Directed By:Stanley Kubrick
Written By:Vladimir Nabokov, Stanley Kubrick, James B. Harris
Lolita
Metascore
Generally Favorable
79
User score
Generally Favorable
7.5
My Score
Drag or tap to give a rating
Hover and click to give a rating
Not available in your country?
ExpressVPN
Get 3 Extra months free
$6.67/mth
Top Cast
Metascore
Generally Favorable
79
86% Positive
12 Reviews
12 Reviews
14% Mixed
2 Reviews
2 Reviews
0% Negative
0 Reviews
0 Reviews
100
Brilliant adaptation of Vladimir Nabokov's 20th Century comic-erotic classic. [08 Jul 2005, p.C2]
100
A fascinating if problematic early film from Stanley Kubrick, perhaps the most obsessive of the great auteurs of the 1960s, made just on the cusp of a run of cinematic masterpieces.
User score
Generally Favorable
7.5
80% Positive
45 Ratings
45 Ratings
16% Mixed
9 Ratings
9 Ratings
4% Negative
2 Ratings
2 Ratings
Jun 13, 2020
10
Fascinante, se siente como un paseo por el parque, para ser de Stanley Kubrick tiene una atmósfera bastante amigable y relajada, las actuaciones son buenísimas, la química y tensión sexual entre Lolita y Humpert son inminentes y convincentes, por otro lado, el personaje de Charlotte es demasiado exasperante, se nota a leguas que siente envidia de su propia hija.
Jan 22, 2026
8
The rhythmic machinery of a forbidden obsession: A 4.0-star sensational surge of raw, high-tension tragedy.2012(4.0)I watched Lolita in 2012, and it remains a vivid 4.0-star pillar of "shwi-shwi" emotional devastation in my archive—a raw revelation of how a sensational, taboo narrative can dismantle the stagnant moral comfort of its audience. This experience **** the fourth wall of the psychological drama by infusing either James Mason’s raw, aristocratic desperation (1962) or Jeremy Irons’ sensational, mournful decay (1997) into a narrative rhythm that felt 100% sophisticated and chewy. The narrative rhythm was far from stagnant; instead, it offered a sensational "acting power show" where the raw, high-tension obsession with the "bbo-jjak" yet manipulative nymphet left me in a state of absolute awe at its visceral soul. Whether through Kubrick’s raw, satirical precision or Lyne’s vivid, lyrical tragedy, the emotional payoff felt both authentic and sensational, proving that a story about "monstrous love" could be a vivid artifact of pure cinematic complexity. The 95% preservation of my memory is dominated by the rhythmic, raw tension of the road trip and the vivid but pathetic realization of Humbert’s ultimate ruin, creating a permanent, sensational scar of "forbidden" wonder on my soul. Unlike the stagnant 2.0-star drift of Beastly, this encounter possessed a rebellious soul that turned a pathetic predation into a sensational masterpiece of high-tension storytelling. It stands in my 2012 record as a powerful 4.0-star testament to the raw power of the unadaptable—a high-tension encounter with the vivid rhythm of Nabokov’s ghost that remains one of the most chewy artifacts of my cinematic journey.
88
Stanley Kubrick's adaptation of the Vladimir Nabokov classic isn't as racy as the new one by Adrian Lyne, which opens in theaters tomorrow. But it's a lot funnier, thanks in no small part to the casting of Peter Sellers as a mystery man of many accents and Shelley Winters as Lolita's silly mother. [01 Oct 1998]
80
This is not the novel Lolita, but it is a provocative sort of film.
75
Where Nabokov was witty, Kubrick is sometimes merely snide, but fine performances (particularly from Peter Sellers, as the ominous Clare Quilty) cover most of the rough spots.
67
Where the book peers directly into despair and tragedy, the film looks away and dials up the comedy.
50
Vladimir Nabokov's witty, grotesque novel is, in its film version, like a bee from which the stinger has been removed. It still buzzes with a sort of promising irreverence, but it lacks the power to shock and, eventually, makes very little point either as comedy or satire.
Jul 25, 2023
7
I didn't know this was a comedy. Sue Lyons is a stunner. The usually realiable Peter Sellers, fails here.
His schtick was over the top, not funny, and really took me out of the movie. But James Mason nails his part. Sad, tragic, fully aware of the consequences of his life decisions.
Jul 21, 2020
7
A truly funny movie - noticeably well acted by James Mason, Shelley Winters, and Peter Sellers. Mason conveys gentlemanly smoothness, followed by detestable smoothness, and finally panic and paranoia. Winters conveys unabashed desperation, and Sellers - somehow conveys pure range and genius, though you would be hard pressed to explain how or why. One of Sellers' characters - Quibly, in terms of voice - is clearly doing a Kubrick impersonation. Lolita herself was cast perfectly - she is able to convey total confidence, wit and command over others (even though the story of course involves a clear case of indefensible abuse of her character). The visual introduction to her is perhaps Kubrick's best direction in the movie. While the story is relatively nonsensical, and as far as I can tell, inconsequential (At least without exploration of the sexual dynamic) - you do feel witness to lovely film-making. The very beginning, and very end, of the movie utterly bored me. I do, however, discount the ending of Kubrick films as something he is both bad at, and apathetic to.
Jun 3, 2020
7
It's adaptation of Nabokov's novel. A succesful movie for it's time. Seller and Mason made perfect acting. Respect to Kubrick.
Production Company:
- A.A. Productions Ltd.
- Anya
- Transworld Pictures
- Harris-Kubrick Productions
Release Date:Jun 13, 1962
Duration:2 h 33 m
Rating:TV-14
Tagline:For Persons Over 18 Years Of Age
Awards
Golden Globes, USA
• 1 Win & 5 Nominations
Academy Awards, USA
• 1 Nomination
Academy of Science Fiction, Fantasy & Horror Films, USA
• 1 Win & 2 Nominations
