Lolita

Rating:
Summary: dumbed-down, kitschified, badly acted, militantly illiterate
Review: Of course I haven't downgraded it for this reason, but just in case you're interested in this for prurient reasons, you may as well know off the bat that the only one who bares any flesh at all here is Quilty the aged, pudgy, sagging playwright. There's a long full-frontal completely nude shot of him. (The heroine isn't at all attractive anyway.)

Now let's cut to the chase: The director, Adrian Lynne hasn't a clue what the book's about. This is obvious if you watch the film, but Mr. Lynne corroborates it in a segment affixed to the end. He predicts that the aspect of the film that will provoke discussion is that audiences will not hate Humbert Humbert as much as they think they ought to. Guess what, Adrian? The book is a COMIC FARCE! Nobody who understands takes it SERIOUSLY. THAT'S why they don't hate Humbert. Even though it's a comic farce, it's also extremely literate, knowing, and witty. Lynne hasn't merely killed the comedy; he's also removed all traces of intelligence and pumped it full of kitschy sentimentality.

Melanie Griffith as Charlotte Haze (yes, I spelled her surname correctly) can't act as well as an average high school kid. Jeremy Irons walks through his part. What's-her-name as Lolita overdoes everything. She's constantly, every second, the most obnoxious brat you can possibly imagine.

At one point the film has a school official complain to Humbert that Dolores (Lolita) is "morbidly disinterested [sic] in sexual matters". "Disinterested", of course, means "impartial", not "uninterested". I checked the book. It reads "morbidly uninterested in sexual matters". The screenwriter didn't merely err here; he went out of his way to be illiterate.

Rating:
Summary: The Resurrection of Lolita and Dominique's 1st film 2 date
Review: I actually love Dominique as a good actress since her first on the movie I seen called "Girl" This was the first time I got introducted to her. Even tho I been a fan to her, she's always sounds great. But now since I bought this movie, it made me enjoy it. One of my things about this movie is that it tells it all right here.

It the story between a man dating a 14 year old girl. Like if you seen the original which was back in '62, you would notice there's a difference between those two films. I would love to carry this out to those who want to know the real story.

This is similar to those who remember the sex scandals of R. Kelly and Jerry Lee Lewis and Amy Fisher. To me, I'm not thinking about being a pedofile or anything, I'm different than that. Just like the bible says "Flee fornication". I don't think it'll turn me into that 'cuz that's what not my life is. My dream is be kind to kids w/o ever dating or making a relationship.

I love this movie to death 'cuz this would go to my movie collection for days.

This is a must-have for Dominique Swain fans or fans to the book by Vladimir Nobakov and/or have seen the 1962 Stanley Kubrick version by James Mason. It has it all from deleted scenes, film interviews, making of the film, etc.

Rating:
Summary: correcting 'lolita' reviewer
Review: i wouldn't waste my time sitting through this trife. the ONLY 'lolita' that matters in my opinion is kubrick's 5-star classic!! but the reason i'm even writing anything here is to correct warren basham. his november 16th, 2004 review got my attention w/ the very first sentence: he refused to see this movie when it was in theaters.?. dude, you need to check your facts before you write movie reviews!! whether it's liked or hated, most people know the story about adrian lyne's version of 'lolita' NOT getting theatrical distribution! showtime finally bought the film after it had been sent (literally) nationwide getting turned down by every movie co. in the bzns. NO ONE wanted to be associated with this atrocious waste of film! that's why it's so funny that showtime bought it, because around that same period, they were getting the WORST rep in the world for airing nothing but smut, and then they proved their criticizers right by buying and airing such s##t as adrian lyne's blasphemous (against anything kubrick) remake.

Rating:
Summary: Visually good adaptation
Review: If anything can be said about this second film version of Nobokov's famous book, is that the visual stylings and look of the times and places were basically spot on. It's when we get to the plot that things don't work as well.

The reason I believe for the toning down of sexual activity in the film by the Director was not because of the worry about controversy, since his previous works were much heavier than this; it was the censors and lawyers themselves who kept a vigilant eye on the film during the editing and filming stages that dropped the plot down a notch.

The basic story of Lolita is still present but in a more compact package. Dominique Swain, to me, is the perfect Lolita as is Jeremy Irons as Humbert. The supporting cast fit well, too. In the end, Lolita is a sad film, all controvery aside and does deliver it's message, if it is almost too little too late.

Still, I prefer this version over Kubrick's more for the talent of the actors and the set design. If only Kubrick and Lyne could've combined efforts, they would've made the perfect film.

Rating:
Summary: 2.5 Stars, decent casting but bad directing.
Review: I first read the novel several months ago based on the recommendation of my high school English teacher. I read the novel and loved it, then my dad recommended to watch Stanley Kubrick's adaption of it. I watched that and loved it. I was intrigued so i decided to check out the newer presentation of the film.

In short, Jeremy Irons is an excellent actor and excelled at playing Humbert; however, his supporting cast and the film direction is nothing spectaculr. I did enjoy the cinematography and Iron's voice overs from his audio reading of Lolita. I certaintly do prefer the original movie which contained far more subtlety than this version, this isn't necessarily a bad movie, just an average film.

Rating:
Summary: Great Movie, Wrong Title
Review:
I avoided seeing this movie when it was in the theatres, and again when it first came out on DVD. However, I finally gave in and watched it last night, and it's exactly what I was afraid of-- a great motion picture adaptation of a book that horribly misses the point of that book.

The acting is fantastic. So is the direction. So is the musical score. So is the cinematography. So why only two stars?

A sixteen year old girl who "looks 14," according to the director, is not, CAN not, be Lolita. Hence the movie is misnamed. The entire point of the book is that Lolita is TWELVE. She has not yet begun to mature sexually. In height, she only comes midway up Humbert Humbert's chest. She is less than five feet tall at the beginning of the book and weighs less than 70 pounds. The HH's of the world have no interest in 16 year old girls, whether they look 14 or not. [Note that in the movie they've changed her age to 14, but even then she looks too old for the part.] This girl has cleavage, for Pete's sake. If the 'real' HH ever encountered something like that in his bed, he'd run screaming for the hills. By the end of the movie, Dominique Swain finally looks the part she is playing, but of course in the book that climactic scene takes place when she is 17! It's a great scene in the movie too, poignant and moving, but that's because the actress finally fits the part.

Someday, someone will get up the nerve to make this movie with proper casting of the most important part. [It shouldn't be any more illegal to make it with a 12 year old than with a 16 year old who looks 14, for goodness' sake.] Then the audience will finally get the message that the book is really about. Until then, we can enjoy [if that's the right word for a tale of twisted passion and obsession] this movie for what it is.

But it isn't Lolita.

Rating:
Summary: the immortal nymphet
Review: First, to really appreciate this film, you need to read the book. A lot of things will be lost on you if you don't, and you'll just end up writing a review that criticizes the wrong thing (like the time period it was set in - the novel was set in the 1940's; hence, the movie is set in the 1940's). Second, make no mistake, Lolita is the victim, not Humbert. Lolita is a child; Humbert is an adult, even though he is a sympathetic character. This movie is so full of passion. There are themes of love, madness, obssession, the struggle of domination in relationships (because no relationship stands on equal footing - never happens, no matter how much you like to think it does for you). Hum and Lo constantly battle for the dominate role, and in the end they both lose. Lolita plays Hum like a fiddle, but she's only using what she's learned from him. She's twelve years old when this starts, how much can she know (in the 40's) about sex and older men? The allusions are powerful (the bobby pin clutched in Hum's bloody hand). The word play is brilliant (the first scene with Hum and Quilty on the porch, which is brilliantly filmed and edgy)and hats off to Nabokov for his poetic language. And I must say the most powerful scene in the movie and the novel is the scene where Humbert and Lolita reach the breaking point, becoming physically violent. Quilty's murder in the movie, true to Nabokov's novel: brutal and full of dark humor. Quilty died a violent death by Nabokov's hand, so Lyne gave him no less. This movie is eloquent, passionate, maddening, devastating. Even Nabokov's son praised this remake, saying it was superb and faithful to his father's novel. Lyne did a wonderful job making Humbert and Lolita and Quilty come alive. He couldn't fit all of Nabokov's many themes, allusions, and word games into his film, so he pulled out the tragic love story, which is the heart of the novel. If you see the movie, read the book. If you read the book, see the movie. I do not make mention of Kubrick's film because to me it came off too up beat and too safe compared to the novel. This is a dark story and Lyne has done Nabokov justice.