Lolita

SHE WAS 14??!!!? WTF That man was sick as hell...

Before I saw this movie for the first time, I assumed it would be a very dark drama about some pretty messed up shit. Instead, it is a very hilarious drama about some pretty messed up shit. The fact that they couldn't be blatant about their jokes makes them even funnier. I probably didn't catch them all the first time, or even this time maybe. Repeat viewing is worth it here for sure.

Not to mention that all the actors are great in this. I can't even believe that Lolita is played by an actual 14 year old. She makes the role perfect and somehow doesn't look bad next to James Mason or Peter Sellers. By the end of the movie, you really start getting into the seriousness of what is going on, while still having the jokes here and there. And somehow they make you sorta sympathizes with a terribly awful relationship.

My only negative is that they run it a bit too long. It feels like we take a long time to get to the end, but then suddenly jump forward years in one scene. Yet, for some reason we don't get the feeling that time has jumped. Don't get me wrong though, there isn't a scene that I think is bad in here. I think you should make sure you see this one for sure.

Best to watch with friends, but not parents or something. That'd be weird.

This is a really messed up story. It's a little too long and the timeline can be a little confusing at one point. Sue Lyon is really good and I'm shocked to find out she was only 14 when they filmed this. James Mason is great too. I liked the music in this a lot.

I've never felt so tired after watching a movie. It's way too long for a film like this and definitely drags at the end. It was cool to see Peter Sellers make an appearance and he did a great job as always. As for the other performances, they're average. Some conversations felt borderline creepy but I think that's what Kubrick wanted the audience to think because James Mason's character is a really messed up person. I found the first half of the film to be creepy but somewhat comedic in some scenes. And it really works. The second half definitely dips in quality as I already wanted it to be over. The length is my only real complaint. I can handle long movies, but this one simply didn't need to be long.

Kubrick manages to tell the inherently slippery story of Lolita without a single nude scene, which would have been the easy way to make the movie more attractive.
It is though, in general, not required, as the story and the acting are excellent and entertaining as is.
I just believe that mainly the scenes with Peter Sellers are mostly overacted to the point where they break the general vibe of the movie. This is though not enough to really harm the movie, which is still excellent entertainment after more than 60 years.

Good movie that’s funny kind of tongue in cheek..... Great performances by all

Too gaudy, and not gaudy enough.

I haven't read the book, and I feel like my review would probably change if I had. But my takeaway from this rewatch of Lolita is just how incredibly funny it is throughout, especially in the first half. Mason and Winters are wonderfully awkward and Lyon gives a beautiful (and unnervingly) mature performance. Then there's Peter Sellers, who steals the picture in every scene he's in.
All that said, I'm not quite sure what the point of it all was, and the movie never feels like it justifies its existence. The second half sort of fizzles out and culminates in a pretty odd ending--and I'm definitely not sure what was going on with the Quilty subplot. I suspect the adaptation process was a difficult one, and it certainly comes through in the final product.

I put off watching Kubrick's _Lolita_ for a long time, because the 1997 version is one of my favorite movies, and I was sure an adaptation from 1962 could never measure up, and I was right. I've also read the novel, but that was ages ago.
So, Lolita is one of the most notorious books ever written, and it would be impossible to ever make a faithful adaptation - unless you want to pull a Larry Clark, and find a country were it's legal.
Anyway! Not going into that.
The real problem with this movie is exactly what one would expect: how do you make a movie about a middle-aged man who is sexually involved with a young teen (in the movie, Sue Lyon was sixteen, but in the book, Lolita is twelve)? Well, you tiptoe around what is actually going on.
What occurred to me while watching this was if someone knew nothing about the story before seeing this, they'd think this was simply about an overprotective stepfather with a somewhat rebellious little girl. It's not until the third act that the dialog dared to become more bold, while still shying away from saying, "look, these two were having sex."
All that aside, the movie is far too slow and boring. The beginning is good, and so is the end, but the bulk is a total slog.
I wouldn't be able to write a review for this without talking about the superiority of the 1997 version. Unlike this one, the 1997 film makes no mystery about the relationship between Lolita, and Humbert. It doesn't have to undercut the seriousness of the story with out-of-place comedy, either.
While I think James Mason was good, Jeremy Irons is better. Dominique Swain (fifteen at the time) is leaps and bounds better than Sue Lyon was.
Finally: This one was a disappointment, a product of its time, and one I will never watch again. At least I can say that I've seen it.

Boring ahh movie got me 3 days to finish it.