sign in
register
Watch
Apple TV Google Play Movies Vudu
+5
Lolita
Apple TV Google Play Movies Vudu
+5
JustWatch
Remove ads

Lolita

1962
Romance
Comedy
2h 33m
A middle-aged novelist falls in love with a 16-year-old girl.
Directed by:
Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick
Written by:
Stanley Kubrick Stanley Kubrick Vladimir Nabokov Vladimir Nabokov
+1 more
Starring:
Shirley Douglas Peter Sellers Peter Sellers Shelley Winters Shelley Winters James Mason James Mason Sue Lyon Sue Lyon Gary Cockrell Jerry Stovin Diana Decker Lois Maxwell Lois Maxwell Marion Mathie
More
Franchise:
Lolita
Genres:
Romance, Comedy, Drama
Countries:
UK, USA
Languages:
English, Spanish, French, German
imdb More information at IMDb
See title update history
Suggest an edit
Show Less
Your probable score
?

Lolita

1962
Romance
Comedy
2h 33m
Your probable score
Ratings & Reviews Cast Collections Similar Stats Trailer
Avg Percentile 61.36% from 3806 total ratings
Ratings & Reviews Cast Collections Similar Stats Trailer

Ratings & Reviews

(3806)
Compact view
clear
Compact view
Show
Sort
billyshearsBillyShears
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 08 Sep 2020
martintellerMartinTeller
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 14 Aug 2007
purgatospurgatos
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 09 May 2008
mwgerbmwgerb
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 05 Oct 2010
hawkinsHawkins
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 21 Jan 2020
nathan_sNathan S
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 09 Feb 2007
cinematicespCinematicESP
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 13 Dec 2006
fredericg54frederic_g54
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 19 Feb 2009
kasperlKasperL
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 05 Dec 2012
baggerBagger
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 08 Sep 2012
willofgaiawillofgaia
Rated 14 Aug 2007
90
72nd
Peter Sellers steals this movie
Rated 14 Aug 2007
getmoneygetmoney
Rated 26 Sep 2011
95
97th
Not as good as the book - but magnificent.
Rated 26 Sep 2011
peaceanarchyPeaceAnarchy
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 05 Jun 2010
luna6ixLuna6ix
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 27 Jun 2009
catscandalCatScandal
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 31 Oct 2009
farzanFarzan
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 04 Jun 2007
twincinematwincinema
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 12 Jun 2018
djrossdjross
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 14 Aug 2007
stainStain
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 28 Mar 2008
tathieltathiel
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 Oct 2008
feraudFeraud
Rated 12 Jul 2014
42
30th
Well, stupid me; I expected a good movie.
Rated 12 Jul 2014
sapphireSapphire
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
troothTrooth
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 03 Nov 2018
barthalenBarthalen
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 08 Feb 2011
chemical404chemical404
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 24 Jun 2011
magbMagb
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 14 Feb 2007
thedicemanTheDiceman
Rated 16 Feb 2007
65
73rd
Great film.
Rated 16 Feb 2007
ericamblerericambler
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 13 Jul 2018
gnalkhereGnalkhere
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 25 Mar 2021
davidthomsonDavidThomson
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 09 Sep 2012
onelaOnela
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 14 Aug 2007
obso1337meObso1337me
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 13 May 2008
wwallce4prezWWallce4prez
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 01 Sep 2022
h34H34
Rated 28 Nov 2010
81
31st
Really great film, but it doesn't compares to the original book.
Rated 28 Nov 2010
marc01marc01
Rated 11 Feb 2009
80
60th
Excellent.
Rated 11 Feb 2009
tsvetetsvete
Rated 21 Nov 2016
89
56th
1
Rated 21 Nov 2016
peyrinpeyrin
Rated 02 Sep 2018
60
32nd
Parts of it indulge in too much melodrama and get too stuck in outdated patriarchal standards to really get to the heart of what makes this story so twisted, but the scenes where the father-daughter power structure is explored come close. Also, having seen Dr. Strangelove first I didn't realize Peter Sellers was actually playing one character this time, but I suppose I can't hold that against the film.
Rated 02 Sep 2018
rufamRufam
Rated 15 Jan 2011
75
72nd
Flawless visually and perfectly engrossing, "Lolita" is nevertheless a middlebrow early offering from Kubrick, nowhere as daring and revolutionary as his later masterpieces, but still managing to stand well on its own, serving as an enjoyable sex dramedy about obsession. The always delightful Peter Sellers is a standout as a wacky screenwriter, whilst Mason and Lyon are also solid in the leading parts. Overall, it's entertaining but merely a tease for the director's triumphs that would follow.
Rated 15 Jan 2011
walkearthwalkearth
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 03 Jan 2016
telf58telf58
Rated 20 Apr 2009
60
22nd
Good, but too light for such a dark book. Peter Sellers is excellent.
Rated 20 Apr 2009
darkmandarkman
Rated 16 Oct 2009
80
81st
Not quite what i expected, but a great film nonetheless.
Rated 16 Oct 2009
joojooJooJoo
Rated 25 Jun 2009
5
80th
The ending just absolutely shatters me.
Rated 25 Jun 2009
sopachuco13sopachuco13
Rated 09 Mar 2019
100
96th
Lolita was a perfect movie. It kept me guessing about the plot throughout the movie. The foreshadowing scene at the beginning of the movie was good bait, it made the audience believe that they had everything figured out but at every turn Kubrick places another wall up to move the story in a different direction. There were moments I was cheering for the writer and his disgusting relationship with Lolita but, in the end, I found a great deal of sadness for all of the characters Lolita included.
Rated 09 Mar 2019
michaelhash2michaelhash2
Rated 05 Nov 2012
88
60th
87.500
Rated 05 Nov 2012
susie_mauvesusie-mauve
Rated 15 Jul 2012
86
68th
the better adaptation
Rated 15 Jul 2012
jodamicojodamico
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 27 Dec 2011
solomonburrrSolomonBurrr
Rated 10 Mar 2020
77
70th
76.9
Rated 10 Mar 2020
harmonicaHarmonica
Rated 22 Jun 2020
82
74th
Love Actually. Quality oddball rom-com and quietly one of Kubrick's best films. Either a great or terrible adap depending on who you ask, but hey you can enjoy both the book or movie (or not) completely separately.
Rated 22 Jun 2020
dziekieldziekiel
Rated 28 Jan 2009
90
52nd
scandalous and right on.
Rated 28 Jan 2009
anomalyAnomaly
Rated 05 Dec 2020
79
72nd
Not one of Kubrick's bests, as the editing and pacing generally feel a bit discombobulated, though sometimes they cohere very nicely. But the humor and wit is more than enough to keep things afloat, and it builds to a powerful conclusion. The cast all does a great job embodying their character's tragic neuroticism, though Sellers goes a bit overboard with the camp. I also feel the censorship-induced reliance on subtext actually heightens the emotion, by forcing more of a subtextual investment.
Rated 05 Dec 2020
overratedoverrated
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 11 Sep 2011
neonmanNeonman
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 12 Sep 2010
theyshoot07theyshoot07
Rated 02 Mar 2008
74
58th
# 520
Rated 02 Mar 2008
future42future42
Rated 24 Apr 2023
25
19th
Expected a lot better film. The humor almost entirely fell flat for me, too long, and just not that interesting.
Rated 24 Apr 2023
kavuKavu
Rated 29 Dec 2011
80
69th
The three leads are all great and Kubrick directs with class. A bit dragging at times.
Rated 29 Dec 2011
greggergregger
Rated 14 Oct 2009
78
71st
One of the undeservedly underrated James Mason's finest performances. Not to mention the always wonderful, Peter Sellers and Shelly Winters. Fine casting in a flawed film, but still well worth seeing and timely material in these days of the Roman Polanski debacle.
Rated 14 Oct 2009
rickickerrickicker
Rated 20 Jan 2013
79
53rd
More of a framework for Kubrick and his actors to do wonderful things than an actual adaptation. Then again, does anyone really *want* a straight adaptation of Lolita?
Rated 20 Jan 2013
dmcrimsonDMCrimson
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 25 Jul 2010
pyrosexualpyrosexual
Rated 26 May 2014
94
93rd
Maybe Kubrick's most underrated film
Rated 26 May 2014
backwardsuitbackwardsuit
Rated 12 Nov 2014
84
89th
So creepy and so messed up on so many psychological levels (most of them wonderfully implicit) yet it retains a certain tragicomic elegance that somehow keeps it from turning into complete camp farce. The acting carries this perhaps more than with any other Kubrick film. A bit too slow for its own good in parts maybe.
Rated 12 Nov 2014
pratchett3Pratchett3
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 16 Nov 2017
bookhouseboybookhouseboy
Rated 16 Jan 2023
45
57th
#23#, re3, rw2, "Project 100-80-60-40-20"-1962#2, oldies(2) }*{ #90s#, story, ratings.
Rated 16 Jan 2023
velvet_croweVelvet Crowe
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 04 Jun 2010
akjnakjn
Rated 08 Mar 2019
75
66th
kubrick'in filmografisinde olmayabilirdi ve neden bu kadar uzun oldugunu anlamadim. kadın erkek iliskisi, ask karsısında insanın acizligini, mantiksizligini göstermesi acisindan derinlikli bir icerik oldugu söylenebilir
Rated 08 Mar 2019
braddad68braddad68
Rated 10 Jul 2018
92
65th
Controversial movie but good performances by James Mason, Peter Sellers, Shelley Winters and Sue Lyons (Lolita).
Rated 10 Jul 2018
jdm123JDM123
Rated 09 Jun 2019
98
67th
It's Kubrick, which usually means a perfect score, but it's probably my least favorite of the films that he was in complete control of.
Rated 09 Jun 2019
chr1sCHR1S
Rated 15 Sep 2010
78
80th
Disturbing story, but enjoyable nevertheless. Too bad Humbert's obsession eventually gets a bit annoying.
Rated 15 Sep 2010
lexlex
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 30 May 2013
derekstarDerekstar
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 12 Sep 2010
colbycolby
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 29 Jul 2011
liliroseLilirose
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 23 Jun 2016
stepsidewaysstepsideways
Rated 16 Nov 2007
40
6th
Kubrick gives me a headache (*except the Killing and the Shining). Happy 61st birthday Sue Lyon.
Rated 16 Nov 2007
ceekay19Ceekay19
Rated 13 Nov 2018
70
53rd
Humbert Humbert: "What drives me insane is the twofold nature of this nymphet, of every nymphet perhaps, this mixture in my Lolita of tender, dreamy childishness and a kind of eerie vulgarity. I know it is madness to keep this journal, but it gives me a strange thrill to do so. And only a loving wife could decipher my microscopic script."
Rated 13 Nov 2018
redactedredacted
Rated 21 Jul 2010
68
43rd
Sellers is the coolest dancer.
Rated 21 Jul 2010
gokcanzgokcanz
Rated 25 Oct 2012
76
75th
* Casting, Acting : 8 * Script : 8 * Directing, Aura : 8 * Ease of Viewing : 6 * Naked Eye : 8
Rated 25 Oct 2012
lintonmyroxylintonmyroxy
Rated 16 Jul 2020
84
46th
I like Sellers in Strangelove but here I found him exhausting. Maybe I was in a bad mood
Rated 16 Jul 2020
slackerishslackerish
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 14 Aug 2007
semitozgesemitozge
Rated 26 Nov 2016
70
60th
Sugar coated Lolita Adaptation.
Rated 26 Nov 2016
luckyjordnluckyjordn
Rated 01 Nov 2009
73
48th
Understated and fascinating. It never really climaxes though. Pun intended.
Rated 01 Nov 2009
theyshoot08theyshoot08
Rated 19 Dec 2008
77
54th
460
Rated 19 Dec 2008
iconoclastIconoclast
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 01 May 2016
filliganFilligan
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 01 Aug 2010
3drevelation3dRevelation
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 10 Mar 2012
hsncrspywlhsncrspywl
Rated 05 Dec 2014
57
24th
Kubrick does parts of this well, especially if you view it as a (unfortunately but understandably) neutered dark comedy - but it's just a bit long, and the style and look of the film just isn't as well developed as things Kubrick would go on to do (and even in his earlier work, too). Rubbish pacing as well.
Rated 05 Dec 2014
stanthecaddystanthecaddy
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 Jan 2010
michaelhashMichaelhash
Rated 26 Oct 2012
90
50th
89.500
Rated 26 Oct 2012
dividedivide
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 Jul 2009
mattorama12mattorama12
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 04 Sep 2012
cultofsamecult_of_same
Rated 15 Nov 2008
50
56th
Meh, I prefered Twinky.
Rated 15 Nov 2008
uksubsUKSubs
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 26 Feb 2007
napolenbradynapolenbrady
Rated 14 Mar 2019
90
77th
89.50
Rated 14 Mar 2019
wayofthegunwayofthegun
Rated 19 May 2012
70
40th
Not one of my favorite Kubricks, but well-made and good acting.
Rated 19 May 2012
glm01glm01
Rated 01 Oct 2018
86
87th
85.50
Rated 01 Oct 2018
sirstuckeySirStuckey
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 23 Aug 2010
akatemossfanAKateMossFan
Rated 17 Jul 2021
50
74th
armilioArmilio
Rated 21 Dec 2014
78
85th
The novel it's better, ok. But this is the greatest adaptation you can have.
Rated 21 Dec 2014
evolutionEvolution
Rated 20 Feb 2008
74
48th
By far my least favorite Kubrick, but still worth watching.
Rated 20 Feb 2008
ytadelYtadel
Rated 22 Mar 2023
6
70th
Quite strange and hard to interpret, but certainly not boring either - an achievement in and of itself for a 60 year old 2 1/2-hour black and white movie. Nothing about the filmmaking would make you think that this is the future director of 2001 / The Shining / Eyes Wide Shut etc., but the performances are very good, and the main character a fascinatingly dark and bizarre figure. The more broadly comedic Sellers bits and the sometimes cheesy Mickey Mousing musical score threw things off for me.
Rated 22 Mar 2023
lookinglandLookingLand
Rated 17 Nov 2007
45
44th
worth a watch, but pretty twisted.
Rated 17 Nov 2007
cinemaveriteCinemaVerite
Rated 08 Mar 2008
83
84th
A bit disgusting, but also incredibly forward in its time.
Rated 08 Mar 2008

Collections

Loading ...

Similar Titles

Loading ...

Statistics

Loading ...

Trailer

Loading ...