Watch
Lolita

Lolita

1962
Romance, Comedy
2h 33m
Your probable score
Avg Percentile 61.35% from 3801 total ratings

Ratings & Reviews

(3801)
Compact view
Compact view
Rated 08 Sep 2020
60
34th
Remake this again with Kevin James and Finn Wolfhard and watch Hollywood burn. “It’s loaded with mayonnaise just the way you like it” This felt longer than Spartacus.
Rated 14 Aug 2007
66
28th
It never hits on any particular tone or style, and Kubrick seems to be just going through the motions. He never cared much for sticking with the source material, but here something is lost in the translation. It's essentially reduced to a rom-com, where the disturbing context is almost an afterthought. Shelley Winters is both hilarious and tragic as the most inept seductress in the world, and Sellers is golden. There's a few beautifully lit scenes as well. But overall I can take it or leave it.
Rated 09 May 2008
63
36th
I like the scenes with Sellers, but the rest of the movie is pretty flat. The problem with trying to adapt the book is that the real joy of reading it is the actual prose and the story isn't a huge concern. This does a decent job adapting the story, but that's not what makes the novel great.
Rated 05 Oct 2010
45
35th
The genius and beauty of the book were absolutely neutered by the old production code requirements, as well as the fact that a book based so significantly on internal narrative is difficult to translate to film. Peter Sellers manages to make up for that somewhat with his brilliant performances, and the film remains pretty good by most standards. Relative to Kubrick's other works, however, it's notably weak, both in terms of story and visual direction.
Rated 09 Feb 2007
4
74th
Aesthetic restraint and literary acuity belie grotesque perversion, just as the pretenses of decorum disguise darkest impulses. Pervaded with sex, the extent of which is unbelievable to have avoided censor, even in its relatively neutered adaptation. Its irony is deep and dark, a sense of ridiculous humor but a nervy and uncomfortable undertow. Marvelous performances, even if it tends to grind to a halt whenever Sellers is allowed to run off at the mouth. He's so good it hardly matters.
Rated 21 Jan 2020
84
79th
Didn't expect it to be so funny, I was laughing most of the time. The pitiful, tragic characters are performed wonderfully by everyone (okay Sellers is a bit much) and the 152 minute runtime seemed to fly by. But after skimming the reviews I suppose I need to actually read the book so I can come back here and be all like "it doesn't translate very well, misses the core of the novel, you motherfuckers were riiiight"
Rated 14 Aug 2007
90
72nd
Peter Sellers steals this movie
Rated 19 Feb 2009
7
57th
I liked the idea of Kubrick tackling this project, more than the end result. I just find his sweeping masterpieces more fulfilling and memorable. Lolita is by no means a bad film but it's probably my least favorite from Kubrick. When it comes to tackling real life situations, other directors came up with better pieces of work.
Rated 08 Sep 2012
85
93rd
Finally got around to seeing this. The fascinating part is that every dialogue oozes of great acting and dynamics, between Mason and Sellers and Mason and all the women, save for Lolita, oddly enough - though they both try their best and the girl is magnificently cast. Anyone who says that Kubrick has no grip of humanity and how people act should take a look at this.
Rated 05 Dec 2012
90
97th
The novel is brilliant, and this is a very strong adaptation by Kubrick. James Mason is really good in the film.
Rated 13 Dec 2006
94
94th
It contains the most innuendos I've ever seen in my life. Hilarious and disturbing at the same time. It succeeds in being truly uncomfortable without really showing anything, but hinting. For this, it is a work of genius. Peter Sellers!
Rated 27 Jun 2009
88
95th
A terrific array of personalities from neurotic to paranoid to self-obsessed and all played well. Kubrick out did himself on an extremely touchy subject and simply turned out some of the best acting that had ever been captured by film. I was so impressed by Mason, Sellers, and Winters and even by the writing itself that I am left with nothing to do except rave about how great this film was.
Rated 31 Oct 2009
52
58th
I've always considered Lolita to be an unfilmable novel, and this pretty much bears me out. The incredible language of the book is mostly lost, Sue Lyon is much too old for the film to feel as uncomfortable as it should, and Humbert is reduced from one of the most complex and awesome characters in literary history to just a lecherous old man. Of course, the film is done well, it's Kubrick after all, but it all feels a little pointless.
Rated 05 Jun 2010
87
87th
Strong writing and great performances deliver a film full of innuendo that balances drama and comedy while evoking sympathy, discomfort and a slew of other mixed reactions very well. It loses incisiveness in its second half, seemingly afraid to let anything be more than implied, but that doesn't prevent it from being a very captivating work.
Rated 04 Oct 2008
87
90th
Very disturbing but noentheless well done movie. Even today, or maybe all the more today, the topic is more current than ever.
Rated 04 Jun 2007
93
94th
Lolita is another great example as to why Kubrick is so controversial. A man by the name of Humbert, purposely marries a woman, just to get to her daughter. That is a strange topic even in todays standards. Even still, you can't help but laugh during Lolita. Especially when Peter Sellers comes into the picture. Sue Lyon did a fantastic job considering this was one of her first acting roles. Lolita is a weird one, but you know that if you mix weird, and Kubrick... you'll get a masterpiece.
Rated 13 May 2008
84
68th
Kubrick almost pulled this on off. I think, if he had made this twenty years later, it would be a masterpiece. Unfortunately, Sue Lyon is too old to effectively play Lolita, and they weren't allowed to end with Nabokov's depressing ending of Lolita dying in childbirth. James Mason is superb as Humbert, he had the right mix of charming and creepy. Also, Peter Sellers. He is simply fantastic. The cinematography works well, and the changes from the book did not bother me, other than the ending.
Rated 09 Sep 2012
40
22nd
To this day, the film remains of interest because of Mason and his voice, his tenderness and his folly. He does seem like a man of high learning. He does also seem profoundly in love. Kubrick is not often interested in ambiguity in his heroes, and I feel that Mason delivered things that are beyond his director. Sellers is grotesquely conceited and fussy in a role that needs dead simplicity. The decision to film in Britain - when Lolita is one of the great roaming tours of Americana - is demented
Rated 14 Feb 2007
75
50th
Good acting in a well done and quite subtle early effort from Kubrick, but it ends up being a tad unremarkable.
Rated 24 Jun 2011
58
54th
I can't believe I'm saying this, but Kubrick totally butchered the novel. Maybe I would have felt differently if I haven't read Nabakov's novel first, but this film has no depth; characters just do things but their motivations are unclear. There are plenty of humour in the book, but it never resigned to a slapstick. Some of the characters in the film are just caricatures. I'm probably the only one who found Sellers way too overacting. Do yourself a favour and read the novel instead.
Rated 14 Aug 2007
90
97th
Peter Sellers at his best, but Shelley Winters is probably even better. A superb film that is perhaps somewhat under-appreciated, possibly due to the compromises in terms of filming location and the revised age of the titular character.
Rated 08 Feb 2011
71
59th
It's fun to imagine how shocking this must've been back in the day. Too bad it seems quite tame now and even is a bit slow at times. I can imagine the novel being more interesting since the dialogue isn't really that gripping or memorable. And too bad about that weak epilogue, which feels like an earlier version of "Poochie died on his way back to his home planet". The highlight is definitely Sellers, giving a campy but delightful performance.
Rated 16 Feb 2007
65
73rd
Great film.
Rated 14 Aug 2007
100
98th
Ahead of its time & largely unappreciated to this day. Kubrick should be admired immensely for even attempting to make an adaptation of this book in the early 60s - & what he comes up with is quite an achievement. You know that the sly, droll tone will eventually be replaced by pure tragedy - & all you can do is wait for the other shoe to drop. James Mason, Shelley Winters & Peter Sellers are all brilliant. Sue Lyon is a revelation in the title role.
Rated 14 Aug 2007
89
57th
Considering the restrictions on Kubrick and Nabokov to tone down the sexual propensity of the novel, Lolita still manages to delight an audience (of today's generation no less). Note as usual Kubrick's keen attention to detail and ability to bring out the best in actors (even if it means belabouring them with expletives).
Rated 28 Mar 2008
60
47th
Kubrick's only disappointing film. What the hell's the point of having Peter Sellers do his schtick in here?
Rated 26 Sep 2011
95
97th
Not as good as the book - but magnificent.
Rated 12 Jul 2014
42
30th
Well, stupid me; I expected a good movie.
Rated 12 Jun 2018
65
42nd
This is a well-made film that is a bore. After Winters dies, and Humbert takes Lolita on a cross-country tour, it loses some of its dramatic weight. It's a let down since the novel is so rich. Alsom considering Nabokov a hand in writing the screenplay along with Kubrick directing, you think a better film would have been made. It may have been difficult considering the subject matter and the era, though.
Rated 13 Jul 2018
71
49th
LOLITA swerves between husky melodrama and pitch-black comedy, a portrait of a genteel child molester that also happens to feature a handful of wacky Peter Sellers personas. If you believe that humor comes from dissonance, then you will find it easier to accept the rather glib treatment of the film's controversial subject matter. A captivating experiment from a boundary-pushing cinematic provocateur.
Rated 03 Nov 2018
78
78th
You always see that tagline "How did they make a film of Lolita?" and I had that same thought after reading the book. Not because it's so controversial or anything, but because so many aspects of the story are lost on film, like Humbert's name being a pseudonym, and his unreliability as a narrator. Still, although some of those aspects don't translate, you couldn't ask for a better adapter than Kubrick.
Rated 25 Mar 2021
45
8th
The final film of Kubrick's unofficially official canon that I've seen for the first time. I never wanted to live this day, and it's not even with a bang, but a whimper.
Rated 01 Sep 2022
75
59th
Uncomfortable funny and, at times, quite flat. Still, the parts that hum with an odd dark humor are really gold. Sellars and Winters steal the show while James Mason is insufferable. While this likely the point, his incessant whining is grating by the film's end.
Rated 03 Aug 2009
85
88th
Another good example of the technique, the sensitivity and the unique style of Kubrick, in an engaging and intriguing story. Dark and sarcastic. Great movie.
Rated 03 Jan 2016
65
72nd
Definitely not of Kubrick's best films. Great performances and score. Too long however, with a few pointless scenes (ahem, the cot). Also suffers from the censorship. Still quite good.
Rated 30 Jun 2010
79
28th
Peter Sellers does here what he also did in Dr. Strangelove. The result in Strangelove is sheer brilliance. Here, I regret to report, not so much.
Rated 04 Sep 2012
61
36th
Even with its weirdness, it's almost too normal. It doesn't have the pop and uniqueness of Kubrick's other films...it felt like it could have been directed by any other talented filmmaker of the time and been about the same movie.
Rated 01 May 2016
67
42nd
Pretty terrible adaptation of one of the greatest novels ever written. The '97 version, while not perfect, is much better than this one was. Kubrick really should have never bothered with this after all the forced revisions, it's a wasted effort.
Rated 02 Mar 2008
74
58th
# 520
Rated 15 Jul 2012
86
68th
the better adaptation
Rated 21 Jul 2010
68
43rd
Sellers is the coolest dancer.
Rated 29 Jan 2010
80
62nd
While it's labeled a comedy, there isn't much humor in "Lolita". The movie works well enough as a drama, albeit one with a host of characters who aren't particularly likable. It has good performances all around, particularly from the leads- Mason, Sellers, Winters, and Lyon. Engaging, though a bit too long.
Rated 29 Aug 2012
70
36th
Does not capture the essence of the novel at all. Not as good as Kubrick's later works either. I did like the casting though, and it is a good and enjoyable movie in its own right.
Rated 05 Dec 2012
78
90th
"I'm really sorry that I cheated so much but I guess that's just the way things are." reminded me of "500 Days of Summer".
Rated 13 Aug 2010
50
39th
Confusingly abashed on its own turf. Well acted and shot.
Rated 28 Jan 2009
90
52nd
scandalous and right on.
Rated 01 Aug 2010
89
75th
The beginning of controversy meets every film for Kubrick. A daring topic, especially for its time, though it's always eloquently orchestrated. Even if Sellers feels out of his element here (I would humbly disagree), it's a fantastic, paranoid film from one of the greats.
Rated 05 Jun 2009
50
10th
I enjoyed the 1997 remake of this movie, starring Jeremy Irons, much better.
Rated 15 Jun 2009
95
88th
Incredible acting and direction.
Rated 16 Nov 2007
40
6th
Kubrick gives me a headache (*except the Killing and the Shining). Happy 61st birthday Sue Lyon.
Rated 01 Aug 2009
81
86th
It's Kubrick... watch it.
Rated 14 Aug 2007
40
10th
Kubrick's worst film. A great cast is poor compensation for a movie that couldn't have possibly existed in proper form in 1962.
Rated 05 Nov 2012
88
60th
87.500
Rated 29 Aug 2008
90
82nd
Worthy adaptation of one of the greatest books of all-time. Kubrick finds a great balance between being too horrific (especially for it's time) and still staying mostly true to the book.
Rated 17 Nov 2007
45
44th
worth a watch, but pretty twisted.
Rated 20 Jul 2009
90
88th
Longish at times, but simply rings to many of my bells for me not to like it.
Rated 20 Apr 2009
60
22nd
Good, but too light for such a dark book. Peter Sellers is excellent.
Rated 05 Sep 2010
8
82nd
Highly enjoyable film and it has an excellent pace. Would've enjoyed it more if it was more weird and bizarre but it was already genuinely pretty creepy. Sellers and Mason are both fantastic, with Sellers giving us a nice preview of Strangelove. Lolita Ya Ya is a pretty awesome song, in fact the whole soundtrack was spot on. Kubrick was always great with blending music and film though.
Rated 29 Jul 2011
95
55th
having read the novel it's too obvious that there are numerous differences. although the novel has to be one of the best written stories of all time, i must say the film is quite enjoyable. sue lyon is an ideal lolita, i don't think anyone could have done a better job. isolate the film from the book and you have a twisted love story with some irritating characters. i think the idea of it was quite ahead of it's time, and still is a tad controversial today.
Rated 11 Sep 2011
61
64th
Nowhere near as wrong as the book and for the most part feels like a light-hearted romp. Still pretty enjoyable to watch James Mason flounder for a couple of hours.
Rated 15 Mar 2014
65
53rd
A contemporary remake would surely show them fucking relentlessly, doing drugs, abusing animals or other shocking stuff. So, although i found it to be somewhat boring and pointless, at least it's a nice testament to how filmmaking (as well as society) has steadily broken down barriers in the last 50 years. a good question would be: where can we even go from here?
Rated 16 Nov 2017
6
31st
they messed up by putting the climax at the beginning of the film, then flashing back in time to the start of the events, so the movie ends on kind of a wet fart.
Rated 25 Jun 2009
5
80th
The ending just absolutely shatters me.
Rated 04 Jun 2010
55
56th
This movie is filled with some really dumb and cheap double entendres as well as really empty and dull performances that make it hard to get drawn in, especially since the script is really dull. The camp value is pretty high which, I thought, actually took away from the experience. Back then, I'm sure this was some pretty shocking shit. But nowadays, it's pretty much whatever. The idea of underaged relations is nothing to scoff at, but it's been in the public interest for years now.
Rated 10 Mar 2012
60
23rd
Similar to Kubrick's Full Metal Jacket, I felt the first half of this film was much more interesting. The first half was actually watchable. I think that is mostly due to Winters' performance, which was replaced in the 2nd half by Seller's odd performance which I personally felt was horrible. Overall, the film just isn't as interesting as Kubrick's better works like 2001 and The Shining.
Rated 01 Nov 2015
4
52nd
rewatch. peter sellers owned. unfortunately i didn't find much else all that interesting. the character shelly winters played was a crying, clinging stereotype. not really my thing.
Rated 14 Aug 2007
85
72nd
Hell of a movie, especially for 1962...James Mason got it exactly right...
Rated 30 May 2013
90
80th
It's not a stand out film from Kubrick (as everyone seems to proclaim) but that doesn't stop it from being brilliantly constructed with subtleties and an underlying darkness which still puts most other movies to shame. Ahead of its time and unique as hell, this is still yet another Kubrick classic.
Rated 29 Jul 2010
80
63rd
Light melodrama with a slight twist. On the plus side, Peter Sellers gave us a preview for Strangelove. A good movie, but one of Kubrick's weakest.
Rated 19 Oct 2010
75
84th
One of Kubrick's better movies. Despite the script's reputably subdued adaptation of the novel, and the film's age, Kubrick's version still feels daring and spicy. Despite the necessary loss of the novel's descriptive language in an un-narrated film, it appears to retain the sheen of the text, which is often humorously grotesque but consistently wise and astute. There is something hammy about James Mason, but Winters and Sellers give powerhouse performances.
Rated 21 Dec 2014
78
85th
The novel it's better, ok. But this is the greatest adaptation you can have.
Rated 16 Oct 2009
80
81st
Not quite what i expected, but a great film nonetheless.
Rated 13 Dec 2009
80
67th
Not the best Kubrick ever but still a good example of his capability.
Rated 25 Jul 2010
80
59th
It's a good movie, but my opinion is biased since I think it's insufficient compared to the god-level novel it's based on.
Rated 27 Aug 2010
72
65th
sellers steals the show
Rated 17 Sep 2011
90
79th
A sarcastic masterpiece by Stanley Kubrick. Sellers ist just amazing and the story written by Nabokov and Kubrick fits perfectly. "Lolita" answers the question: How far would someone go for his desire. Kubrick gives you the answer.
Rated 30 Nov 2011
74
48th
#530
Rated 25 Oct 2012
76
75th
* Casting, Acting : 8 * Script : 8 * Directing, Aura : 8 * Ease of Viewing : 6 * Naked Eye : 8
Rated 19 Dec 2008
77
54th
460
Rated 11 Feb 2009
80
60th
Excellent.
Rated 16 Jun 2013
65
61st
More a good effort by four great actors -- yep, Sue included -- than actually a great picture by Kubrick. It looks steamy, provocative, edgy whether you read or didn't read the book -- what matters here is the debate between art and passion, creativity and emotion; life is much stronger than any fiction. As a big fan of Sellers' performance in his next film with the director, I must say he stands out as the best thing in Lolita.
Rated 28 Nov 2010
81
31st
Really great film, but it doesn't compares to the original book.
Rated 22 Dec 2011
77
63rd
Peter Sellers steals this movie. The first scene in this movie is great. The rest of the movie doesn't really live up to the potential of the first scene. This is a good movie based on controversial subject matter.
Rated 11 Mar 2010
80
84th
Sue Lyon, Sellers, Winters and Mason are all great in this. This is probably Kubrick's most "conventional" film with none of the feel of his later masterpieces. The standout performance would have to be Sellers though who steals scenes but that's not to underrate Mason who depicts a hilariously pathetic obsessive man so convincingly. This is one of Kubrick's lighter films but it is still very intriguing and pretty maverick for its time.
Rated 20 Oct 2012
80
74th
There comes a point in Lolita where you forget that what's going on between the two main characters is frowned upon, making light of an incredibly uncomfortable premise. Not as forward as the book, so as to appease censors, obviously. Not the best Kubrick film, but even Kubrick on a bad day is amazing.
Rated 26 Feb 2007
89
90th
Only Stanley Kubrick could bring Nabokov's classic to life without completely destroying it. Though the movie pales in comparison to the book.
Rated 02 Aug 2010
90
88th
I actually 'appreciate' the subtle and alluded sexuality to this film. Made Humbert and Lolita's relationship even more pedophiliac and disturbing.
Rated 24 Feb 2007
80
78th
Not my favorite Kubrick, but it has a lot going for it, especially the incisive wit and great performances from Mason, Winters, and Sellers (who gets a little too wacky sometimes, but it's still enjoyable). It feels a little aimless once Humbert actually "has" Lola, but still solid work.
Rated 15 Nov 2008
50
56th
Meh, I prefered Twinky.
Rated 03 May 2010
92
89th
Lolita is pretty weird like all Kubrick's movies. All in all, you get absorbed into the strange story of Humbet's life. It's funny to some extant and it's a real pleasure to watch Sellers being so mean but so damn awesome in his role. It'a also a bit different from Nabokov's vision but it's also another perfect example why we love Kubrick so much.
Rated 23 Aug 2010
40
14th
Eh. Peter Sellers was the only thing I liked at all about this movie, but even he couldn't keep me from being bored and fighting off sleep. I really don't think it needed to be 2 and a half hours long, but it is Kubrick so I shouldn't have expected anything different. By the two hour mark I was ready for it to be over. I imagine they could get away with a lot more if the movie was made now, but I'm not convinced that would have made it better.
Rated 30 Oct 2014
87
60th
Quite decent movie as usually are the ones directed by Kubrick. I just watched, it is intriguing in every second but the final taste is really bitter. Be ready for studying the unmeasurable passion and surely it`s following pain.
Rated 27 Dec 2011
83
90th
Mason puts on a great, disgusting show, and Sue Lyon is heartbreaking. Winters and Sellers (practicing for Strangelove) keep things moving with some incredible, if short, roles.
Rated 12 Sep 2010
56
11th
Unlike most films, even ones made about sexual taboos, this suffers from being rather outdated and therefore a rather uninteresting study in this unusual relationship. Not a very good Stanley Kubrick film, but hell, it sounded like he wasn't very fond of this either. It should at least be noted that Kubrick went on to make nothing but masterpieces after this.
Rated 23 Jun 2016
83
86th
Uno di quei film che vanno visti, di un regista geniale. Ironico e disincantato, meglio addirittura del libro da cui è tratto.
Rated 14 Aug 2007
90
88th
What can I say, I loved it. It's that kind of movie that takes such a touchy subject and makes it into a civilized romantic comedy, and at the same time manages to say something that words just can't. Just brilliant.
Rated 12 Sep 2010
70
50th
I liked the comedic parts much more than the dramatic parts. I mean, taken on its own the movie is fairly strong, but it lacks the... care, or whatever Kubrick brought to his later films. I still haven't seen anything prior The Killing, but as of right now this is my least favourite of his films. That being said, the fact Kubrick is deservedly on such a high pedestal, and that nothing like this was going to be released until after 1968 makes this movie automatically worth watching.
Rated 14 May 2011
39
35th
Do Not. Just don't.
Rated 26 May 2014
94
93rd
Maybe Kubrick's most underrated film
Rated 18 Aug 2017
70
28th
Unlike the book, the movie doesn't limit Lolita's agency or perspective, and the script is forced to walk around more salacious details, two things which both dilute the essential themes and problematize some aspects of the source material. It wouldn't be a problem if the film didn't try to do right by Nobokov, whose contributions are mostly sifted out anyway, but as is, it's a tame take that seems to misunderstand the material. Snappy dialogue and strong offbeat comedy hold it together.

Collections

(60)
Compact view
Showing 1 - 24 of 60 results

Similar Titles

Loading ...

Statistics

Loading ...