Lolita

Though Kubrick’s Lolita is not exactly riveting, it is still entertaining enough to see where the relationship between the caring gentleman with hidden desires and the virginal adolescent girl discovering her natural womanly seductiveness will lead. This calmly and smoothly told story is psychologically detailed and subtle, with surprising tragicomic moments and a mysteriously ambiguous character played by Peter Sellers. However, what I find criminally lacking in Kubrick’s version of Lolita is a more revealing, or at least implied, spectrum of their coming together intimately, which we can only imagine. The main character, Humbert, comes across rather as a platonically enamoured, impotent wretch who fanatically holds on to his object of desire only because he cannot have it himself. (09/18/2020)

One of Kubrick’s weakest films, very uncontroversial and tedious for today’s standards. Unlike others, I have no need to praise Peter Sellers, his Quilt annoyed me every time he was on screen (due of course to the nature of his character and not the performance). James Mason’s character, on the other hand, arouses all conceivable emotions during the film. The viewer’s experience was rather positive, but I don’t think I’ll watch it again. (06/12/2010)

I haven't read the book... And now I don't even have to. I can't imagine that it could be better than this all-round excellent film (for which Nabokov wrote the script himself). All in all, the film has excellent actors, a very hard to describe atmosphere (the only thing I wonder about the book is whether it is as bitterly funny in places) and Kubrick's astonishing ability to make a two and a half hour film run like a ninety minute film. Perfect. The opening scene between James Mason and Peter Sellers is one of the best that can be seen in Kubrick's work. (11/23/2014)

Kubrick fully devoted himself to works over which he had absolute control, and he didn't start cautiously, but right away controversially. "Lolita" was very controversial in its time, well, it still is. Collaboration with the author, Nabokov, then led to the creation of a film that is worthy of its controversy. Just the first look of James Mason (Humbert Humbert) at Sue Lyon (Lolita) clearly shows what awoke in the professor. The self-destruction is clear from the beginning, with a brilliant scene with Peter Sellers, who showcases his unique acting skills in a small space. James Mason was chosen perfectly for the role, because his expressions express exactly what they should. It contains that smeared perversity that is necessary for the role. When you focus on those subtle nuances, it is an exceptional experience. By the way, for the first time I felt that the musical component truly fits the film. (04/04/2014)

Sufficiently dramatic, sufficiently ironic, but surprisingly lacking in urgency and destiny, that's Kubrick's Lolita. I'm spoiled by Lyne's perfect remake, but when I see Humbert in Mason's unnecessarily restrained portrayal displaying unwarranted paranoid fits and when Shelley Winters, as Charlotte Haze, whines and overacts, everything boils within me. The biggest win is Lolita herself, whose bewitchingly charming actress can evoke in the viewer with her slightest smile exactly the feeling Humbert must have had when he first glimpsed her. The portrayal of Quilty is interesting too, as I remember him as an elusive omnipresent demon, and here, in Sellers' performance, he is a slimy snake, openly showing his face and implying his desires to Humbert's face. The final feelings, in the end, are mixed. The screenplay has very weak parts and minor inconsistencies, but it's not afraid to come up with amazingly sarcastic moments (chuckling while reading a love confession) or an all-telling romantic image (opening credits). But it is "only" a romantic drama and not a fateful confession full of desperate and escaping passion. 70% (08/27/2007)