Lolita

Rating:
Summary: Needlessly Controversial. A Masterpiece!
Review: This film generated a lot of controversy at the time of its release, but it's pointless. There are no graphic sex scenes and only shadowed nudity using a body double. The only reason I can think of as to why it was controversial is because the novel to which it was based was controversial. This film is one of the best films of the decade, blending scathing humor with a great story. It is a very sad film, but one worth seeing. In case you have no clue as to what it's about, the storyline goes like this: As a young boy (at age 14), Humbert Humbert fell deeply in love with a girl, also aged 14. He considered her to be perfect in every way. But their relationship is cut short when she dies. So, even in his adulthood, he searches for someone exactly like her.

One of the best films of all time taken straight from one of the best novels of all time. Easily the best film of 1998.

Rating:
Summary: A great companion to Nabokov's novel
Review: This DVD is the ideal way to see Adrian Lyne's "Lolita". Any tecnical quality lost in not seeing it in a theater is more than made up for by the collection of supplemantal material. It includes a nice informal director's running commentary, a "casting session" between the two stars, and an excellent collection of scenes that mostly had to be left out for reasons of time. My favorites of these are a fantasy drowning and a scene where a face on a wanted poster transforms into that of the narrator's character. The latter was actually at the direction of the original author. In the novel, he says something like, "if you make a film out of this book, do this..." It's unusual that a great novel gets made into two great films. Stanley Kubrick's 1962 "Lolita" was the box office hit it deserved to be, but is often underrated by critics now. On the other hand, Lyne's version was not the hit it deserved to be be, but I can picture that it will age well. It's a great period piece, and well acted by Jeremy Irons, Melanie Griffith, Frank Langella, and above all by Dominique Swain. Hers must be one of the best debut performances on film. I enjoyed Sue Lyon in the Kubrick film, but with Swain, I felt as if I was watching Nabokov's Lolita.

Rating:
Summary: Nice Try, but no match for Mason/Lion Original
Review: Some 35 years AFTER a stunned world saw James Mason, Shelly Winters and Sue Lion in the original "Lolita" (filmed in black & white), a remake (in sumptious color) hit the silver screen. Starring Jeremy Irons in the role of the lecherous Professor Humbert, Melanie Griffith as the sexually pulsating widow/land lady, and introducing Dominique Swain, as the teenage temptress.

Along with perfect casting and breathtaking cinematography, the film virtually works scene by scene mimmicking the original. Still I compare the complete project to the work of Mason/Lion/Winters. The first cast exceeded the second in credibility and passion. In one aspect, this new version stands out: The scenes where Lolita teases the visibly enchanted Humbert are considerably more racy than those shown between Mason and Lion. Though no less "controversial", the b&w original clearly had matters "toned down". Still, in 1997 many an eyebrow could be raised about the implication of a middle aged man entertaining sexual thoughts about a girl of 13 or 14.

For those who haven't seen the 1962 original version, you will enjoy this remake. Only for those who HAVE seen the former, I caution you that your expectations for improvement on the original are not likely to be met. For certain you will be entertained searching for the differences.****

Rating:
Summary: Adrian Lyne, you do not compare to Stanley Kubrick
Review: The original 1962 Kubrick version of this movie is so much better, he actually captured the essence of this film. The remake is completely cheesy; it pales in comparison. Shame on those who think this wannabe movie is better or even compares to the original.

Rating:
Summary: A FASCINATING STORY OF OBSESSION
Review: It is interesting to compare this movie and its predecessor, to "Pretty Baby."

Some critics claim "Lolita" is a true love story. I disagree.

Dominique Swain is beautiful and incredibly sexy; and Irons wants to possess her. Realistically, this can not be, so conflict, and ultimately death, ensue.

In "Pretty Baby," Brooke Shields is stunningly beautiful, adorably so, but not sexy, although she becomes a child prostitute.

While Swain obviously knows exactly what is on men's minds, Shields portrays a child playing at the sex trade.

Ultimately, her photographer-lover lets her go on to a normal childhood, just as earlier he freed the bird trapped in the whore-house. This is love.

Athough both films are visually beautiful, in "Pretty Baby," Sven Nyquist's cimematography is transcendentally so. His shots of Brooke Shields posing for her photographer-lover are like peering into the tender, throbbing core of life itself.

Rating:
Summary: Long Overdue Tribute to Nabakov a Masterpiece
Review: The novel of "Lolita" has justly been called one of the best works written in the English language since Shakespeare. The fact that its author was not a native speaker of English makes his achievement all the more amazing. "Lolita" simply must be read, and any attempts to convert it to the medium of film must inevitably suffer in comparison. That said, Adrian Lyne's film is as close to perfect a translation from book to screen as one could hope to find. The performances are pitch-perfect: Dominique Swain, in her first film role captures the essence of Nabakov's creation, at once gangly and seductive; endearing, infuriating and a definite "starlet". The viewer, like Humbert, is quickly wooed and won. Melanie Griffith gives her small role as Charlotte a tarnished dignity and a weary grace, and Frank Langella does what he can with the enigmatic, barely-seen Quilty. But Jeremy Irons simply carries the film. Known for plumbing baser human emotions in all his films, he embues Humbert Humbert with a simple humanity that is heartbreaking to watch. To admit to liking Humbert even a little is uncomfortable--it means empathizing on some level with the force that drives him, even as we may be disgusted by his actions, but it is impossible not to be charmed. Irons drops his customary reserved demeanor to mine the humor in the role, and his voice-overs of dialog straight from the book are most effective.

This film version succeeds where Stanley Kubrick's 1962 version failed in remaining true to the spirit of Nabakov's vision. I can't recommend it highly enough. It's just a shame that the self-serving hypocrisy of the studio heads involved prevented its American theatrical release when so much commercial swill packed with violence and degradation of all kinds passes for entertainment in this country.

Rating:
Summary: Oh, for the real thing...
Review: Adrian Lyne's "Lolita" is not even close to being a true adaptation of Nabokov's novel. While it is visually quite beautiful, it completely fails to capture the light, lyrical wit that makes the novel such a joy. Irons, who seemed to be the ideal choice for Humbert, imparts no humor whatsoever to the role. Melanie Griffiths is a pale, ridiculous shade of Shelley Winters' brilliant Charlotte Haze in the Kubrick version, and Frank Langella's pseudo-diabolical Quilty is excrutiating to watch. Even Dominique Swain failed to impress me. I believe this has to with Lyne completely missing the point of the novel: Lolita does not love Humbert. Certainly she is a flirtatious girl, but the depth of their relationship is a fabrication of Humbert's mind, a misguided attempt to recapture a desperate prepubescent love. Lyne's overpainting of their amorous encounters (particularly the scene where she jumps into Humbert's arms and wraps her legs around him) was ham-fisted and boring, as if he were trying to create some sort of epic romance out of an unequal, exploitative relationship. Kubrick's version was flawed, but at least it captured Nabokov's humor, which makes the fall into the final tragedy that much more dramatic. I, personally, am waiting for a director to truly adapt the novel, but such a film would have to be six hours long to fully capture the depth and lushness of Nabokov's vision (an A&E miniseries, perhaps? Pride and Prejudice worked well...). And what moral chaos would erupt if an actress of Lolita's age (12) were employed, rather than one a scant two or three years older, as if it made a difference. Until then, I will content myself with the book, which is infinitely more subtle, and leaves more to the imagination. A decent film, but no masterpiece.

Rating:
Summary: A Very Well Done Film. Better Than the Kubrick Version.
Review: Now while I love Kubricks version I strongly believe that this is the best "Lolita" film. Kubricks version was funny, it was less graphic and it wasn't as sad. Another thing that played a large part in my liking of the film is the fact that Dominique Swain is hotter than Sue Lyons. Melanie Griffith isn't as hot as the original actress. Frank Langella is a lot more mysterious than Peter Sellers. Jeremy Irons performance is a lot sadder than James Mason's. I though that this movie was terrific. One thing I liked was director Adrian Lynes choice not to show Langellas face until the end. And one thing I didn't like was Lyne's choice not to show Swain naked except for (quite literally) a split second. Nudity, is necessary for a film like this, The film is about a man named Humbert Humbert (Irons), who has received a teaching job in America and needs a place to stay for the summer. So, he moves in with Charlotte Haze (Griffith) who takes quite a liking to Humbert. Humbert however dislikes Charlotte, but is smitten with her daughter, Dolores,
whom he calls Lolita. Lolita reminds Humbert of a girl in his younger years who died. But the love Humbert has for Lolita is not a pedophiles lust, but a deep love he has for her as a person. This love however is challened by playwright Clare Quilty
(Langella). Irons is great in his best performance and this is one of the saddest films I have viewed. I liked Kubricks, but there is one thing I need to add. At the end of Kubricks it tells you what happened to Humbert, not Lolita. In Lyne's version it tells you what happened to Lolita, which seems to soften the blow. But only makes the film sadder. Great Film. A+.

Rating:
Summary: Terrible
Review: This movie is terrible. Whoever made it turned Kubric's masterpiece into a piece of trash.

Its one saving grace was the director's seeming foresight to avoid emulating the original Quilty, as emulating Sellers' performance properly would have been an impossiblity. But they even mess that up in the last few minutes of the movie with a horrible rendition of the original character. And then you see a [...]. Just when you thought things couldn't get any worse and you can't wait for the movie to be over, they have to show you a [...].

The music is inappropriate. The mood is overly sentimental. The acting is sub-par.

The narration is a cop-out. Instead of telling Nabokov's story through subtle twists in the interaction between Humbert and Lolita, they use an annoying narration to make up for what the acting can't do. And they add and change a couple small things about the plot, which only makes things worse. Some say Kubric butchered the original screenplay in his adaptation, but it doesn't matter if that's true because it made for a very good movie.

One positive thing about this movie is that Dominique Swain (Lolita) is made to look very young and very attractive, as is essential. But this movie isn't supposed to be about the audience getting turned on by a 14-year-old; feeling uncomfortable is the suitable reaction.

I would give this movie no stars if I could. Consider that one for Kubric. Kubric's Lolita was a great, amazing movie. And for some reason, this guy comes along and decides to redo it, as if there were something to be redone. If it ain't broke, make your own damn movie.

Don't even waste your time looking at the cover of the DVD. Buy the 1962 version. Then watch the original Planet of the Apes or the original Godfather. I know that no one redid the Godfather, but go watch it anyways. Watch any number of movies that is not this one.

Rating:
Summary: Doesn't do justice to Nabokov's novel
Review: I must say, when I saw this film I felt like this did not do justice to Nabokov's Lolita. Most of the actors are not that great, with the exception of Jeremy Irons who makes a good Humbert. Our Lolita (Dominique Swain) is too old. When Humbert first meets Lolita in the novel she is 12 going on 13. Lolita realizes the power she has over Humbert and plays with him, so to say. I don't see that coming across here. In this movie, we know that Lolita and Humberts relationship is consentual, but most often, Swain makes Lolita seem like a whiney little brat. I did not like Melanie Griffath in the role of Charlotte Haze, the lonely widow desparate for Humberts affections. She doesn't come off with as much desparation and annoyance as she should. This film focusses too much on the sexual relations of Lo and Humbert. For example, when Mrs. Haze comes in after Lolita has skipped back to her room and asks Humbert, "is she keeping you up?"