Lolita (1962) - Crime, Drama, Romance

Hohum Score

2

Breathtaking

A middle-aged college professor becomes infatuated with a fourteen-year-old nymphet.

IMDB: 7.6
Director: Stanley Kubrick
Stars: James Mason, Shelley Winters
Length: 153 Minutes
PG Rating: N/A
Reviews: 25 out of 232 found boring (10.77%)

One-line Reviews (115)

Morally dubious and superficial: Kubrick's worst movie.

Though I have never read the book, and though I know the film is quite different than the novel, I found this to be an absolutely engrossing picture that completely grabs you in and takes you on this disturbing and provocative journey.

Far from Kubrick's best, but still an enjoyable movie .

Worth watching .

The film is far too long at 152 minutes, and another screenwriter should have been used instead of Nabokov.

It is also relentlessly entertaining and has moments of genuine poignancy.

Mission accomplished, but 'Lolita' was the film that I left until very last as I knew it was going to be boring.

Here, Kubrick, always the sly master, guises the sexual deviances in two polarizing ways: at times he plays the film like a comedy of manners (especially in the Sellers' scenes which become all the more disturbing because of what he is trying to get at from all the comedic shenanigans), and at other times the film is a formulaic and staged melodrama.

It was boring!

However if you are a fan of either movies from this time, Peter Sellers, or Kubrick it is worth watching and I did enjoy this movie overall, just wasn't blown away by it.

A stunning, unexpectedly moving analysis of love, longing and jealousy .

Compelling, subtle, surprisingly great movie .

The multiple sarcastic remarks, wordplays, witty literary references and the intriguing puzzle to find Quilty are mostly discarded.

); however, she's more than capable in the role, at times excellent, always a presence and a very exciting one.

For all the film's faults, it's an entertaining, provocative (more in the sense of Humbert's guilt than in his desires) drama with an irreverent, thoughtful edge provided by the frighteningly good Sellers.

"Lolita" (1962) is not in the same league as other legendary movies by a legendary Stanley Kubrick, but it's an enjoyable movie to watch even now in 2015 more than a half of the century after it's initial release.

Lolita plays Humbert like a fiddle in this film, and this unexpected switch of dynamics was one I found exceedingly interesting, because instead of feeling bad for Lolita, I found myself feeling bad for Humbert, who reveals himself to be just a lonely, pathetic man, in the end.

I rented this film after years of curiosity expecting a disjointed plot with lots of symbology and actors with little apparent motivation.

Its not about the girl, its more about the psychological destruction of a pathetic, besotted older man who should have known better but gets dragged down into a self destructive finale of his own making.

Then too, many of her pointless scenes with Humbert add up to a further drag.

I enjoyed it.

Yet the film is compelling, subtle, funny, sad and in some ways exciting.

I find the film fascinating.

Dark comedy has its moments but overall it's a yawn...

Lolita begins emphatically, with an engrossing scene between two heavyweight actors as James Mason turns up invited into Peter Seller's house.

Tasteful and Entertaining .

Absolutely fascinating, gets better and funnier with each viewing .

I liked it alot and found it very entertaining.

Oh yes, outrageously dull.

She says she still "feels young" but has become a pretentious bore with her "Van Gawk" Van Gogh.

As film experiences go, this is one of the most provocative, enthralling, disgusting, entertaining and satisfying I've ever been through.

So after Charlotte's death, the latter part of the film loses its intense gusto.

Watch this movie – I highly recommend it!

Twisting and turning film that remains unpredictable and thoroughly engrossing.

In this way it's a more enjoyable experience.

But with 1962's 'Lolita', Kubrick still had to fight and curve around studio execs, actors, and producers to get this movie made, because of the intense subject matter.

Unfortunately, this film ends up getting repeating and dull.

What was particularly brilliant about this film is how Kubrick manages to create unbearable sexual tension in the scenes without actually showing a single sexual image (apart from maybe the iconic image of Lolita lying down in the bikini).

While several other reviewers did not appreciate Peter Sellers as Quilty, I found him to be very entertaining and don't believe that the film would have held my interest as much without him.

"James Mason is a bit of an old fart and this film will be really dull", I said to myself.

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.

James Mason is the epitome of stuffiness and certainly way too dull for a young woman to be interested in.

Paradoxically, 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.

It is enjoyable, funny and mysterious.

Overall, I just found it slow, and rather obscure.

<< Fill-in with interesting but unnecessary points >> Unfortunately, unless you have the common artsy-fartsy psychosis, where you view all perverseness on film, page or canvas as high art, you'll notice that Lolita is silly and boring and certainly no 20th century Oedipus Rex.

The result is far too long at 153 minutes, but it's still provocatively entertaining as it alternates between funny and eccentric.

I recommend the user comment "All in the Environment" (Feb 27, 2002) written by "tedg" – it's explicit about what makes Nabokov's book as enjoyable as it is, as well as why it's so difficult to translate to film.

But the film was entertaining enough, so after a while I found myself absorbed in it, and to be honest, it's hard not to be absorbed in a film that looks this good and that is as well-acted as this one.

Very engaging throughout the entire film.

Nothing in this picture worked for me, especially the dull performances, and the all filler no killer scenes.

What a surreal, dreamlike world Stanley Kubrick creates with this intriguing film!

Overall, this movie is Boring, yes - with a capital 'B.

Overall, it is Overlong but Worth a Watch for its Technical and Artistic Prowess, its Code Busting Bravery, its Sharp Dark Humor and Engaging Characters.

Nevertheless, what we're left with is a consistently entertaining little film about a man falling in love with a girl who's barely a teenager.

I was less impressed with James Mason as the one-dimensional bumbling, boring Englishman.

The characters are intriguing and the acting is terrific.

Great Director, Great Characters, Fascinating Story.

But as the second half of the movie came rolling in, the film became much more coherent, and the pacing much tighter, and the film was better for it, becoming ultimately more suspenseful as a whole.

James Mason's brilliant portrayal of Humbert Humbert transforms an ordinarily, dull professor into a fascinating, psychologically complex character as he is gradually consumed by his infatuation with Lolita, a fourteen year old girl who, by design, becomes his step daughter.

A riveting transposition from page to screen.

Boring.

All these events make the movie quite bare and boring to watch.

It is that, but it is also rather dull and pedestrian by comparison.

But it's a an intense, solid depiction of tragic transgression that has everything Kubrick is good at, and would be great at later.

At first this unexpected tonal shift, especially when compared to the very disturbing and dramatic aura that encapsulates the novel, took me by surprise, and I have to admit I was initially disappointed; I wasn't expecting a story about a manipulative hebephile to be played for comedy.

I enjoy the film immensely and would highly recommend it.

As I need ten lines to qualify for this on-line comment I am just wasting space and filling up the box so that my stunning thoughts and revelations can be known, read and appreciated the world over.

Overall, a fascinating film and gets better and funnier with each viewing.

If not totally faithful to the novel I think this movie is alive and captures the spirit of the novel while the 1997 version, that follows the novel more closely, is rather flat and ponderous.

Kubrick's "Lolita" (1962) is clever, fun, thrilling and filmically brilliant.

Lyon and Winters are perfect in their contrasting roles that explore two very different and fascinating female characters and the great Peter Sellers gives another performance that is both funny and intriguing at the same time.

Honeztly the movie was just very boring and poorly done.

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 and repressed passion, while melodramatic music swells like something out of Gone With The Wind.

But overall, it's got a lot of dull stretches before it reaches the point where the obsessive Mason (as Prof. Humbert Humbert) tracks down the missing nymphet and finds that she is married to a pleasant if dull-witted husband in a very provincial household that is little more than a shack.

Surprisingly, Kubrick gives more depth to that relationship compared to Lynne, whose film is overall far more intimate and engrossing.

The film is largely overshadowed at the time when it has been released in 1962, without much major recognitions in Oscars, definitely not Kubrick's best work, it still shines with its contemporary wit of how one can be dragged by his uncontrollable lust deep inside him.

The increase in age to 16-ish, made it much more believable, and enjoyable.

"Lolita" from Stanley Kubrick is an exquisite portrayal of the debauchery inhabiting the bourgeoisie's bored hearts, in their quest of a flame that would give a meaning to their insipid lives mostly made of conventions and futile manners.

Lolita is a fascinating study of two characters, a teenage girl (a minor) and her much older "boyfriend" (an adult) and their strange and somewhat twisted relationship, where sex is obviously occurring.

), the movie will, at best, be mildly entertaining thanks to Peter Sellers; to those who have read it (and have understood it on at least one of the three levels), it will be painfully disappointing.

The movie becomes its own artistic statement---Kubrick doesn't merely try torecreate the scenes and storyline of the book--although much of it is there--but he uses the period music, speech, clothes and mannerisms to create his ownimaginative and fascinating world.

Very good and certainly very enjoyable in his role is Peter Sellers who plays a character that can take many identities.

How can you think that you could create a compelling drama (and, obviously, Lyne wanted to make a drama ?!!!

The movie bored me, and I was put off by the way the subject matter was presented.

At any rate I loved it and laughed like a fool at the tedious scenes of the insistant black porter trying to unfurl it, oblivious to the silence Humbert tries to maintain so as not to wake the delicate Lolita who, upon awakening, says disinterestedly, "Oh.

James Mason as Humbert "Hum" Humbert is mentally unstable and obsessive-minded man, who comes from the quiet love phase to the phase of the jealousy, confusion and despair at the end.

Sue Lyon is riveting as Lolita Haze, the object of Humbert's desires.

Clever scene transitions with the help of cinematographer Oswald, and a catchy theme from Bob Harries makes parts of the movie enjoyable.

Don't waste your time.

Moments such as this scene in the film are pure acting subtlety demonstrated by Sellers, and he practically maintains the compelling interest embodied by this character throughout.

Humbert's confusing role of being both Lolita's guardian and lover almost leads him to the brink of insanity.

The film sags and moors as it struggles to justify it's ridiculous plot turns and unbearable character.

A whimsical, unpredictable Quilty of many colors sharply clashes with a humdrum Humbert, who takes himself and life itself far too seriously, as an inevitable explosion continues to build.

Thoroughly engaging .

Both film and book are brilliantly creative and entertaining.

I guess the only thing I didn't care for was what I felt an overuse of Peter Sellars (although I adored his wordless female counterpart, who lends a most surreal aspect in her gloomy stares), though I did find the silent glance he makes at Surreal Lady over the funny pages in the Hotel Lobby absolutely breathtaking in its oddity.

The acting is superb, the characters are very compelling in their strangeness, and the plot thickens (slowly by modern standards) in a luscious and delicious way as we watch James Mason's character grapple with the growing independence of his young girlfriend.

Navokov did something interesting with his book lolita,he mocked at everybody ,he did a satire so misunderstood,that all the dull moralist attacked it calling it `immoral'.

Kubrick's narration style is compelling and the cinematography is vivacious.

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.

Exactly how many reviewers here would describe a story about male on male statutory rape as "tasteful and entertaining" or "pitch black" comedy?

What I found intriguing after viewing the picture was taking a look at the theatrical trailer.

James Mason is especially weak as Humbert, Shelley Winters is unequivocally annoying, and Sue Lyon is a completely uninteresting disappointment.

As I think that at some point, the film really became kind of a dull lighthearted, and even sometimes a slapstick, comedy that all of its jokes fall flat.

Lynes' Clare Quilty, the villain, is a shadowy and witless heavy, while Peter Sellers is snappy and tormenting, and as bright as Humbert, as he should be, since they're brothers under the skin in their lust for Lolita.

It would probably have been better if the scene had been chopped out of the final cut, but it does offer a suspenseful to those who allow themselves to be fully sucked into the characters.

This is a good movie make no doubt about it, I like the use of sexual innuendo throughout the movie, I liked Peter Sellers role as Quilty, the acting was good, the movie very funny at times, but it was too long, the use of an epilogue was pointless, and the opening scene should be at the end in my opinion.

It seemed, well, pointless.

'Lolita is an unexpectedly strong film, boundary pushing, creepy and entertaining.

It is one of the most entertaining, shattering human spectacles, I've ever seen.

The previous commentator's jibe of "dull performances" so completely misses the mark I do not balk at laughter!

That is the intriguing question that Kubrick's Lolita poses and rightly leaves for us to answer.

They should have added colour to the movie as well so the viewer wont be so bored.

LOLITA is perhaps the more stunning accomplishment, in that Nabokov's style is complex and multi-layered.