Lolita (1962)

The Worst Film Ever

Thanks for the memories!

The best films of this genre always show a path and provide a takeaway for being a better person.

A terrific literary drama and character piece that shows how the process of creating art can be seen differently by those doing it and those looking at it from the outside.

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.

With characters that appear sympathetic at the beginning and turning more and more despicable as the film goes on and showing the unstable mental condition of the main character without throwing it at your face, Lolita manages to keep you uneasy throughout the film. Kubrick's attempt in dark comedy is highly successful here which he will perfect in a much more comedic Dr Strangelove. Lolita could have been a much more complexly woven tale if not for the censorship of the time. From what I've heard the original novel is much better and a lot are omitted here which makes this looks like more sided with the character of Humbert but the way I see it Kubrick have made the audience uneasy and to an extent made them despise themselves for sympathising with these characters by the end of the film. He never wants everything to be too black and white which is what I believe he tried to implement here as well.

Kurbrick was one of the greatest film makers of all time. His attention to detail and his meticulous style is rarely seen in films today. It was rarely seen in his day too. The down side of his perfectionist nature thought, was that he didn't make many films. Still he did make a few classics in his day. Films like A Clockwork Orange, 2001, Paths of Glory, Dr. Strangelove and The Shinning. One film that often gets overlooked though, is Lolita.This film is …different. The tagline is "How Did they Ever Make a Movie Out of Lolita." The plot is this, Prof. Humbert Humbert comes to America, rents a house, meets the landlady's young nymphet daughter, falls instantly in love and purses her, rather relentlessly. So yes the plot of this story is rather unconventional. Kubrick has gone on record saying, that if he knew the kind of limitations there would be, that he wouldn't have even bothered making the movie. Basically with the censors of the day, the relationship between Humbert and Lolita couldn't be shown or talked about in any real way. Now this movie came out in 1962 and to keep things in context, you should remember that in the 1950's married couples on TV and movies were shown sleeping in separate beds at night. So the idea of showing a man in his 50's sleeping with a young girl (the actress who played Lolita, Sue Lyon was only 14 at the time) was pretty much out of the question. And while some might see this as a major problem, it really isn't. The relationship, while never out right admitted, is alluded to, a lot. They say it without actually saying it.The real strength of this movie though, is the actors. James Mason plays Humbert perfectly. His character oozes aristocratic disdain and disgust for everything around him. Especially Shelly Winters, that's the landlady. That is, until he sees Lolita. Once he sets his eyes on her, that's it. While his intentions are a little repulsive, he pursues them with such a dogged genuine determination, you do sympathize with him a bit.And Sue Lyon was absolutely perfect as Lolita. The way she carries herself, the way she talks, the way she teases Humbert. On the one hand it seems like she knows exactly what she is doing. She knows the effect she has on him and she seems to love toying with him. Although, on the other hand, she might just be a teenager fooling around. With her character it is very hard to tell. One scene, she seems wise beyond on her age and in the next she is carrying on like petulant child.And of course we have Shelly Winters, one of the most underrated actress of all time. And yes her character, Lolita's mother, is very shrill and annoying. That was kind of Shelly Winters bread and butter, but she was supposed to be shrill an annoying. An obstacle for Humbert to get past. Still, Shelly Winters brought such a wounded vulnerability to her character. This is a woman who lost her husband, is not very bright and her new tenant Humbert is uh… kind of problematic. There is one scene where she breaks down and it is truly heartbreaking.This film is also filled with Kubrick's usual cinematic flair. There are so many little things hidden in the visuals that you don't notice at first but make the film much richer on repeat viewings.This film is not without its flaws however. It does drag a bit in the middle. And there is way, way to much of Peter Sellers. Kubrick was such a meticulous director with his shot and his sets and especially his actors. But for whatever reason, he gave Sellers way to much leeway. Now this did work in Dr. Strangelove, where Sellers had to play all these different characters, but here, where he just plays the character Clare Quilty, all these different voices and mannerisms he keeps using, it's just distracting. And a little annoying. Kurbrick definitely should have rained Sellers in.Besides those few flaws, this film is truly a classic. It deserves to be ranked right alongside all of Kubrick's other classic films. It's the kind of film, where one scene your laughing, the next scene your skin is crawling.That's the power of Lolita

How DID they ever make a movie of "Lolita", the famous and greatly controversial novel. It's the type of novel that seemed absolutely unfilmable back in 1962, but, somehow, the film did manage to get made, and it is excellent!Despite having very mature themes, Stanley Kubrick's "Lolita" is quite tasteful. Of course, it seemed extremely tasteless back in 1962, but over 50 years later it seems pretty tame and mild.While it is tasteful, it's still disturbing and even shocking in places, but it's also really funny. As a matter of fact, it seems more like a dark comedy than a romantic drama. The humor is scattered all throughout this film, and sometimes it's roaringly funny. Peter Sellers's performance is one of the funniest in screen history, and he's hysterical in the brilliant opening sequence. A lot of the film's humor is not only dark but a little unsettling, and very uncomfortable-it almost reminds me of an extremely tame version of a Todd Solondz film, like "Happiness" or "Storytelling".If there's any Stanley Kubrick film that deserves a little more praise, it's this one. So far, it's definitely within my top 3 favorite Kubrick films, and it's easily his most underrated one. Although it is fairly well known and well liked, it's not hailed as the masterpiece that I feel it truly is. It's a hilarious, shocking mix of tragedy and comedy that deserves to be considered one of the greatest novel adaptations of all time.