As usual, I received my purchase way ahead of the time I was supposed to get it. It was in excellent condition and that is why I shop Amazon.com all the time.

"Lolita" is a true classic of film history, created by arguably the greatest filmmaker of all time. The quality of the movie and the quality of the cast are evident in every frame of the film. A top-notch cast includes James Mason, Shelley Winters, and Peter Sellers, and they make the movie unforgettable. Not to mention, the title character, Sue Lyon, who makes you love to hate her!
The only regret is that Kubrick was so influenced by the controversy surrounding the production of the film that much, much, MUCH of the original novel was dumbed down. Including the age of Lolita (much younger in the book) and the general relationship between Humbert and Lolita is left very much ambiguous, even though it's strongly implied.
But these modifications do not touch the quality of the film and the end result, which leaves you wanting more.

Lolita (Stanley Kubrick, 1962)

[note: I swear I originally reviewed Lolita back in 1989, and did so again early in the last decade. However, I cannot find a trace of either review anywhere. And thus I review it for a third time. Apologies if all this sounds familiar. That's because it probably is.

I was never a Kubrick fan in my younger days. Granted, when you're a teenager, your critical skills are somewhat impaired, but I always thought Full Metal Jacket, after its wonderful first forty-five minutes, wandered off into utter pointlessness, Dr. Strangelove was weirdly absent of humor for such a revered movie, and 2001 was... well, then. In any case, all that lasted until the first time I saw Lolita back in the late eighties (on a double bill with FMJ). There's a scene about halfway through the film where Humbert (James Mason) and Quilty (Peter Sellers) meet for the first time in a bar. Looking back on it from a post-1995 standpoint, I'm surprised it didn't generate all the excitement of Pacino and DeNiro meeting for the first time in Heat. As for the actual execution, Kubrick's scene blows Mann's right out of the water; Mason, who otherwise overacts through most of the film, is the picture of a guilty conscience, while Sellers is an incredible combination of slapstick and menace. Lolita quickly became my favorite Kubrick film, and remained such for almost twenty years (it was recently surpassed by Paths of Glory). That said, as an adaptation of Vladimir Nabokov's novel, it must be considered an utter failure; part of the mass of idiosyncrasy that was Stanley Kubrick is that his ability to faithfully adapt pretty much anything was subsumed in his consciousness by his desire to make the source material fit into his views both of what filmmaking should be and what social statement he was attempting to make with the movie. (And as a result, according to IMDB, while Nabokov liked the finished film, he wondered why he'd spent the time adapting his novel, since so little of his screenplay was actually used.) There are movies, however, that demand to be looked at as separate works than those that inspired them. Consider the case of Tobe Hooper's adaptations of Robert Bloch's Psycho (which became The Texas Chain Saw Massacre) and Stephen King's 'Salem's Lot. As adaptations, they just plain suck, but as free-standing films, The Texas Chain Saw Massacre has become one of the most respected horror movies of all time, and 'Salem's Lot is a monstrously entertaining exercise in cheese. Such it is with Lolita, a bad adaptation but an excellent film.

For those who don't know the plot (how could you not? but I digress), European professor Humbert Humbert, recently divorced, heads off to America to take a teaching position at a small liberal arts college in Ohio. Beforehand, he spends the summer in a resort town in New Hampshire. While looking for lodgings, he meets the irrepressible Charlotte Haze (Shelley Winters) and her stepdaughter Lolita (Sue Lyon). Humbert instantly falls for the nymphet and takes a room at the Haze's place; soon, he will go as far as marrying the mother in order to stay close to the daughter. The film really begins, however, when Charlotte finds out about Humbert's obsession with Lolita and confronts him, never realizing that the other guy she pursued after her husband's death, Claire Quilty (Sellers), is also obsessed with her darling daughter...

While elements of black humor had pervaded Kubrick's films before (The Killing is a masterpiece of subtle black comedy, as many of the best noir films are), Lolita was his first attempt at making an out-and-out comedy, and in that regard, it works very well. That's another of the big differences between novel and movie; Nabokov was much more subtle in his humor than Kubrick, who widened and whitened it a great deal here (viz. the cot scene, which could have come out of a Laurel and Hardy flick, or Sellers' penchant for silly accents). Humbert Humbert comes off far less a slave to his obsessions than he does a guy who's feeling put upon by society's silly rules, but once again, if you don't look at it as an adaptation, that's not necessarily a bad thing (and those who would jump to castigate Kubrick for considering the rules Humbert's chafing at "silly" might do well to remember Kubrick addressed the same basic theme in Paths of Glory, with much the same outcome; it brings Kubrick's satire of Humbert's outlook into much sharper focus). Mason does tend to overact his part; no one with eyes and ears could fail to notice Humbert's guilty conscience, though pretty much everyone else in the movie, save one nosy neighbor (and Quilty, in the spirit of like-knows-like), does exactly that. Sellers, too, is guilty of a great deal of overacting here as well, but (a) everyone expected that anyway, and (b) in his case, it was all for comic relief.

The real surprise here is Sue Lyon, at the beginning of a very brief film career (in which she often played this sort of temptress, viz. Night of the Iguana or Autopsy, romancing Richard Burton and Fernando Rey respectively). During the first half of the film, Lolita herself is an almost unseen character save that first glimpse Humbert gets of her; it's only in the second half of the film that Lolita becomes a character in her own right, and that was exactly the right choice of Kubrick to make in this situation. Humbert seems almost as shocked as the audience that Lolita isn't a cardboard cutout (or, maybe more to the point, a blow-up doll), and it's that transformation that gives much of the second half of the movie the power it has. I grant you, once she does become a three-dimensional character, Lolita heads straight into typical-teenager territory (at least, typical teenager territory for the early sixties), but still.

There will be people who just can't get past the subject matter, despite the fact that Kubrick really soft-pedals it (Lolita's age is raised three years and only the barest hints are dropped about intimate activity); if you are one of those people, then you should avoid this. For everyone else it's a must-see. ****

An earlier Kubrick work. Certainly not his best. Very similar to Eyes Wide Shut, but much better, thematically and visually. A must have for any fan of Kubrick.

Let me start by saying that I am not a professional movie crictic or writer, this may not be as "piquantly" written as some reviews on here, but I am an avid reader of literature, and relatively bright.
I've read Nabakov's book Lolita, as well as seen the 1997 version of Lolita and the 1962 version. I think I've gotten the full view and scope of things, so to speak. I must, with heavy heart, tell you honestly, that this movie was a huge let down. The charaters were very one dimensional and almost cookie cutter. There was a complete lack of any of the emotional turmoil Humbert suffered, as in the book. This movie felt like it was made JUST to be made. Not heartfelt. Lacked insight into any of the characters. Poor chemistry. Certain scenes from the book were either changed completely, or the most annoying, was they were followed thru up to a point, THEN changed. Very frustrating. There was NO sexual relations between Humbert and Lo. Ok, I understand that it was taboo back then and some stuff had to be sensored. But nothing sexual happened. At ALL! Thats what the book was aBOUT. A pre-teen girl having sex with a much older man. It was only even HINTED at very few times. Why did he bother making this kind of movie if the entire thing had to be sensored? All subtle nuances of love, of first touchings, of Humbert's past were absent. Even an explanation of WHY Humbert was like this in the first place was missing!
Lo, in the novel was a plain girl. A girl attractive enough, but definately able to be overlooked. Its important to remember this, for nymphets arent necessarily pretty, but possess a certain aire and charm about them. Sue Lyon was beautiful and much older looking than 12 but possessed nothing nymphet or innocent at all. Much OLDER acting than 12. The whole atmosphere was thrown off by this. High heels? Um, not for Lo! But they were worn here.
"Lolita". Another thing... Lolita was a pet name given to Lo by Humbert. Only by him, but no, in this version, EVERYONE was calling her "Lolita". Even her MOTHER! (I wonder what lurid info mamma had).
The mad Quilty was at most a silly nusance here. Not the menacing, forboding quiet giant of the novel. Just laughable. Why she even would be attracted to him in the first place from this version, I'm utterly perplexed.
I must say, watch the 1997 version staring Jeremy Irons. It was lush and warm,beautiful and atmospheric, full of subtlties and true character insight. Dominique Swain captured the true essence of a nymphet. Charming, bratty, innocent, but not at all innocent, in sneakers sucking a jawbreaker.I almost cried at the end of that movie there was so much emotion. You actually feel BAD for him that he cant be with his step-daughter. Sick, yes, but it follows the novel expertly. I'm sorry I was so hard on this movie, but Kubrik was hard on the book. I give it a D+.