Lolita (1962)

So, I finally sat down and watched that last unviewed film from the career of the absolute legend, Stanley Kubrick.
And man, it blew me away all over again. Honestly, Lolita is just such a masterpiece... kind of like everything else that comes out of his workshop.
There were moments in the movie that just left me breathless... I actually found myself pausing the film just to rewind and stare at certain shots for a second longer.
To me, Kubrick is hands down the greatest cinematic auteur to ever exist.
So, here's to him once more. 🙏 Cheers to Stanley Kubrick.

Ugh, honestly, Lolita is Kubrick's worst work.
All the life, moral, sexual, and ethical dilemmas are just so painfully obvious—it's like the characters aren't even wearing signs that say, "I am a middle-aged, refined erudite," or "I am a vulgar American housewife," and so on.
(I'll concede that maybe this was the director's intention: to craft something akin to a medieval drama where the characters function merely as transparent symbols or archetypes. But that just doesn't work for me in a story that really ought to be steeped in ambiguity...)
Perhaps the movie wouldn't feel quite so banal if I hadn't read the book first. As it stands, I can't stop myself from making manic comparisons—and in that regard, the film falls *soooooo* far short of the novel.

Carol Long95 said:Maybe the movie wouldn't feel so incredibly basic if I hadn't actually read the book first. I can't help but go into these crazy comparison spirals... and honestly, the film just falls way, way short compared to the novel.

I’d sign to be this—if it wasn't for Sellers. That guy alone carried the whole thing and bumped the quality up by at least 50%...

Lolita is a cinematic masterpiece.

In my opinion, Lolita is Kubrick's absolute worst.

😁

So I finally sat down and watched Lolita the other day. I’m not saying it’s trash, but man, it's predictable enough to hurt and way too extra for its own good.
The best part of the movie is hands down the opening—seeing Sellers playing ping pong while dressed like some washed-up writer in a Roman toga. 😁

stormyviper11 said:I’d sign off on this in a heartbeat—if it weren't for Sellers. Honestly, he single-handedly carried at least 50% of that movie.

I'm with you there; Sellers is just 👍 👍 👍. He's everywhere. His performance in Dr. Strangelove is pure, unadulterated genius—three different roles, and honestly, good luck picking which one is better (or more twisted).

But that Quilty character in the novel (and here I go again...) is an absolutely phenomenal figure. In the film, they just didn't leave enough breathing room to really flesh him out. He represents the demonic, wicked side of Humbert—a dark reflection that Humbert tries to destroy, only to end up destroying himself in the process. I'm not entirely sure how much of that subtext actually makes it onto the screen. And then there's that insane, frantic chase across America—where Quilty (who is essentially a construct made of fragments) leaves breadcrumbs for Humbert by scribbling names in hotel guestbooks—clues that only a highly educated university professor could possibly decipher... Nabokov was a total virtuoso.

Look, it's true—the movie is way worse than the book, which is pretty much how it always goes... but I still kind of dig the film. My biggest gripe, though, is that it leans way too hard on the plot and doesn't spend nearly enough time on the actual development of Humbert's obsession and that raw longing. In the book, those emotions are just so perfectly captured... like that scene where he’s so mesmerized by Lolita's beauty that he actually drops to his knees and crawls toward her just to hold her leg because he's totally speechless. It's that specific blend of worship and paranoia, that sheer intensity, that makes the book such a masterpiece. I get that the movie misses all of that, but honestly, I wasn't expecting it to be there. The vibe of the film works for me, and if you stop viewing it through the lens of the book, it's actually a decent watch.
(And let's be real, Sue Lyon is gorgeous, even if she was a bit too old for the part... 🙂 )

Guys, why on earth are you even comparing the book to the movie?????😕
It honestly makes zero sense... a book and a film are two completely different mediums and they just CANNOT BE COMPARED. It’s like trying to compare apples to oranges... really.
You compare a book to another book, and a movie to another movie. You can't just mix them up like that.
I get that someone might feel let down by an adaptation, I really do, but in my opinion, saying "THE BOOK WAS BETTER THAN THE MOVIE" is just plain foolishness.

Elizabeth Garcia2 said:Folks, why on earth are you even comparing the book to the movie?????😕
It’s completely pointless—the book and the film are two entirely different mediums altogether.

Yeah, yeah, I hear you—I actually agree with you, which is exactly why I’m saying I can't seem to shake this constant urge to compare them. It bothers me too, honestly. But I can't help myself because the book—unlike the film—is just so brilliantly constructed. The film version of Lolita feels like a story about sexual obsession dressed up in a bit of an existential crisis, but for me, that just doesn't cut it.
From a purely subjective standpoint—the best character in the movie is the haze-woman. Even if she's totally caricatured, I think they hit the mark perfectly with her.

Carol Long95 said:Honestly, I think Lolita is Kubrick's worst work.

I am not sure if you have seen Clockwork Orange; it is also directed by Kubrick and it is unsettling. Not because of the plot, but due to the technical quality.
Aynway, without going OT Lolita, it is an okay movie, though I have seen better. Thank Zeus, at least it lacked those creepy, horrific musical scores found in something like radiation.

Honestly, I think Clockwork Orange is actually quite good.
The way that constant atmosphere of violence meshes with that aggressive, 1970s pop-art visual identity is just fascinating. Plus, you have Malcolm McDowell playing a complete maniac—his commentary really serves to relativize the plot and all those messy moral dilemmas... even if I will concede that the film’s narrative feels a bit cluttered and occasionally (maybe often?) leans too heavily into being heavy-handed. But that American translation? It's absolutely brainless and makes zero sense. It feels like a literal, word-for-word translation of a phrase without any thought behind it. Just gross.

(btw, I'm Carol Long95)

I had no idea the movie was in black and white.

One really has to keep in mind that the movie was filmed back in 1960.
Nabokov published Lolita in 1955—originally over in Europe—and because of, well, American puritanism, he practically had to relocate to Europe...
The backlash to the novel was just dangerous.

That’s why turning that novel into a screenplay is such a feat of true artistry... At first, Nabokov wasn't even interested in taking on the task.

Quote : When Stanley Kubrick acquired The film rights to Lolita He asked Nabokov himself to write The screenplay. Nabokov initially turned down the offer, and then changed his mind. He eventually wrote a screenplay, on which Kubrick based his film. Nabokov is credited as the film's author, though in fact Kubrick undertook many changes (and vigorous cuts). Nabokov gives a short account of the nascence of the script in his introduction to the screenplay.
The published version, revised and first published in 1974, actually differs quite a bit from Nabokov's original draft. Richard Corliss writes in his remarkable little study of the film

You can find all the different script versions for Lolita right here—including the one by Lyne

Regarding Sellers, he was—if you ask me, and I’m siding with most critics on this one! 🙄 —a major misstep.
He was basically just a cameo...
The Quilty from the book is something else entirely.
If anything, Lyne and Langel did a much better job capturing the true "spirit" of that character from the novel.

Essentially, Sellers felt more like a guest appearance of Dr. Strangelove...!

Even with the constraints of American censorship, the film adapted the novel beautifully—resulting in yet another masterpiece.

No, honestly, the movie was just 👎

Tiring and pretty dull...

I've heard the book is fantastic, but after watching the film, I don't really feel much of an urge to pick it up...

In that case, you’ll probably find the book quite dull too...

Sophia Williams said:At that rate, you'll probably find the book boring, too.

Yeah, that's exactly what I'm afraid of... 🙂

redowl90 said:Yeah, that's exactly what I'm worried about... 🙂

Don't sweat it—you've got nothing to worry about.

The movie is just as phenomenal as the book itself

👋

You just can't escape comparing it to the book when you're dealing with one of the greatest novels ever written. I guess Kubrick's mistake was even attempting to adapt something like this in the first place. It’s not even that translating the novel into a screenplay is a true art form—given the subject matter and the censorship issues—it’s just... well, it seems impossible to do right because the prose is so layered. There's too much linguistic play; the book is really the only medium where Lolita actually feels right. 🙂
There's that scene near the beginning where Humbert accidentally touches Lolita's hand. In the book, that moment is described perfectly—the details, how he feels, her reaction, the tension in the air—it's incredible. In the movie, the scene lasts about a second—they touch, they share a weird look, she walks away. That's why the film doesn't quite hit the mark for me—Lolita is such an amazing novel because of those tiny, internal moments, not because of the plot itself. And that’s what gets lost in the film.

Personally, I found the movie to be quite poor... and don't get me wrong, it's not like I'm some die-hard Kubrick devotee! Aside from Full Metal Jacket, I find his obsession with visual perfection just incredibly tedious to sit through... I actually much preferred the more recent Lyne version starring Irons!😉