Watch
Lolita

Lolita

1962
Romance
Comedy
2h 33m
Your probable score
Avg Percentile 61.36% from 3814 total ratings

Ratings & Reviews

(3814)
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 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 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 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 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 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 16 Feb 2007
65
73rd
Great film.
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 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
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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 Jul 2014
42
30th
Well, stupid me; I expected a good movie.
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 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 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 26 Sep 2011
95
97th
Not as good as the book - but magnificent.
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 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 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 16 Mar 2021
72
61st
Far from Kubrick's best, but it's still good. I felt a bit uncomfortable throughout the film, a similar feelings I had when I read the novel of the same name.
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 14 Aug 2007
85
72nd
Hell of a movie, especially for 1962...James Mason got it exactly right...
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 03 Dec 2014
75
60th
(2nd viewing, 1st:80)
Rated 16 Nov 2007
40
6th
Kubrick gives me a headache (*except the Killing and the Shining). Happy 61st birthday Sue Lyon.
Rated 17 Nov 2007
45
44th
worth a watch, but pretty twisted.
Rated 20 Feb 2008
74
48th
By far my least favorite Kubrick, but still worth watching.
Rated 02 Mar 2008
74
58th
# 520
Rated 08 Mar 2008
83
84th
A bit disgusting, but also incredibly forward in its time.
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 15 Nov 2008
50
56th
Meh, I prefered Twinky.
Rated 19 Dec 2008
77
54th
460
Rated 03 Jan 2009
80
40th
While it never quite picks up after Shelley Winters leaves, it's still fairly entertaining.
Rated 21 Dec 2014
78
85th
The novel it's better, ok. But this is the greatest adaptation you can have.
Rated 25 Feb 2009
8
78th
The movie doesn't quite capture the emotional arc of the book, but the comedy of Peter Sellers goes a long way to making up for that.
Rated 20 Apr 2009
60
22nd
Good, but too light for such a dark book. Peter Sellers is excellent.
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 01 Aug 2009
81
86th
It's Kubrick... watch it.
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 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 16 Oct 2009
80
81st
Not quite what i expected, but a great film nonetheless.
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 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 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 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 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 2020
77
70th
76.9
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 26 May 2014
94
93rd
Maybe Kubrick's most underrated film
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 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 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 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 26 Apr 2024
30
8th
Even aside from being incredibly gross and off-putting in terms of its subject matter, this movie is dull, uninteresting, unfunny, and way too long. Easily my least favourite Kubrick. (I'll add that I haven't read Nabokov's novel and don't plan to, so I don't really care about this film's strengths or weaknesses as an adaptation)
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.
Rated 22 Mar 2014
80
80th
I'll admit I've never read the book, but all of the complaints I've read about what's lost in the adaptation of Lolita sound like people complaining about changes that might've even made it more interesting. Humbert is more sympathetic in this version which I think would change absolutely everything in getting connected to the complex controversy here. Most of the movie is sardonic and funny, but approaching the end it becomes incredibly uncomfortable. Better than Strangelove. I said it, folks.
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
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 15 Sep 2010
78
80th
Disturbing story, but enjoyable nevertheless. Too bad Humbert's obsession eventually gets a bit annoying.
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 14 Nov 2019
89
79th
Definitely one of Kubrick's better films. It's a great adaptation. The novel freaks me out, but the film makes it easier to digest without compromising anything.
Rated 20 Dec 2016
60
39th
Peter Sellers is great, but James Mason's character feels a dumb cliche that you never really get to see beyond.
Rated 15 Mar 2014
65
54th
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 30 Dec 2010
81
91st
Nice Movie
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 14 May 2011
39
35th
Do Not. Just don't.
Rated 22 Apr 2021
55
70th
It's a well-made movie that shares the protagonist's creepy obsession authentically. That said, it's made up of unlikeable characters and wearisome to watch.
Rated 26 Nov 2016
70
60th
Sugar coated Lolita Adaptation.
Rated 04 Jul 2013
40
54th
Really not sure what I'd think of this now.
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 22 Dec 2011
77
64th
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 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 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 01 Oct 2018
86
87th
85.50
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 15 Jul 2012
86
68th
the better adaptation
Rated 21 Aug 2012
79
74th
Stricken by censorship but still a joy to watch.
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 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 14 Jun 2021
80
74th
Sure, "The book is always better", but in the case of Lolita I think the film is perfectly good in its own right. I'd just recommend leaving a little space between the two, because if you watch this movie right after the book (like I did) you can't help but regret all the plot details, excursions and character insights that are missing in the adaptation.
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 26 Oct 2012
90
50th
89.500
Rated 05 Nov 2012
88
60th
87.500

Collections

Loading ...

Similar Titles

Loading ...

Statistics

Loading ...

Trailer

Loading ...