The primary appeal of Nabokov's Lolita is the narrative style, and what it reveals about Humbert as a character. When entering the medium of film, I would say that it's almost impossible to convey the entire character of Humbert without the narration. Unfortunately, and it pains me to say this, Kubrick didn't even come close. It's most easily understood that this movie got all of the plot line of Lolita, but none of the substance behind it.

This movie focuses on only one real role of Humbert and that is Humbert the father. In the book, it is impossible to picture Humbert as JUST a father; he is also a justified pedophile, a nymphologist, a cultured intellectual, and most importantly, a murderer. Nabokov left the murder scene for last in the novel in order to demonstrate a build-up of malaise in Humbert. When Kubrick put the murder scene first, it makes it easy to forget by the time you reach the conclusion of the film that Humbert is capable of murder.

Not only is the development of Humbert neglected, but so is Lolita's. When we encounter Lolita as a pregnant 18-year-old in the book, Nabokov paints the scene with Lolita being a much more mature and developed character. Kubrick, however, portrays her as the same 12-year-old we spent the movie with.

I also can't blame everything on Kubrick. Cultural trends at the time of the movie didn't exactly allow for the full exposition of ALL the vulgar subject matter contained in the novel. Quite frankly, the "sex with minors" theme was so kept under the surface, I probably would have completely missed it had I not read the novel first. Lolita's a ballsy story put on the silver screen, and it takes a filmmaker with guts to even think of making it. I thought someone like Kubrick would be that kind of film maker, but its possible that he was just 20 or 30 years too early when we made this film.

The movie itself is completely average, and not anything to shout about. However, context is important. With knowledge that this is based on an unforgettable piece of literature, it greatly degrades the movie. Read the book folks.

I'm going to say something that Kubrick fans and are not going to like. I think the 1997 remake of Lolita , directed by Adrian Lyne is a far superior film. Granted , i saw the remake first which may have had some influence but i am adamant it's a better film.

I'm not saying this version is bad , its not. In fact its really good but there are some real problems with it and they are mainly down to one person - Peter Sellers. His character Clare Quilty is so over the top . It's like there is a character from the Goon Show inserted into a serious drama and it feels wrong in every way. Why Kubrick felt this was necessary is beyond me. Frank Langella played Quilty in the remake and got it spot on. No childish voices or Pink Panther esq disguises.

James Mason is superb ( That Voice!) as is Shelley Winters and Sue Lyon who played Lolita. You have to admire Stanley Kubrick for making a film in 1962 with such a controversial subject . It was a brave thing to do. Sue Lyon plays the innocent ( or not so) teen brilliantly and i love the subtle looks she gives Humbert . The question is , is she encouraging him or is he just a sexual predator ?

Despite my thoughts on the remake being a better film , i still think this one of Kubrick's best.

I think Stanley Kubrick was the only director who had any ideas of how to tackle a film version of Lolita. I also believe that he was the only director who could have succeeded, and I believe he did succeed. This film was everything I could have expected it to be, and maybe even a little more.

Shelley Winters' performance was wonderful! James Mason delivered a strong effort in a very difficult part to play. Peter Sellers was Peter Sellers, four or five times throughout the movie, but that's Peter Sellers, and that's why I am really starting to admire his work. The real surprise performance in this movie, however, came from Sue Lyon in the title role. Her intensity was incredible. She seemed perfectly natural as a teenage girl enjoying the attention of older men, or just men in general. You could really see the wheels turning in her head as she schemed her way from one situation to the other. Some have criticized that her Lolita was "too old" in comparison to the novel's Lolita. One could make that judgment, however, what twelve year old actress would have been able to provide the emotional depth required for the part? Let's face it, in literary adaptations, some license must be allowed. All in all, I thought it was a very good movie, and I would recommend it to anyone who enjoys the work of Stanley Kubrick and/or Peter Sellers.