel there was no need to include his sometimes extended scenes when the plot slowed, as it only made this film longer than it needed be. Overall, not anything all that original.
  • cosmo313
    February 27, 2011
    cosmo313
    Boy, here's a film that sure got the public's attention. I've heard so much about this film and the book (which I have but haven't read yet), but I didn't really know what to expect.

    This is so far the weakest film of Kubrick's that I've seen, but it does have its merits. I w... read moreent back and forth a lot with how I was going to rate it, but let's just be a little decisive and give it a B+. Censorship bugs me, but I can see why it was enforced in 1962. Even then though, I do actually like the subtlety and appreciate it over viscerality (and that's in general) anyway. I think it works better if the audience has to leave it to their imaginations.

    The biggest issue with the film is that it's too damn long (and unnecessarily so) and that it really drags a lot in the second half. The film was actually a lot funny than I thought it might be, even though it is not a completely lighthearted farce. In fact, the movie is really two in one: a funny first half, and a really dark dramedy. It may be a mixed bag, but, as I said, there's a lot of strong stuff, too.

    The performances, cinematography, and music are fantastic. None of the characters are really likeable, but they are a joy to watch, especially Peter Sellers- hinting at what he and Kubrick would do following this film. Mason is an ass, but it's hard to take your eyes off him. Winters is a joy too.Sue Lyon though, is the real find here-from that iconic shot of her on the poster, to her first appearance in the film, to the reveal of what she looks like at the end- throug hall of that and more she is fantastic, and it's a shame she didn't become a superstar like she could have.

    Don't think that becuase this is lesser Kubrick that it sucks. It doesn't. It's just really flawed and compromised, but is still an entertaining and engaging film, even if it is really mixed and muddled.
  • Passenger1986
    November 30, 2010
    Passenger1986
    Anyone ever notice that the bulk of Kubrick's work is adaptations? Not that I'm complaining, just seems fascinating that Kubrick was more interested in bringing other people's work to the big screen rather than try something of his own (with the most notable exception being 2001:... read more A Space Odyssey). But then, when you look at it, if you wanted your work to be translated to the film medium, you'd want someone like Kubrick on hand.

    Dr. Humbert Humbert (James Mason and as to why someone would name their child after the last name is beyond me. But then, there is a Doug E. Doug out there so people in real life are just as stupid when it comes to this) is looking for a place to stay in Ramsdale, New Hampshire, as he will take on a professorship in Ohio after the summer. He finds lodging with Charlotte Haze (Shelley Winters) and her daughter Dolores (Sue Lyon) with whom he is instantly obsessed with.
    Over time, this obsession consumes him to the point where he marries her mother just to stay with her and then takes her on the road when her mother dies in an accident. During their time together, it's never clear who is using who.

    James Mason's acting is superb throughout, rarely ever losing his composure and almost always maintaining a dignified stance. He has a natural voice for narrating and you get the feeling that he really does have an authoritative presence. Likewise, despite the character being 14 (after being bumped up from 12 in the original novel), Sue Lyon plays Lolita with a little bit more maturity than would be expected. The fact that she was 14 at the time and a newcomer makes it all that more impressive as I expected her to have been slightly older (which is known as Dawson Casting in Troper circles, it's when you get people playing teenagers who are usually well in their 30's). And Peter Sellers shouldn't be discounted here either, juggling multiple roles with ease. Though my least favourite part of the film (and arguably, the only flaw in the film to me) is at the very beginning, which is actually the end. Mainly, due to the fact that it IS the end of the film, and Kubrick only put it at the start because he felt the book almost goes south in the middle even though he did say it does sacrifice a great ending. And that's exactly it. It's a confrontation, and it would have worked better staying as the ending. Now at the start, it just makes Peter Sellers look like a drunken jackass who has always been a drunken jackass, a hedonist who thinks sobriety is a foreign concept. If it had remained at the end, it would have made more sense and the drunken nature would have had slightly more explanation to it.
    I could say that Shelley Winters as Charlotte was a bit too whiny and needy but that appears to be the point of the character, a widower taking a chance on any man showing the least bit of affection, hoping that her home and presentation will somehow make men want to stay. So, rather than fault Shelley for playing the character like she was supposed to, perhaps I should just say that it should have been scaled back just a bit.

    But what really draws me to this film is the employment of the "less is more" technique. Or rather, a subset in this case, the idea that things aren't so clearly spelled out in the relationship between Dolores and Humbert. I mean, we get what's going on but not who starts what and to what end. The general consensus is that Humbert seduces Dolores and is trying to mold her into a perfect little playmate for him, his "Lolita" but it is often hinted that Dolores herself twists him around her finger to get something out of it. He exerts power by forbidding certain activities and constantly moving, she acts out by defying him whenever possible and threatening exposure of their "relationship". It's a constant battle for the ultimate state of control. They have nothing in common and each sees the other as a means to an end. His attempts to introduce her to culture fall flat, probably because he's forcing it upon her rather than let her discover it on her own. Which actually makes sense. If he were to let her venture out on her own, she would gain independence and possibly leave him. By monitoring her every action, he maintains what he believes is dominance over her.

    By not making it so clear as to who initiated what, the film makes itself that much more compelling. While he in every way should not be indulging in such behavior, Delores is not 100% because she takes advantage of it. Both are villain and victim, using each other in what would be a never-ending cycle if not for repeated attempts to break out of the circle.
    Subtlety is the film's key to success and that's why I hold it to be a provocative piece of film-making.
  • ajv2688
    November 23, 2010
    ajv2688
    This is a fantastic film based on a novel, it's brilliantly directed by Kubrick, and the cast is just perfect. I highly recommend this movie.

View All Lolita Reviews

Critic Reviews

Dave Kehr
May 8, 2007
Dave Kehr, Chicago Reader

Where Nabokov was witty, Kubrick is sometimes merely snide, but fine performances (particularly from Peter Sellers, as the ominous Clare Quilty) cover most of the rough spots. Full Review

Bosley Crowther
January 1, 2000
Bosley Crowther, New York Times

The picture has a rare power, a garbled but often moving push toward an off-beat communication. Full Review

David Gurney
January 1, 2011
David Gurney, Common Sense Media

Classic love story not for kids. Full Review

Rob Nelson
August 20, 2009
Rob Nelson, City Pages, Minneapolis/St. Paul

While Kubrick may have likened himself to an ad-libbing thief of arts in 1962, his current persona seems the epitome of [Humbert] Humbert. Full Review

Dennis Schwartz
February 8, 2008
Dennis Schwartz, Ozus' World Movie Reviews

Far too subtle in its sexual intentions to reach what the novel was after. Full Review

Jon Fortgang
October 3, 2007
Jon Fortgang, Film4

Lolita, with its acute mix of pathos and comedy, and Mason's mellifluous delivery of Nabokov's sparkling lines, remains the definitive depiction of tragic transgression. Full Review

May 8, 2007
TV Guide's Movie Guide

A fascinating if problematic early film from Stanley Kubrick, perhaps the most obsessive of the great auteurs of the 1960s. Full Review

Jeffrey M. Anderson
October 16, 2006
Jeffrey M. Anderson, Combustible Celluloid

Kubrick keeps the elegant black-and-white film big and luxurious and barren and sustains the cold humor. Full Review

Geoff Andrew
June 24, 2006
Geoff Andrew, Time Out

Far more satisfying than his later works (one hesitates to call them mere movies). Full Review

Dan Fienberg
November 10, 2005
Dan Fienberg, Zap2it.com

A wonderful evocation of the book's humorous aspects, but -- censors be darned -- very little of its passion and sexuality.

Critic ratings and reviews powered by RottenTomatoes.com

Fresh (60% or more critics rated the movie positively)

Rotten (59% or fewer critics rated the movie positively)

Cast

More Like This

Click a thumb to vote on that suggestion, or add your own suggestions.

  • Lolita
    Lolita (83%)
  • Dr. Strangelove Or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb
    Dr. Strangelove Or How I Learned to Stop Worr... (63%)
  • Circle of Two
    Circle of Two (100%)
  • Bitter Moon
    Bitter Moon (100%)

More Movies like Lolita

Facts

Submit a Fact | View All
    • Humbert Humbert: We don't read other people's diaries now, do we?
    • Humbert Humbert: I want you to live with me and die with me and everything with me!
Submit a Fact | View All

Lolita : Watch Free on TV

Lolita Trivia

  • Rumor has it, the relationship between Charlie Chaplin and Lita Grey was the basis of a book by Vladimir Nabokov. This book was turned into one of the most controversial movies ever. Which movie was it?  Answer »
  • name the director of Lolita and 2001?  Answer »
  • Which one of these Stanley Kubrick films was based on a novel of the same name?  Answer »
  • The famous heart shaped sunglasses from Stanley Kubrick's Lolita weren't worn in the film, only publicity shots.  Answer »
More Lolita Trivia

Movie Quizzes

Create a Quiz |

All Quizzes

Video Clips

Upload a Video |

All Lolita Videos

Meet Other Fans

Add Lolita to favorites

Recent News

No recent headlines. Got one?

Recent Lists

Make a List |

View All Lists

Most Popular Skin

ladypyramidhead Skin by ladypyramidhead
85 Profiles
Add to Profile

More Skins