Kubrick’s Lolita was so much better than I was expecting. I’d have to say that it’s actually as good as the novel, and that’s pretty rare.
Lolita was released in 1962 (it’s something like 2 1/2 hours long). Because of heavier censorship in those days, the actress (Sue Lyons) cast as Lolita was 14 and 15 during filming (rather than 12 as in the book). She looks more like 16 or 17 years old to me, which makes it somewhat easier to stomach than if she actually looked 12.
Nabokov’s novel is a masterpiece, and I’d say the movie really is too. Kubrick manages to make this movie funny in some moments, and he actually makes you feel bad for Dr. Humbert Humbert (at least up to a point). I suppose you could say that about the novel too, but I felt it more in the movie than in re-reading the book.
As usual, the film craft is excellent. The acting performances are so strong. James Mason is pretty amazing as Humbert, and he was brave to take the role, too. The film wouldn’t have worked at all without a really strong performance in that role, and Mason nails it.
Because the movie works so well, I’d have to say Kubrick did an incredible job. Yes, the novel is excellent… but not every excellent novel makes an excellent movie. This is a really impressive movie interpretation of a novel. I think the deep dive into the human condition and psychological issues makes this feel like a classic Kubrick film.
Fool of Spirit 