1. There is far too much Peter Sellers in this movie.
    I love Peter Sellers. But Peter Sellers had a habit of making every movie he was in a Peter Sellers Movie. "Lolita" is not a Peter Sellers Movie.
  2. Making Lolita older destroys everything, specifically the character of Humbert Humbert.
    Lolita is about 16 in this movie. She was 12 in the novel. A 12-year-old is a nymphette. A 16-year-old is just a nymph. She looks like an adult, so we immediately understand why Humbert is attracted to her. In the novel, Humbert charms us into being (sort of) on his side. In this movie, he doesn't need to. In fact, his connection with the audience is completely lost. It's a real shame.
  3. The sexual relationship of Lolita and Humbert is never made explicit.
    I don't want to *see* it, but dancing around what happened between those two characters is a complete betrayal to the story. If they don't have a sexual relationship, there IS no story!
  4. The whole thing's a tonal mess.
    A lot of this is due to Peter Sellers, but even when he's not around, the movie doesn't seem to know what genre it's in from scene to scene. You would never know Kubrick is behind it.
  5. It's...boring. It's really boring.
    It's a movie about a grown man having an illicit affair with his adopted teenage daughter, and it's BORING.
  6. James Mason would have been a good Humbert in a better movie.
    He's charming, though this movie rarely allows it. He also plays nuts well, and we do get to see some of that.
  7. The best thing I can say about Kubrick's "Lolita" is that it made me want to read the book again.
    It's been a few years. I think it's due for a revisit.