Lolita

Rating:
Summary: Can't Quite Decide . . .
Review: This screen adaption of Vladimir Nabokov's sensual novel of the same name took me by suprise from the moment it began. Jeremy Irons really is fantastic as Humbert Humphrey. For a film that deals with the societal taboo of nyphettes and older men, Irons turns what could of been the role of a monster into the role of a broken man. The older Humphrey recaptures the essence of a first love when he become involved with the (very) young Dolores Hayes. Indeed the subject matter is hard to swallow, but do try to give the film a chance. Unexplainably, Lolita is one of the greatest love stories of all time. It is about a man in love with his past. I do fail to give the film five stories with good reason. Dolores Hayes is played by Dominique Swain, who although captures the vivaciousness of a young nymphette, just doesn't seem right in the role. For such a tragic story, Swain seems to have randomley stuck with some of the worst dialogue. Director Adrian Lyne stuck closely to the original novel (unlike Stanley Kubrik who sensationally skewed the story as a black comedy) but didn't quite make it all the way there. But, even with its flaws, I find Lolita to be a beautiful telling and that it probably due to the talent of Mr.Irons. Never have I seen someone play such a sad man with such sincerity.

Rating:
Summary: A tale of obsession
Review: Quiet, bookish Professor Humbert Humbert (Jeremy Irons) accepts a room with the flamboyant, lonely widow Charlotte Haze (Melanie Griffith). He doesn't care for the widow very much, and the room is not exactly desirable, but when he sets eyes on Charlotte's 14 year old daughter, Dolores--Lolita-- (Dominique Swain), Humbert decides to move in. Humbert has never quite recovered emotionally from losing his first lover--Anabelle Leigh--and Dolores bears a striking resemblance to Humbert's memory of the dead girl.

At first, a rather subtle rivalry begins to stir between Charlotte and Delores as they vie for Humbert's attentions, but Dolores immediately awakens Humbert's frozen and stunted sexuality with a vengeance. Humbert struggles--albeit weakly--against the overpowering urges that sweep through him, but he crumbles to the inevitability of sexual encounters with the nubile nymphette who taunts him into action.

This is a beautiful film--haunting--and archetypal, and there were some scenes emphasizing evil, rot and decay involving Clare Quilty (Frank Langella) that reminded me very much of the film, Angel Heart. Jeremy Irons was perfectly cast in this role as the slighty nervous, repressed, obsessive Humbert who ultimately sees and understands his fate, but is powerless to chose any other path. Irons somehow managed to convey the tortured aspects of Humbert's character very well, so that he remains a sympathetic character. Humbert's misuse of adult power is juxtaposed excellently against scenes of his powerlessness--for example, Humbert's attempts to discipline Lolita are almost comic, but always pathetic--especially when she so quickly learns the easiest ways to wheedle more allowance or how to seize Humbert's loose change in return for sexual favours. Swain was excellent as the petulant brat who wields her sexual power like a magic wand, and practices her new-found skills on Humbert--she too is sympathetic--not a particularly pleasant person, nonetheless, she still has no concrete idea of the magnitude of her actions. It was quite easy to believe that Lolita's flagrant sexuality was an imitation of her mother, and Charlotte--as played by Griffith--was obviously an older, slighty more subtle version of Lolita. Excellent adaptation--displacedhuman, Amazon Reviewer.

Rating:
Summary: A Good Movie with a Difficult Subject.
Review: I do remember seeing this movie on TV a long time ago, during a free Showtime run. I recently watched the DVD version.Jeremy Irons is an Excellent actor, who handeled a very difficult role. Child Molester .Although It is the only movie I have seen with Domonique Swain, She deserved the top billing instead of Melanie Griffin or Frank Langella, who I felt played just token cameo roles.Her and Irons where the movie.I may have to view some more of Ms Swains work in the future. I'm sure because of the difficult subject matter it was not well recieved. However Overall I feel it was a good movie and I would highly recommend it.

Rating:
Summary: It doesn't please
Review: If you read the book or saw the original Lolita then this version will not please you. Jeremy Irons has made a career from playing sick or pathetic puppies and does his usual thing here. James Mason aroused pity, Irons makes your skin crawl. Dominique Swain, a very pretty young actress who hasn't done much since, is too sexual. That may sound strange but this version of Lolita portrays her as more sexually wise than Humbert from the moment he first lays eyes on her. Melanie Griffin is dreadful. When Charlotte gets killed you'll be grateful. Compare that to what Shelly Winters did. Her Charlotte was a silly, stupid woman but she was also clearly a vulnerable woman who was lonely and in love for the first time in her life. Her death is a sad, pitiable thing.

Frank Langella is a sophisticated and completely evil Claire Quilty, he's good but I found myself thinking back to Peter Sellars' evil with a smiling face version of the character. There are two really beautiful scenes in the film but they come at the end : first, when Humbert begs Lolita to come away with him and is soundly rejected and second, when he realizes that the big tragedy is not that Lolita is no longer in his bed but that she's not enjoying a normal teenaged life---in part because of Quilty yes, but mainly because of him and his insatiable need for her. Those two scenes will bring tears to your eyes but they aren't enough to save the movie. It's a big over produced mess and is just not good enough.

Rating:
Summary: As vexing as ever
Review: Certainly the most compelling screen version of Lolita, Adrian Lyne has a much better feel for the story than did Stanley Kubrick, and Dominique Swain is much better cast as the young femme fatale than was Sue Lyon. But, the most striking feature of this film is the cinematography which gives the story a much more evocative feel. While it is through Humbert Humbert that we see Lolita, Lyne finds more subtle ways to probe Lolita than did Kubrick, who treated her very much as an object. I suppose in that sense it may have been a little closer to Nabokov's original telling, but Lyne has a more sensitive eye to detail and the devastating relationship that forms between Humbert and Lolita. The script stays close to the novel. Lyne lavishes much attention on the cross-country trip and the rain-soaked stay in New Orleans. I felt Jeremy Irons did a better job than James Mason in capturing Humbert's psyche, better able to convey the emotions that led to his ill-fated obsession in Lolita. The film also evocatively recalls the genesis for Humbert's obsession. It was a bold move by Adrian Lyne, demonstrating a thoughtful understanding of the novel and not trying to add any form of moral judgement on it.

Rating:
Summary: Puts the earlier film adaptation to shame..for once.
Review: Reviewers who compare this film unfavorably to the Kubrick film, that starred James Mason(!) and Peter Sellers are out-to-lunch! This new version towers over that monstrosity, hitting the same romantic, tortured note that the book does. Let me mention that it actually tells the most important parts of the novel, which the original film does not. Granted, it is a little long for that reason.

There is joy, danger, fear and passion here. The way the evil Quilty is contrasted with Humbert is perfect. The old movie was too surreal for the story. Highly recommended by people who like movies that make them feel AND think.

Rating:
Summary: "The poison was in the wound"
Review: Lyne's "Lolita" is a masterpiece and the best movie of that year... The opening sequence is absolutely marvelous, with lines taken directly from the novel. "She was Delores on the dotted line, Loli in school" etc etc. Irons is the perfect Humbert, tortured, obsessed, mad.... The movie poses the question, "is Lolita a victim" or is she merely an opportunist? The film is full of delicious black comedy as well. Ultimately the destruction of Quilty and Irons himself suggest that Humbert WANTED to be caught....Society never figured out what Humbert was doing, the Priest at the school didn't catch on, Mrs Haze either committed suicide or died by accident, The owners of the many hotels didn't suspect anything, and so forth. Humbert dreams of being caught, police bursting in, detectives on his trail....He "catches" Quilty, and by this action reveals his own self hatred and his desire to be caught. The film is unforgettable, simply beautiful to look at and marvelously acted, though I do agree with other reviewers that the gorgeus Melanie Griffeth is sorely miscast. She does not at all resemble the book's character! It is impossible to believe any man could resist her.

Rating:
Summary: O lente currite noctis equi! O softly run, nightmares!
Review: It is impossible to make a faithful (legal) movie of Nabokov's novel. However, this is very good approximation of it.

Jeremy Irons is perfectly cast as Humbert, and captures the kind of clueless social fumbling and bumbling which is a large part of the character in the novel. Humbert is not comfortable around people of any age. Domenique Swain, in her first role, pulls off an acceptable version of the title character, both vulnerable and crafty. Although Frank Langella is no Peter Sellers, his rendition of Clare Quilty is much more realistic and true to the novel - even the over-the-top death scene with the ballet-like movements and red spit-bubble is almost straight from the book. A real problem was casting Melanie Griffith as Charlotte - unfortunately she was completely wrong for the part - being too shrill and light.

The cinematography was excellent. The feeling of travel - 27,000 miles in the course of a couple years, and geography plays a substantial part in the book, and was well represented in the movie.

Beautiful score by Morricone, who also did the well-regarded "The Mission" score.

For all the good things in the movie, the same three things in both the Lyne and Kubrick versions bother me, as I feel it robs Humbert of some nuance to his character:
1. No mention of first wife. He was not always just into nymphets.
2. No mention of second wife, Rita, (and taping the goodbye note to her navel so she would find it).
3. The last page and a half from the book was left out. This is possibly the most moving passage of the novel - when Hubert offers his apology for all his nastiness, and his admonition to Lolita, and the revelation that neither Lolita nor Humbert are alive as we read the book, and his pathetic summation..."I am thinking of aurochs and angels, the secret of durable pigments, prophetic sonnets, the refuge of art. And this is the only immortality you and I may share, my Lolita."

The title cards at the end detailing the demise of the characters was a cheap out in both versions of the movie. Had there been a narration of the last page over, say, a scene of Humbert writing in jail (which in the novel is where the book is written in 56 days of captivity), I'd give this movie 5 stars.

The DVD has a lot of extras including a commentary, rehearsal footage and 8 deleted scenes.

Nothing replaces the book, and I suggest the "Annotated Lolita" version which has 140 pages of notes, helping with the nuances in the complex, convoluted novel.

Rating:
Summary: Powerful, haunting, sad
Review: Irons (who is hot) does a great job as Humbert here. You feel sorry for him; if anybody is a victim in this situation, he is. I don't see how anyone could say he takes advantage of Lo; she takes advantage of HIM. Overall just a very disturbing, gripping, tragic film, and certainly inappropriate for anyone under 18 (I just turned 18, hee hee...in all seriousness, though, this is an ADULT movie). As for the ending scene that some have called over-the-top in violence, I was so wrapped up in the emotion of the movie it didn't really bother me (and NOBODY is queasier than I am; I can't even dissect things at school).
(Did I mention Jeremy Irons is hot?)

Rating:
Summary: Ok, Heres the Deal
Review: So, Ok, I have never read the book, Lolita by V. Nabakov. If either one of the film adaptions is close, then I am still dissappointed. It reminds me of the The Professional aka Leon. You get teased into what you think is going to be a thought out drama probing the real possibility of extreme relations, and taboo sex. What you end up with is a little shameful tittalation and then heaping mounds of retributory punishment and typical community standards / Hayes committee moral condemnation. It always has to end in an I-Told-You-So. Same here, but worse. Let me see if I can describe the repulsive:

1. I did not need to see Frank Langellas Genitalia. I understand Clare Quilty is supposed to represent the rich, conspiracy leading evil one in power hogging all the nymphs type guy, and that somehow I am supposed to want some kind of visceral thrill out of seeing his utmost come-uppance, but it just makes humbert look more pathetic, period.
2. Lolita- she did not need to be heartless and evil, deserving only to die in childbirth. I know heartless and evil people and I know that they all come from somewhere, but the moral intent here was to have humbert sell his soul to the devil and she just played the part.
3. This film did not need to be set so hard in the forties. The attention to period detail and soft focus photography was nice, but a destraction to the potential of the material.
4. The combination of Teen-Who-Is-Sexually-Aware, and Stupid-Leacherous-Grinning-Guy is a few stereotypes too many, and not even close too what is really going on in the world.

In a world where 12 year old girls can chat explicitly on-line, start thier own modeling sites, get lewd on web-cams and turn tricks at the mall, Lolita is sorely out of date. It could be termed as silly, but really it is sad because for all of the production value, and hoopla, it turns out to be a weak gesture at a topic that needs truly deep discussion.