Lolita's real strength is the quality of acting from four main characters; Lolita, Mrs. Haze, Clare Quilty, and protagonist and narrator Humbert Humbert. Of these, Peter Seller's performance as Clare Quilty and his various alter egos is by far the best; he is mesmerisingly sharp, and his partly ad-libbed dialogue drastically improves the scenes in which he is 'not' Clare Quilty.

The character of Lolita is one that I cannot help but feel sympathetic for. Although she appears manipulative, it must be remembered that she is the one being manipulated by paedophiles, and Kubrick manages this tricky subject and some uncomfortable relationships well.

The story itself feels very much like a book adaptation; features that may seem less cliched in text, such as narration and reading letters aloud, come across badly on screen, but the structure of Lolita is excellent, although the brilliance of the opening scene does make the conclusion a bit of a disappointment.

Film #22 of No Rewatch November

Peter Sellers just keeps on impressing me with every film of his that I watch. The film as a whole is a little long but every time he is on-screen, he's like a magnet. And that opening scene.. my god. Talk about being hooked.

Writing was great, but it really dragged for me.

I like Kubrick, don't get me wrong, but I would feel terrible if I said this film does not dismantle every bit of meaning behind Humbert's actions and goes to great strides to slash Nabokov's beautiful prose to pieces.

This was quite different from the book (one of my favourites) , for instance , Clare Quilty is barely mentioned or in the scene in it , whilst he featured quite heavily here. It also didn't touch ( bad pun? ...) much on Lolita and Humbert's sexual relations , due to the restrictions at the time it was made . It is better , I think , if you view and judge the film separately from the novel , as the restrictions at the time of filming meant that Kubrick was unable to portray all the features of the story , as he has mentioned in interviews since. As a stand-alone film , it was very enjoyable , Peter Sellers is great as Quilty , his costume and character changes are very like his role in Doctor Strangelove , another great film. A really good film , just don't compare it too heavily with Nabokov's novel.

I can't imagine a better cast for these roles but I haven't seen the 1997 version which also boasts an impressive cast. Even the smaller roles such as Peter Sellers are well cast and memorable. It is immensely provocative and sexy, especially for its time. Kubrick ran up against the censors on many occasions while making this and stated if he knew how much he would have to cut out of the film he would never have made it. The ending doesn't quite work for me, it happens so suddenly and Lolita still looks like she is 14.

I love me some Stanley Kubrick, so it isn't a surprise that I greatly enjoy this film. This isn't my favorite of Kubrick's work, but it is surprisingly funny for a film about a dude who gets in a relationship with a 14 year old.

kubrick's style of adaptation wasn't yet refined

Sexually precocious Lyon becomes involved with a professor (James Mason), with a bizarre turn by Peter Sellers which leads to murder and lust. Under Seen Kubrick film, and is pretty dated now. The subject matter would be very contoversial these days, and it is a little overlong at 2 and a half hours.

No other director could have shown Humbert's "feelings" for Lolita in all their sincerity and all their irony, because nobody does comedy as smart as Kubrick.

it smartly and subtly flirts with that thin line between cheeky and classy, however this film runs long and slow as it gets closer to the end.