A daring drama, full of irony and nutty relationships. At the center would be Lolita, very well portrayed by Sue Lyon. Shelley Winters, as her mom Charlotte, sees her more as a rival than as a daughter. She jealously calls her "a homely child." On the other hand, James Mason, who could be a surrogate parent to her, wants Lolita as a lover. Charlotte's problem is that she's stuck at the same emotional level as Lolita. She says she still "feels young" but has become a pretentious bore with her "Van Gawk" Van Gogh. Humbert's relationship with Charlotte is an ironic inversion of his affair with Lolita. He could care less about Charlotte, but uses her to get closer to Lolita. As much as he adores Lolita, she uses him to suit herself.Her character can't really be faulted. She's certainly aware of the effect she has on guys of all ages; but she's a confident outgoing teen who likes to have fun with people...sometimes a little too much fun. Humbert knows exactly what he's doing, even if he doesn't know why. We don't get to see what his ex-wife was like, so we don't know why he ends up in strange relationships. He must be miserable when he's with Charlotte, and he's never really secure with Lolita either. Even if she weren't underage and technically his stepdaughter, she's so mercurial she would annoy him anyway. In some ways, though, she's the most mature one. She's a little unsure of herself, but isn't afraid to try new activities, and fits in well with all of her peers and mentors (Humbert being a special case, to say the least). Her most poignant line "I want you to be proud, really proud of me," even though it would better said to her mom instead of Humbert, shows that she feels good about herself.By the end, she's very much a young adult. She still seems cheery, even with the huge responsibility of marriage, running a house, and carrying a baby. In these rather desperate circumstances, one has the impression that she'll be fine. Strangely enough, when Humbert comes to visit, he seems to almost fit in. He's given the respect due to an older relative who's also a benefactor. But she wisely refuses to junk everything and run off with him.The one who seems out of place is Peter Sellers. He tends to throw the drama off-track with his idiosyncratic characters. The scene at the hotel when he pretends to be a cop is especially distracting. It's amusing for a few seconds, but he just goes on and on. He's a sort of grotesque foil for Humbert. I don't see the point of the frame story either. Why would Humbert kill him? Sure, he's a 'rival' of sorts; but by this point, Humbert has seen Lolita settle down permanently. Every guy but her husband is banished to the fantasyland she once lived in.Another bit I couldn't figure out was why Humbert would wait to tell Lolita that her mom was dead. It seemed unnecessarily cruel to make up a story about her being in the hospital. It's also odd that Lolita spends the total of one night grieving. Anyway, a really well-made film on a difficult topic with some fine performances.

The original Vladimir Nabokov novel 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.

To make a movie about "Lolita" in the early '60s was a difficult task, considering how the censorship and society of the time could've taken some of the most controversial scenes of a story where a literature professor falls in love (spiritually and physically) with a barely teenager girl. Kubrick's choice, alongside Nabokov's screenplay he heavily changed, is a winner: very little of the sexual relationship between Lolita and the professor is shown on camera, but the smaller and bigger hints say more than an explicit scene. The adult is completely subdued by the pure beauty and cocky behavior of his nymphet who feeds him like a dog (at the beginning), has him paint her toe-nails (in the second part and during the titles) and basically manages to have anything she wants out of him, only to discard him later without a word. Humbert himself is a very damaged man, whose obsession leads him to sudden impulses of violence even against his beloved, when caught by a jealousy attack for some teenage boy. The absurdity of Humbert's scoldings to a girl whose interest for boys her age is only natural and whose intercourses with Humbert are not is a device used by the director in other works, namely "Paths of Glory" (in regard to war) and "Dr. Strangelove" (same).Kubrick's direction is pretty classic in this film, although some sparse scenes give a twist to the plain drama style: some comedy can be identified in the cot scene (which is hilariously similar to the classic silent films gags) and in the character of Clare Quilty, while aspects of noir/thriller are Charlotte's sudden death, the car following the protagonists and the opening/final scene.In "Lolita" I saw some of the best acting in Kubrick's films, starting with the stellar performance by the lead James Mason, who was perfectly cast for the role and is able to convey very well Humbert's social discomfort and obsession, all the way to pure madness in the hospital scene. It's impossible not to talk about Sue Lyon's Lolita: the actress was 16 at the time and yet she was capable of pulling off one of the most iconic characters in XX century literature. She is and acts extremely hot, with total control of the situation when relating with her slave/lover and at no time does it seem that she feels embarrassed. A truly incredible talent. While I loved beyond reason Peter Seller's performance(s) in "Dr. Strangelove", here I didn't always find him fitting with the overall atmosphere: his frantic acting can grow tiring after the first couple of scenes he's in and I frankly don't know if the character himself is a real addiction to the story or just a nuisance.

Yep. If ever there was a particular motion picture that has made me lose total respect and admiration for its highly-regarded director - That motion picture would have to be, none other than - Stanley Kubrick's detestable "Lolita".Had this 1962 film presented the Lolita character in a more favorable light, and not as a despicable, snot-nosed, demanding, 14-year-old slut, then, yes, I would have definitely reconsidered my initial opinion of film-maker, Kubrick.But here I found myself absolutely loathing the young (but not naive) Lolita about 10x more than I did the men who were clambering to seduce this white-trash tart.In other words - Lolita certainly deserved everything that she got from these lusting old farts.And, come to think of it - I seriously believe that that's exactly the point that Kubrick was trying to get across here in Lolita's sordid, little story.He was clearly telling all the horny males in his audience that pedophilia was OK in his eyes, especially if the "under-aged-one" was, in fact, a total bitch (as was the case here).