I put off watching Kubrick's _Lolita_ for a long time, because the 1997 version is one of my favorite movies, and I was sure an adaptation from 1962 could never measure up, and I was right. I've also read the novel, but that was ages ago.
So, Lolita is one of the most notorious books ever written, and it would be impossible to ever make a faithful adaptation - unless you want to pull a Larry Clark, and find a country were it's legal.
Anyway! Not going into that.
The real problem with this movie is exactly what one would expect: how do you make a movie about a middle-aged man who is sexually involved with a young teen (in the movie, Sue Lyon was sixteen, but in the book, Lolita is twelve)? Well, you tiptoe around what is actually going on.
What occurred to me while watching this was if someone knew nothing about the story before seeing this, they'd think this was simply about an overprotective stepfather with a somewhat rebellious little girl. It's not until the third act that the dialog dared to become more bold, while still shying away from saying, "look, these two were having sex."
All that aside, the movie is far too slow and boring. The beginning is good, and so is the end, but the bulk is a total slog.
I wouldn't be able to write a review for this without talking about the superiority of the 1997 version. Unlike this one, the 1997 film makes no mystery about the relationship between Lolita, and Humbert. It doesn't have to undercut the seriousness of the story with out-of-place comedy, either.
While I think James Mason was good, Jeremy Irons is better. Dominique Swain (fifteen at the time) is leaps and bounds better than Sue Lyon was.
Finally: This one was a disappointment, a product of its time, and one I will never watch again. At least I can say that I've seen it.