Review of Lolita (1962) by Mark B — 08 Jan 2010

While the subject matter of "Lolita" is uncomfortably interesting, and laced with wonderful performances, this is not one of Stanley Kubrik's best works. Still, much like the esteemed novel, it is thought provoking and, at times, very entertaining. There are a respectable number of captivating moments that, sadly, are strung together in an awkward and unsatisfying fashion.

For those uninitiated on "Lolita", be forewarned. Directed by Kubrik, and based on Vladimir Nabokov's novel, the basic idea here is, a middle aged man becomes obsessed with a pretty, precocious, 12-year old girl. In the film, sexual acts are suggested but not shown. But do not make the common mistake of condemning, or accepting, this film as glorified pornography. There is useful moral instruction presented here for those who are so inclined. Hopefully, the average viewer will find the concepts here stimulating, but not titillating.

James Mason is perfect as our lead, Humbert Humbert, Sue Lyon plays Lolita perfectly. She is at times an utter child, and yet other times she possesses an all-knowing, worldly sexual presence. Shelley Winters stars as the grating landlady and would-be wife.

There are moments in Lolita that will likely be etched in your mind forever. But there are too many scenes that come off rather awkward. Winters' character is meant to be annoying, and she might have been too successful for my liking. And Peter Sellers plays an odd duck of a character that I never quite understood.

"Lolita" is considered one of the greatest novels of the 20th century, and Kubrik is clearly one of the great directors of film. Because of these two facts, I recommend you see this film. Or maybe just read the book.