Very disjointed...
It goes without saying that the book is better than the movie, but I just had to say it anyway because it's so true. There are a ton of great reviews of the movie here on Amazon so I'll be brief.

3 Stars were given becuase of the very fine acting, especially Shelly Winters. Winters portrays almost exactly the Charlotte Haze that I had envisioned in my mind when reading the book. Sue Lyon does a fine job as Dolores even though she looks nothing at all like how I pictured Lolita in my mind, she's too pretty.

My main gripe about the movie is the incessant fading to black after every scene and the constant appearances of Quilty!
The most annoying scene in the entire movie is when Quilty comes out to talk to Humbert at the hotel.
In the movie Peter Sellers goes on a long strange ramble that makes very little sense and was a little annoying to me.
However, this scene in the book, when the understandably paranoid Humbert is biding his time waiting for his drugged nymphet to finally go unconscious is surprised to find another guest on the patio with him, is one of my very favorite scenes in the book. The artful way that Nabokov has our "poor Humbert" mis-hear the casual conversation of his fellow guest was truly a master work of literature, the movie totally botched this scene!
OK movie of a great book...

Does the novel justice
I think Nabokov's Lolita is one of the greatest novels of all time, and Kubrick's film version does the book ample justice. James Mason is sublime as Humbert Humbert - an intellectual old world European emigre who finds himself in 1950s America on a professorship. His patrician aloofness rubs against the provincial Charlotte Hayes - a homely woman struggling with a recalcitrant daughter Lolita. The poor woman has no idea the depths of the obsession within Humbert's mind - all swirling high culture and depraved Eros. She gives him space in her house to write, and falls in love with him. Humbert is after something much darker - her brattish, nymphette daughter Lolita, but marries Mrs Hayes in order to maintain contact with the family.

The Nabokov style is encapsulated in the film: 'And when called upon to enjoy my promotion from lodger to lover, did I experience only bitterness and distaste? No. Mr. Humbert confesses to a certain titillation of his vanity, to some faint tenderness, even to a pattern of remorse, daintily running along the steel of his conspiratorial dagger.'

The movie, necessarily can't be as dark as the novel given the subject matter. Lolita is more high school prom queen than true pre-teen. Clare Quilty features as a chameleon rival, played with comic mastery by Peter Sellars. It is a different type of comedy than the novel - more laconic and at times slapstic (the cot in the bedroom scene) than truly dark chocolate subversive. But a Kubrick triumph in any case. And the notoriously hard to please Nabokov thought so too.

1961 Film Noir..
Brilliant 2 1/2 hours of character portrayal by Mason, Sellers, Winters and the lovely Lolita underscoring the emotional dark side 1960's style.
Kubrick's depiction of Freudian sexuality, murder,possesiveness,insecurity, a world without purpose but the maximization of one's pleasure within one's own private world shot and executed so carefully as to all detail makes this a remarkable tour De force.
This film adaption whether true to the original makes no difference since this movie is cast in the contemporary 1960's at a cusp of sociological change.
The drama is excellent and what comes to mind is Joan Crawford's Possessed and Edward G. Robinson's Scarlet Street but shot in the early 1960's with all themes intact.
The movies captures the tensions between the old and new extremely well,

Travesty: Portrait of the Rapist as a Gentleman
What is wrong with this movie? Almost everything. It turns Nabokov's text about the memoirs of a pedophile into a melancholy comedy about a sad middle aged man, Mason, who gets trapped by a very young seducer and fights for her with a silly Sellers character.
The movie contributed to the stereotype of the prematurely sexy girl, who entraps older men.
That is not what Nabokov's book was about. I think the book can not be turned into a movie without being either illegal or messing up the contents badly and mortally. Humbert Humbert, the main character and narrator of the book, is attracted to female children, not to the type of 'Lolita' that has become idiomatic after the film, i.e. a sexy precocious seducer. The book is a complex construction based on the untrustworthy story teller concept. We know that HH is a lier.
Nabokov wrote not only the novel, but also the original script for the film, and when the film did get Oscars, he got one for the script, though Kubrick had in fact largely ignored the script. There is a Library of America edition which includes the novel and the script. The end product is just something else, and it is something not very appealing.

A humorous look at a very human obsession...
The opening scene of `Lolita' is flawless, utterly flawless. In fact, it may be one of my favorite movie sequences of all time, flaunting one of my favorite supporting performances of all time; Peter Sellers' Clare Quincy. Sellers marvelously uses his wit and humor to draw us into his character and create a bond with us, wetting our appetite as to what he is really all about. As he staggers from side to side and attempts to humor his unexpected guest we find ourselves fully embraced by this film and completely ready to delve right into Kubrick's vision.

Many have baulked at that said vision, claiming that it strays to far from Vladimar Nabokov's scandalous novel. I personally have never read the novel (I really should now) and so I cannot comment on that regard, but Kubrick has been known for his personal interpretation of his source material so it doesn't surprise me. I personally was recently called out for judging a film based on its source material and was told, and I quote:

"This review is not a film review; it is a disappointed review from a reader that can't distinguish the art of movies from the art of literature."

I want to address this subject since Kubrick is the master of making each and every movie his own vision versus that of the original author or materials. The reason I criticized that particular film (`Less than Zero' for anyone wondering) was that is veered so much from the original text that it dumbed down the authors initial concept and created a generic film about drug addiction that did nothing to distinguish itself as important or vital. It took the authors marvelous concept and delivery and muddled it with clichés and in the end created a film void of any real substance. The difference between a film like that and anything Kubrick has made is that, while he may veer from the original intended impact the source material conveyed he always creates a film filled to the brim with substance and vision and thus creates a film that is socially important. Just look at what he did with `A Clockwork Orange' or `The Shining'. He may have strayed from the authors originally penned words, but he never extracted true meaning and emotional impact from his work. Both films are marvelous examples of inspired vision.

That said, `Lolita' does not disappoint in remaining true to Kubrick's style and vision.

The story follows Professor Humbert Humbert as he entertains his dangerous attraction to the underage Lolita. Humbert first meets Lolita when he is being shown a room within her mothers home he is planning on renting. It is the sight of the beautiful blonde that seals the deal and convinces Humbert to rent the room. Despite his lusting for Lolita, it is her mother Charlotte that desires to have her way with Humbert, and eventually Humbert gives in to her advances if only to have more time to spend with Lolita.

I was shocked in the route Kubrick went with the film, straddling the edges of a black comedy as apposed to embracing the film as a serious and dramatic adult film. I only had the synopsis and the many years of hearing the term `Lolita' thrown around as a backdrop so I was expecting a much darker film. What I got though was an entertaining look at the amusing side of the male psyche.

When you think about Humbert's situation, it is not as far fetched and or `scandalous' as one may initially conclude. While yes, his eventual `relationship' with Lolita is illegal and morally repulsive his initial attraction is not that uncommon for men of his age and even younger. She is a pretty young girl who is obviously mature for her age and is flirtatious beyond her years; whether out of spite for her mother or out of repressed urges caused by the loss of a father in such a dramatic way. Nevertheless, her advances towards Humbert, no matter how subtle, no doubt would draw his attention towards those not-so-grey areas in life. What `Lolita' shows is the danger in succumbing to those human desires and the aftereffect that it has on a man's soul. As Humbert dives into a relationship with Lolita he becomes raked with guilt and insecurities as he struggles to keep Lolita to himself despite her obvious desire to be free of him. Watching Humbert slowly fray until he becomes a panicked skeleton of his former self is both humorous as well as alarming. His obsession consumes and in the end controls him to the point where he is a slave to his own pagan desires even though he knows they are morally corrupt.

I think the biggest reason this `comical' approach works is that it manages to humanize the situation as apposed to over dramatize it. Sometimes when a film takes a very dramatic approach to a subject such as this one it can come across almost otherworldly, as if the situation were so horrible it could never happen. The approach taken here helps the audience to see that this is more common than one may want to admit.

The film, and Kubrick's vision, are pushed along by some very strong performances, most notably that of Peter Sellers who plays Clare Quincy, Humbert's rival. Sellers has often been lauded as the king of comedy and so it is not too farfetched to conclude that he would be the comical highlight of the film. His opening scene along is marvelously constructed. Like I said; one of the greatest supporting performances of all time. Shelley Winters is also extremely memorable and utterly hysterical as Charlotte. Her performance solidifies her as one of the greats and really defines her characters desperations beautifully.

The two main stars really had to sell this though, and so without the dedication of both James Mason and Sue Lyon `Lolita' would have fallen flat. Mason comes off a tad boring during the first half of the film, but as his characters obsessions get the better of him it becomes apparent that that `boringness' was necessary to creating the needed effect of a mind gone mad. He was just a normal guy who lost it because of the passions of a young girl. Sue Lyon is very effective as Lolita. From her first scene we can tell that she is extremely desirable. For a young actress (and a debut performance at that) she really holds her own amongst the cast and does a very fine job of making Humbert Humbert relatable, because truth-be-told, we want her as much as he does.

In the end I must call `Lolita' yet another Kubrick masterpiece. It is far from what I expected but in the end it manages to exceed my expectations because it became something so much more than a generic drama. Kubrick is nothing short of a genius, and this film fits beautifully in his catalog of marvelous cinematic gems.