Watch Lolita For Free
Humbert Humbert, a divorced British professor of French literature, travels to small-town America for a teaching position. He allows himself to be swept into a relationship with Charlotte Haze, his widowed and sexually famished landlady, whom he marries in order that he might gain access to her fourteen-year-old daughter—Lolita—with whom he has fallen hopelessly in love, but whose affections shall be appropriated by a devious trickster named Clare Quilty.
|Studio :||Seven Arts Productions, Allied Artists, Transworld Pictures,|
|Crew :||Director of Photography, Editor,|
|Cast :||James Mason Shelley Winters Lois Maxwell Sue Lyon Peter Sellers|
|Genre :||Drama Romance|
It’s an especially fun movie from a director and cast who are clearly having a good time allowing themselves to let loose.
This is one of the best movies I’ve seen in a very long time. You have to go and see this on the big screen.
With characters that appear sympathetic at the beginning and turning more and more despicable as the film goes on and showing the unstable mental condition of the main character without throwing it at your face, Lolita manages to keep you uneasy throughout the film. Kubrick's attempt in dark comedy is highly successful here which he will perfect in a much more comedic Dr Strangelove. Lolita could have been a much more complexly woven tale if not for the censorship of the time. From what I've heard the original novel is much better and a lot are omitted here which makes this looks like more sided with the character of Humbert but the way I see it Kubrick have made the audience uneasy and to an extent made them despise themselves for sympathising with these characters by the end of the film. He never wants everything to be too black and white which is what I believe he tried to implement here as well.
I am very fan of Kubrick and watched all his films from Paths of Glory, taking Eyes Wide Shut, and I always have hype to watch the movies of Kubrick, but I admit that the last 2 movies that I watched with him I did not like it that much, Who are Barry Lyndon and Lolita, I found Lolita a very slow-paced film, Kubrick's direction is good, but it's well below other works, the cast is good, and the performances are good, the plot is good, and the Dialogues are mostly good too, photography is good, the black and white tone matches the film, and the soundtrack is good, but the film did not please me, I found it tiring and with a very slow pace, I expected more from this film Kubrick, but not bad. Note 6.4
Kurbrick was one of the greatest film makers of all time. His attention to detail and his meticulous style is rarely seen in films today. It was rarely seen in his day too. The down side of his perfectionist nature thought, was that he didn't make many films. Still he did make a few classics in his day. Films like A Clockwork Orange, 2001, Paths of Glory, Dr. Strangelove and The Shinning. One film that often gets overlooked though, is Lolita.This film is different. The tagline is "How Did they Ever Make a Movie Out of Lolita." The plot is this, Prof. Humbert Humbert comes to America, rents a house, meets the landlady's young nymphet daughter, falls instantly in love and purses her, rather relentlessly. So yes the plot of this story is rather unconventional. Kubrick has gone on record saying, that if he knew the kind of limitations there would be, that he wouldn't have even bothered making the movie. Basically with the censors of the day, the relationship between Humbert and Lolita couldn't be shown or talked about in any real way. Now this movie came out in 1962 and to keep things in context, you should remember that in the 1950's married couples on TV and movies were shown sleeping in separate beds at night. So the idea of showing a man in his 50's sleeping with a young girl (the actress who played Lolita, Sue Lyon was only 14 at the time) was pretty much out of the question. And while some might see this as a major problem, it really isn't. The relationship, while never out right admitted, is alluded to, a lot. They say it without actually saying it.The real strength of this movie though, is the actors. James Mason plays Humbert perfectly. His character oozes aristocratic disdain and disgust for everything around him. Especially Shelly Winters, that's the landlady. That is, until he sees Lolita. Once he sets his eyes on her, that's it. While his intentions are a little repulsive, he pursues them with such a dogged genuine determination, you do sympathize with him a bit.And Sue Lyon was absolutely perfect as Lolita. The way she carries herself, the way she talks, the way she teases Humbert. On the one hand it seems like she knows exactly what she is doing. She knows the effect she has on him and she seems to love toying with him. Although, on the other hand, she might just be a teenager fooling around. With her character it is very hard to tell. One scene, she seems wise beyond on her age and in the next she is carrying on like petulant child.And of course we have Shelly Winters, one of the most underrated actress of all time. And yes her character, Lolita's mother, is very shrill and annoying. That was kind of Shelly Winters bread and butter, but she was supposed to be shrill an annoying. An obstacle for Humbert to get past. Still, Shelly Winters brought such a wounded vulnerability to her character. This is a woman who lost her husband, is not very bright and her new tenant Humbert is uh kind of problematic. There is one scene where she breaks down and it is truly heartbreaking.This film is also filled with Kubrick's usual cinematic flair. There are so many little things hidden in the visuals that you don't notice at first but make the film much richer on repeat viewings.This film is not without its flaws however. It does drag a bit in the middle. And there is way, way to much of Peter Sellers. Kubrick was such a meticulous director with his shot and his sets and especially his actors. But for whatever reason, he gave Sellers way to much leeway. Now this did work in Dr. Strangelove, where Sellers had to play all these different characters, but here, where he just plays the character Clare Quilty, all these different voices and mannerisms he keeps using, it's just distracting. And a little annoying. Kurbrick definitely should have rained Sellers in.Besides those few flaws, this film is truly a classic. It deserves to be ranked right alongside all of Kubrick's other classic films. It's the kind of film, where one scene your laughing, the next scene your skin is crawling.That's the power of Lolita
Stanley Kubrick's Lolita will for many (over 50 years on from its original release) seem safe and quite possibly routine. This though is simply not the case. At the time it was seen to be racy and in poor taste, so much so that the MPAA demanded that Kubrick made cuts to the film, otherwise they would deny him releasing it to the public. However, even with these restrictions in place Lolita works astoundingly well and even on many more levels if you try to view it with the mind-set of the general public in the 60s. Then it's all too obvious that Lolita is a daring project, beautiful to look at and yet remains a wonder that it ever saw the light of day at all.Humbert Humbert (James Mason) having recently entered America has moved into a house in Ramsdale residence of Mrs Haze. Originally only moving in so that he can become a college Professor - Humbert becomes undeniably infatuated by Mrs Haze's daughter; Lolita, oozing sexual confidence and spark. Who can blame him? Well other than the fact that he is in his fifties and she in this adaptation fourteen. So of course it is this area of the film that has sparked up controversy ever since 1962. The line "I'm going to take your Queen" possibly causing the most outrage – played over a game of chess. Though, the controversy of Lolita unlike 1971's A Clockwork Orange is hard to believe. In this day and age its relatively tame when compared to 1999's American Beauty a film that shares certain similarities with Lolita to say the least. Lolita for one has no nudity unless you count an underage girl clad in a revealing bikini and I for one don't. Any sexual references are low key and any moment proceeding intercourse is cut short. So you really have to play it out in your mind more than anything else. Though for me this is beneficiary to the picture, characterising Lolita's innocence, deep insecurity and tendency to shy away at the more intimate moments. Sue Lyon in her first role is positively enlightening. This is for sure a hard role to "get right". You have to know how to play the different characteristics of Lolita for a start and portray her vibrancy with the needed enthusiasm. But, Lyon handles it well, so well in fact that you'd swear she'd been in show business for a lifetime or at least a good handful of roles. James Mason on the other hand as Humbert Humbert is treading thin ice; yet, he manages to do the trick. The fact that we actually sympathise with a character this conniving and want to watch him on screen is a testament to Mason's staying power as an actor of rare talent, rarely seen nowadays, if at all. Peter Sellers as Claire Quilty is a different matter entirely and yes, I mean that as a compliment. Sellers just goes for it! Wacky, brilliant, witty and insane all these adjectives actually apply. But even the use of mere words cannot describe how funny he is in each situation, that's because Sellers understands what makes humour work. Edging the line between camp and utter silliness, Sellers is definitely a key factor as to why I adore Lolita so so very much.A picture like Lolita makes me look at films in an entirely different light. That wasn't a pun. Yet I must talk about the lighting. This is a film that is dazzling to view, and if you think that because its Black and White it cannot look this good, then I'm afraid you are sorely mistaken. Every shade of black and white is honestly a marvel and reminds me that splendid cinematography is about lighting, composition and framing, not different hues of a wide range of colours.Lolita is the sort of film Hollywood does not make anymore; witty, campy, fun, interesting, daring and never self-serious. This is a film without the glitz and glamour of Hollywood, before the advent of CGI, where characters took centre stage, not action or flashy special effects. Watching Kubrick's Lolita is like watching a by- gone age of cinema where story and characters were key to a film's success, not flashes of colour and the rising sound of a fireball. A+