Movies-TV

Delightful Details

Upon having just viewed "Lolita" several times in a row after hearing so much about it (and admittedly knowing NOTHING of Kubrick's work, except that he did "2001"), I must say I was thoroughly delighted and amused at what I thought would be a darkly sinister motion picture.Nabokov, the screenplay, and all controversy aside, I was immediately shocked, in the same way I am shocked by seeing any older film or TV re-run and hearing a dirty word or insinuation, by the opening title page of the man's hand delicately applying nail polish to a female foot. I was instantly giggling at the trying to be oh-so-European attitude of the fantastic Shelley Winters, showing potential-boarder Humbert about the house, waving about her cigarette holder, trying to affect a sparkling laugh out of nowhere, and the fact that in spite of her efforts she ruins it all when she refers to "the Colored Girl" who they are "lucky to have come in." Winters is perfectly batty, especially at a dance while feeding on a hot-dog and trying again to charm gentlemen, all the while mentioning unsightly details about her daughter ("she's having a cavity filled this Wednesday!")The visuals are delightful as well - the period clothes, and the music score by Nelson Riddle: the social-dance music, the fabulous 60's Teen Beat that punctuates many of Lolita's appearances, and of course the gay Cha-Cha Winters enacts for Humbert is a splendid blend of music and visual.The detail that delighted me the most, however, was all that business about the dang COT! They say the word over ten times (13, maybe?), even make hymes out of it ("Are there any more cots, Potts?") and I even noticed a truck in an aerial establishing shot that said "COTT" on the back in script. Was this intentional? It so looked like file footage, but it is hilarious either way. At any rate I loved it and laughed like a fool at the tedious scenes of the insistant black porter trying to unfurl it, oblivious to the silence Humbert tries to maintain so as not to wake the delicate Lolita who, upon awakening, says disinterestedly, "Oh. The cot came." Fits of laughter. Fits.I guess the only thing I didn't care for was what I felt an overuse of Peter Sellars (although I adored his wordless female counterpart, who lends a most surreal aspect in her gloomy stares), though I did find the silent glance he makes at Surreal Lady over the funny pages in the Hotel Lobby absolutely breathtaking in its oddity. The latter third of the film seemed to me a bit dry, and I found myself questioning the motives of the characters at that point, and wondering if it "had" to end the way it did, because of course a film about such subject matter could not end "happily ever after" in 1962...But rent it for Winters' scenes, the surreal names of the characters ("Mr. Swine?"), the cot sequences, and listen carefully to EVERY bit of suggestive or absurd dialogue in the first hour, there are many little surprises hiding there that make this film a joy to watch repeatedly.

Lolita - Proof that Kubrick is not perfect

In my humble opinion, this is one of the most overrated movies in the history of film making. I think there were several reasons why this movie seemed better than it really was.First of all, it was done by Kubrick. Kubrick was already a big name by the time he made "Lolita". The successes of his later movies made people believe that everything that Kubrick ever made was EXCELLENT and that he could never go wrong.Second, the popularity of the book contributed to the popularity of the movie. For over 40 years after the book was published Kubrick's "Lolita" was the only successful movie adaptation of Nabokov's novel (until Adrian Lyne's movie came out).And third, there was the controversy. Underaged girls, pedophilia, incest - those were the first things people heard about the movie.When you add all these things together, you can see that people went into movie theaters (or rented videos) with a sort of a prejudice - they knew they were about to see a controversial adaptation of a famous novel, directed by possibly the world's greatest movie director! The movie was never ALLOWED to be a failure!So why do I think it was a failure? First of all, it is obvious to everyone who has ever read Nabokov's novel that Kubrick butchered the screenplay and totally missed the point of the book. He cut out important parts of the story (Humbert's childhood, for example) and gave Quilty too much screen time. Kubrick's Humbert just fell from the sky into a quiet suburban town and seduced a 14-year old girl wihout any remorse. Did Stanley Kubrick really read Nabokov's book ???The casting was terrible. Sue Lyon was cute and sexy, but she looked too old, although she was 16. And the problem was that she was ONLY cute and sexy. She was not a tease. She was not a nymphet. James Mason was too cold as H.H. and he didn't help us understand his character at all. And in the end, he wasn't anywhere close to being the ruin of a man that the real Humbert was.But Kubrick's probably greatest casting mistake was - Peter Sellers. Don't get me wrong - Sellers was an excellent actor and he would've been perfect as Quilty if only had Kubrick given him less freedom and less time in the movie. The killing scene is supposed to be funny, and Sellers did that part all right, but he was most definitely too exposed in the movie.The greatest weakness of the movie is, as I said, the fact that Kubrick totally missed the point of the story. His Humbert Humbert feels no remorse for what he has done. His Humbert is not the romantic tragic antihero he was meant to be - he is just another insane freak.If you haven't seen any of the two "Lolita" movies yet, do yourself a favor and see Adrian Lyne's "Lolita" first, then Kubrick's movie. Adrian Lyne actually DID do a better job.

Pretty great

Do yourself a favor-and see this version of Lolita before you, or if you ever do get around to watching the 1997 film.This movie captures the novel's essence a whole lot more; not to mention, it's superbly acted and written, and feautures an array of great scenes.

James Mason is wonderful as Humbert Humbert. Stiff and charming and doomed all at the same time, he conveys his characters' feelings perfectly.Shelly Winters is an absolute riot and adds all the spunk and humor to the first part of the film.Peter Sellers works in some great lines as the pathetic Quilty, and Sue Lyons; well, she's not much of an actress, and she's a tad too old for the part.But the age gap is hardly noticeable, and one doesn't need to be much of an actress in order to convey the part of Lolita-she's more like a backdrop to the movie than an actual character. Yes, things get a bit drab in the end-the movie is certainly a whole lot more fun and irresistable in the beginning,due partly to the presence of Shelly Winters. And this film lacks the emotional impact, although I'm pretty sure it was intended as more of a dark comedy than a drama.

I don't think this movie is worthy of classic status or anything, but it's quite a great film.It's got great performances, and the script is absolute perfection,a marvel, I can't tell you how good it is(written by Nabokov himself).It's definately worth a watch, whatever your tastes.Don't expect to be blown away, but do expect to be fairly pleased, as all in all, this is a fine film.And if you're really,really curious, well then read the novel, which is more dense and difficult than one would imagine.

Great Early Kubrick w/Great Acting!

It could never be the book and I recently saw the late 90's version which wasn't bad (closer to the book), but not the cast. James Mason as Humbert was tortured, believable (in a weird situation) and tragic. Shelley Winters was too-on the mark, Sue Lyon looked right, and throw in the psychotic great actor Peter Sellers as Quilty, regenerating every scene he was in. I'm not sure about the importance of Kubrick, but it's very high, and I like his early stuff (probably because of my age; early 50's).Black and white suited this (censored tale) that doesn't have the reputation it deserves. An 8 out of 10. Best performance = Peter Sellers. Most people haven't even seen this and fewer have read the book, so what's the difference? Beats me! Good film.

Disturbing, Controvercial Yet Fascinating

"Lolita" is one of many films based on a famous book, In this case the Russian author Vladimir Nabokov masterwork and controvercial story of a middle aged European professor in USA for work when he get completely obsessed with a teen aged girl he later become stepfather to and starts a sexual relation with. Humbert Humbert the Professor and writer is brilliantly played by James Mason, he will reside at a widow's house, mother of Lolita, Charlotte Haze (Shelley Winters), obviously Charlotte will get attracted to the man and she will do whatever she can to let that feeling become mutual, she's been a widow for 7 years and is still young and yearns for a husband to share her life with. Humbert isn't really interested but he's attracted to her daughter Lolita at first sight and sees the marraige as a chance to come closer to the girl. Dolores "Lolita" Haze (Sue Lyon) is a young spoilt and sometimes even rude girl that is innocent and young yet sexy and manipulative (which also was the start for the whole "Lolita" concept ofen used in slang later on) Charlotte sends her daugher away for a while when she's newly wed cause she doesn't want her to get between them. One day she will read Humberts diary's where he reveal some very disturbing truths, frustrated and devastated she runs away from home and get hit by a car and dies. Humbert decided to go pick up the girl and take her for a journey. This is where Humberts real obsession with Lolita starts. And eventually he will become an obsessed over-protective father that will not only have a relationship with his own stepdaughter but also forbid her to have an own life where she can be around friends, have fun after school or even see boys. We will find Peter Sellers in a support role as famous movie star/a police man in disguise and a German Dr.Strangelove sounding teacher investigating them ) All this will lead Humbert to paranoia and after fearing both Lolitas emancipation and the fear of someone discovering the truth he will once again escape with her across the country and put her school and his own teacher job aside. There is only one problem, someone is stalking them. A car is following them and Humberts fears of the reality taking over his fantasy world are getting harder to swollow. Alot of things will happen in the latter part of the film but alot of you would probably have put together the pieces already.

Stanley Kubrick directed this film and it's a very good adaptation of a difficult classic that is both controvercial and hard to make on the screen. It is diffrent from the original book though and feels like Kubrick's free take instead of a faithful version of a classic book. However, most films are and Kubrick's take is defenitely worthwile. All of the actors in the important roles here are fantastic, especially Mason who's stuck in a very strange role as Mr. Humbert. This film is from 1962, so obviously there isn't much explicit scenes or nudity here. I haven't seen the other version of it from 1997 with Jeremy Irons but I guess it's diffrent. I don't think you get a good understanding of what really happens in their bedrooms cause it doesn't show anything of that here, and Lolita seems untocuhed by the consequnces when many other girls in her situation would suffer an emotioanl breakdown. Lolita is still cocky, smart and tries to become independent in one way or another. There are some parts I find a little unrealistic but it's a very strong and fascinating story nonetheless that still is controvercial and disturbing to this day and open for discussion leaving alot of thought in your head after watchng it. It isn't perfect but the acting is fantastic and the story is one to have read/seen... and you get to see what the word Lolita derives from. 4/5 stars.

Classic version of "Lolita", Sue Lyon may have been playing herself.

I was a senior in high school in 1962 when Kubrick's "Lolita" was in theaters. I did not see it back then. Now, having lived for an additional 4 decades, I can appreciate it more anyway. The genius in Kubrick's direction is to let us, the audience, see clearly what is going on, while the players cannot. Sue Lyon played the coy Lolita so well, but when you read her biography and see that she had a series of short, failed marriages after this film was made, you have to wonder if her performance was so good because she was playing a character not far from herself. But the real star is Peter Sellers, playing Clare Quilty. Overall a fine movie depicting how unreasonable and blind obsession can cloud the thinking of otherwise reasonable and educated people. Here it was a man, but we certainly have not cornered that fault.After viewing this movie, I read Nabakov's book. It is much more revealing (no surprise there) as to how Humbert made an elaborate justification in his mind that is was OK for a man in his late 30s to have a sexual relationship with a girl in the 10 to 14 year old range, finally having one with Lo when she was 12. It of course is much more explicit in describing their passion and activities. Now I too am a bit surprised that the book was ever made into a movie.

A humorous look at a very human obsession...

The opening scene of `Lolita' is flawless, utterly flawless. In fact, it may be one of my favorite movie sequences of all time, flaunting one of my favorite supporting performances of all time; Peter Sellers' Clare Quincy. Sellers marvelously uses his wit and humor to draw us into his character and create a bond with us, wetting our appetite as to what he is really all about. As he staggers from side to side and attempts to humor his unexpected guest we find ourselves fully embraced by this film and completely ready to delve right into Kubrick's vision.


Many have baulked at that said vision, claiming that it strays to far from Vladimar Nabokov's scandalous novel. I personally have never read the novel (I really should now) and so I cannot comment on that regard, but Kubrick has been known for his personal interpretation of his source material so it doesn't surprise me. I personally was recently called out for judging a film based on its source material and was told, and I quote:


"This review is not a film review; it is a disappointed review from a reader that can't distinguish the art of movies from the art of literature."

I want to address this subject since Kubrick is the master of making each and every movie his own vision versus that of the original author or materials. The reason I criticized that particular film (`Less than Zero' for anyone wondering) was that is veered so much from the original text that it dumbed down the authors initial concept and created a generic film about drug addiction that did nothing to distinguish itself as important or vital. It took the authors marvelous concept and delivery and muddled it with clichés and in the end created a film void of any real substance. The difference between a film like that and anything Kubrick has made is that, while he may veer from the original intended impact the source material conveyed he always creates a film filled to the brim with substance and vision and thus creates a film that is socially important. Just look at what he did with `A Clockwork Orange' or `The Shining'. He may have strayed from the authors originally penned words, but he never extracted true meaning and emotional impact from his work. Both films are marvelous examples of inspired vision.

That said, `Lolita' does not disappoint in remaining true to Kubrick's style and vision.

The story follows Professor Humbert Humbert as he entertains his dangerous attraction to the underage Lolita. Humbert first meets Lolita when he is being shown a room within her mothers home he is planning on renting. It is the sight of the beautiful blonde that seals the deal and convinces Humbert to rent the room. Despite his lusting for Lolita, it is her mother Charlotte that desires to have her way with Humbert, and eventually Humbert gives in to her advances if only to have more time to spend with Lolita.

I was shocked in the route Kubrick went with the film, straddling the edges of a black comedy as apposed to embracing the film as a serious and dramatic adult film. I only had the synopsis and the many years of hearing the term `Lolita' thrown around as a backdrop so I was expecting a much darker film. What I got though was an entertaining look at the amusing side of the male psyche.


When you think about Humbert's situation, it is not as far fetched and or `scandalous' as one may initially conclude. While yes, his eventual `relationship' with Lolita is illegal and morally repulsive his initial attraction is not that uncommon for men of his age and even younger. She is a pretty young girl who is obviously mature for her age and is flirtatious beyond her years; whether out of spite for her mother or out of repressed urges caused by the loss of a father in such a dramatic way. Nevertheless, her advances towards Humbert, no matter how subtle, no doubt would draw his attention towards those not-so-grey areas in life. What `Lolita' shows is the danger in succumbing to those human desires and the aftereffect that it has on a man's soul. As Humbert dives into a relationship with Lolita he becomes raked with guilt and insecurities as he struggles to keep Lolita to himself despite her obvious desire to be free of him. Watching Humbert slowly fray until he becomes a panicked skeleton of his former self is both humorous as well as alarming. His obsession consumes and in the end controls him to the point where he is a slave to his own pagan desires even though he knows they are morally corrupt.


I think the biggest reason this `comical' approach works is that it manages to humanize the situation as apposed to over dramatize it. Sometimes when a film takes a very dramatic approach to a subject such as this one it can come across almost otherworldly, as if the situation were so horrible it could never happen. The approach taken here helps the audience to see that this is more common than one may want to admit.

The film, and Kubrick's vision, are pushed along by some very strong performances, most notably that of Peter Sellers who plays Clare Quincy, Humbert's rival. Sellers has often been lauded as the king of comedy and so it is not too farfetched to conclude that he would be the comical highlight of the film. His opening scene along is marvelously constructed. Like I said; one of the greatest supporting performances of all time. Shelley Winters is also extremely memorable and utterly hysterical as Charlotte. Her performance solidifies her as one of the greats and really defines her characters desperations beautifully.


The two main stars really had to sell this though, and so without the dedication of both James Mason and Sue Lyon `Lolita' would have fallen flat. Mason comes off a tad boring during the first half of the film, but as his characters obsessions get the better of him it becomes apparent that that `boringness' was necessary to creating the needed effect of a mind gone mad. He was just a normal guy who lost it because of the passions of a young girl. Sue Lyon is very effective as Lolita. From her first scene we can tell that she is extremely desirable. For a young actress (and a debut performance at that) she really holds her own amongst the cast and does a very fine job of making Humbert Humbert relatable, because truth-be-told, we want her as much as he does.

In the end I must call `Lolita' yet another Kubrick masterpiece. It is far from what I expected but in the end it manages to exceed my expectations because it became something so much more than a generic drama. Kubrick is nothing short of a genius, and this film fits beautifully in his catalog of marvelous cinematic gems.

1/24 of a frame in the first two minutes

Has anyone noticed the 1/24th frame of a man moving from screen left to right in the opening minutes of the film. As the cross fade from James Mason's car driving up the driveway and the first internal shot of the mansion happens you see the blurred image of a man walking. Kubrick must have known it was there because he was such a meticulous editor. Anyone know what I am talking about? As I need ten lines to qualify for this on-line comment I am just wasting space and filling up the box so that my stunning thoughts and revelations can be known, read and appreciated the world over. Hopefully this will satisfy the powers that be. There, that should be long enough!

excellent expression on feelings

like I said, the movie expressed feelings of a human in a very realistic manner.

I don't think the film "gets it"

After reading the book, "Reading Lolita in Tehran" by Azar Nafisi, I felt it necessary to stop that book and read Lolita by Nabokov.What the Women see in Nabokov's book is the total control and obsession. All the info we get from Humbert are his impressions and memories. The reader of "Lolita" knows nothing of the real Lolita.Making a movie of the book requires the director to make a fantasy into a filmable person; this destroys the Nabokov's story and creates another man's(Kubrick) fantasy.Just another book to film disappointment I think.Good I did not pay to see this!

second only to "Dr. Strangelove"

I saw this film when I was in college, and what I remember is walking home after the film, talking about it with my friends and suddenly bursting out crying and being unable to stop. What triggered this was the thought "he really loved her." I give credit to James Mason for that (James, sublime in the bathtub scene). These days, I watch the film again every few years, and though I've never gotten back that original reaction, I love it (with the exception of the business with the folding bed--it's just too tedious, however metaphorical). Peter Sellers ("right in the boxing glove") is constantly hilarious, the clown who drops in from time to time hardly dominates the movie as so many people say. Sue Lyon is also perfect in her role (too bad if she's older than in the book--the book has an entirely different tone). She is complex, not the innocent victim: what could be more boring than a film about an innocent victim? Shelley Winters (who is really quite attractive but willing to make herself ridiculous and gloriously annoying) could not be funnier. One of my favorite films of all time: second only to "Dr. Strangelove" among Kubrick's films. (PS. I hated "Eyes Wide Shut.")

highly disturbing, especially for any parent of a girl

I am not a prude and I enjoy eroticism. But I must say thatbeing a parent - especially the parent of three beautiful underagegirls - made this movie extremely disturbing for me.

Jeremy Irons is a fine actor and specializes in heavy drama. He brings a rich, deep element of artistry to his roles and makes no exception with Lolita. I never saw the earlier film or read the book, so I can't compare them with the movie. I guess I vaguely knew what the subject matter was going in so what should I expect, but with the big names in this movie, thought it was worth a shot. You can't help but pity Melanie Griffiths' character as the young girls mother. She and her daughter have this strange competetive relationship and her character's tragic ending is quite downplayed (as though the mother was just a one-sided, unnecessary obstacle in the story). And of course Jeremy Irons' character is simply using her to get into her daughter's pants. Sorry to be so blunt, but even with all the artsy additives, that's a child molester. Parents, stepfathers, uncles are expected to give respect to the rules and be the strong ones. Whether a 14 yr old girl is suffering from a hormone/romantic overload, it is the adult's place to draw the line.

I can't help being bothered by the whole situation - especially with the girl falling for the other gentleman who has an even more severe pathological condition than Jeremy Irons.

Perhaps the movie could have been more tolerable with less time spent in bed - less visual sexual situations and images which do not leave your mind after the movie's over. Those long, drawn-out "love scenes' you'd expect from a highly-charged romantic flick were unnecessary and purely included for the enjoyment of the voyeuristic audience. You end up feeling like you're just as guilty of the sick obsession he had with this way-too-young girl, and I'm sure anyone with a conscience (and a daughter) would have the same problems. I can certainly understand why there was controversy when this movie came out.

Kubrick once again gives us a great film, flawless, brilliant.

Stanley Kubrick might as well be the definition of genius, every film of his is excellent, presided, beautiful, creative, flawless and never without social comment. Lolita is a great film, Kubrick manages to portray the novel as much as possible. And what a perfect cast, the beautiful young Sue Lyon. The witty yet disturbed James Mason. The widow without Love, Shelley Winters. And last but not least the villainous yet hilarious Peter Sellers. The story is done with care, often people rumor that Nabokov's story exploits the perverted nature of a man and his obsession with a young girl. This is not the case, Only the theme is questionable and not the presentation. Kubrick's Lolita (1962) is a powerful film that can be disturbing, hilarious, emotional, inventive, artistic and above all genius. I throughly enjoyed this film and if you like a good quality films you should too.

Different from the book, though still good.

While the film is ostensibly about a girl named Lolita, it is instead about two ageing males, trying, in the final gyrations before their own deaths, to at least be tragic. The book could just as easily be called Humbert and Quilty, without losing anything. Lolita the character does not serve as much more than as a plot device, and as a point of conflict between the two megalomaniacal antiheroes.

Lolita as a book is altogether too grand to be made into a two hour film. The decsion to select only the story of HH & CQ makes much more sense than an attempt to tell the story in a narrative fashion (as Lynne attempted). The man v. man conflict is by far a superior plot to be adapted to film than the man v. self conflict, or girl v. machinia also found in the book. It is dramatic, rather than introspective, and plays far better on the screen.

What happens in this film that does not keep exactly to the novel is that someone who truly loves the book can still enjoy it. Instead of trying simply to tell the story again, it expands upon one a subplot. It is by far the superior of the two adaptations.

Yo 'lita!!!

Never read Nabokov's novel but for my money, this is one of the most sophisticated film comedies of all time--and one that looks better every year as we are subjected to ever more crappy movies each decade. James Mason, Shelley Winters (too bad the plot hinged on her demise so early in the film--she's never been funnier) and Peter Sellers are in top form and even neophyte Sue Lyons more than holds her own. Dazzling dialog, a super early Sixties score and striking b&w cinematography only add to the fun. Truly a film for the ages. . .or under-ages!

My Favorite Movie!!!

I've seen a lot of movies new and old so don't judge me because I'm 15! I love this film. Kubrick is a fabulous director. The dialogue is beautiful, funny, and quite sexy. Shelley Winters is fabulous...probably the best performance of her career. This is a must OWN!!!

Constrained

"Lolita" is a constrained movie. Constrained by the mores of the times.
Charlotte Haze's pushy sexuality was broadly hinted at and stealthily portrayed with some boob pokes. Much was left to the imagination and long fade outs and pauses allowed your imagination to run wild. Lolita was not as sexually forward as in the novel but Sue Lyon still came across as a sexual, and predatory, creature. Excellent performances by James Mason, Shelly Winters and Sue Lyon. Peter Sellers was good as Quilty. Also Miss Moneypenny makes an appearance. James Mason played Humbert Humbert as a somewhat obsessed, creepy person who payed for his sins with the pain of
rejection. Somewhat slow at parts but worth seeing.

Excellent

After many partial viewings, I have finally seen the whole movie at long last! Thanks to BRAVO for their Kubrik festival.A lot of younger fans of the 1997 remake have made jaded comments about the latter's superiority. It is not their fault having been brought up with todays fast paced films and slack morals. Kubrik would have loved to have made this movie in the 90's. In 1962 he was very much restrained by censorship. One has to pay very close attention to the script to see what he and Nabokov cleverly got away with and implied.I noticed the following examples (there are many more and some too subtle for all, including me, to get):- The telephone number of 1776. Humbert mentions that it is the 'Declaration of Independence'. Lolita's independence more likely.- Lolita went to 'Camp Climax'.- At the dance, Winters mentions that on 'Wednesday she's going to have a cavity filled by Uncle Ivor'. (Also remember that Humbert gets out of his jam at the hospital by suggesting that Lolita was picked up by her uncle Guy).- Back home after the dance, Humbert says: 'Your mother created a magnificent spread'.- Right after this Winters says: 'We all think that Lo should go to bed.' ...and on and on.Double entendres abound and may be construed by today's generation as being as bad as some of the Carry On movies. However, that was the only way to do it in '62 and it was done very cleverly. For those who state that Kubrik's version did not imply that Humbert had sexual relations with Lolita - you were not listening! It was very obvious. I guess we have to have everything graphically laid out to spell it to the jaded, laugh track minds of the latest generation of none readers. Please do not think I am generalising here. We still have some who appreciate the past and how important it is. Thanks

Excellent flick, unusual for the 60´s

Kubrik surely enjoyed disturbing society in such dark ages, even as the censorship try hard to softening this story, about an intellectual mature teacher who loses his head about this cute and tender young girl. This guy, embraced for this lust, is forced to keep, a long list of lies. It is this weird individual, interpreted for the genius Peter Sellers, who drive him out of tracks. And so started the Lolita Legend.

Alongside "A Clockword Orange", THIS is Kubrick at his best

Perverse, sensual, disturbing, poetic and beautiful. These are the words I can use to describe Stanley Kubrick's "Lolita". Kubrick couldn't ve been better picked to direct this jaw-dropping film adaptation of the equally excellent novel. Unlike the overrated remake by Adrian Lynne, this one doesn't to show you in the face the relationship between Humbert (James Mason, in a outstanding performance) and Lolita (Sue Lyons), for the audience to get what it means, and even without the scenes the film is very disturbing, since the time of it's release to it's very day! The beautiful score by Nelson Riddle who doesn't fail to bring me to tears is also a strong highlight of the film, which wonderfully portrays forbidden desires, suspense and romance. The performances are just, fantastic, specially Shelley Winters and Peter Sellers. They portray the annoying characters so well that you really want to kill theme, you really feel the same way Humbert feels towards them. It's funny, because you sympathize with the character which could easily be the villain and you want him and Lolita to be happily ever after, but, things don't go as planned and it all builds up to the ending which never fails to bring me to tears. This should be considered up there with A Clockwork Orange and The Shining, as it's probably Kubrick's best. A truly remarkable motion picutre, Watch "Lolita". You'll certainly won't be disappointed. It's true art. The remake is good, but fails on it's attempt to make it a better film, which simply ain't.