Rating: 
Summary: The greatest Love story of our time
Review: Ok, so how contoversial is this movie? is the book? To me, it is not at all pornography or material that will feed phedephiles, but a love story that is so powerful that it will bring tears to your eyes from beginning to end.After reading the incredible book, which is literature at its best, I bought this movie. I have seen many mixed reviews about it. Mainly concerning the acts of Domonique Swain (Lolita). But I found that this movie mimics the novel almost perfectly. I was amazed at how well the actors portrayed the characters and brought them to life. In the novel you get a good feel for the characters, but it is something very different to see them on screen. Swain is the perfect Lolita. Although she was given braces in the movie, that is the only difference I could find. The director is great, he really brings out Lolitas tomboy ways with certain camera angles that show her "I dont care" attitude, like putting her feet on a dest while wearing a skirt. I have to admit that between the music and the atmosphere of this wonderful love story, I became very water eyed. This is a film great that should be on every movie shelf. I give the whole cast and the director two thumbs up. Do not let this movie slip by you.
Rating: 
Summary: SO BAD IT GAVE ME A HEADACHE!
Review: They'll never cast this movie properly (not in the USA anyway). I don't know who is more ill-suited (or uncomfortable-looking, for that matter), Irons or the actress playing Lolita. An adaptation of V. Nabokov's brilliant book couldn't be more misconceived than this lead-footed & uninspired piece of soft-core eye candy. The 16 year old girl playing Lolita acts like a 40 year old imitating a coy child. This title of this film should have been FLAGRANT EXPLOITATION. It is WITLESS & STUPID & BORING.
Rating: 
Summary: Another sad, beautifully made feature from Lyne.
Review: I might have given "Lolita" a five-star rating if it wasn't for the extremely vile and sad ending. I am absolutely charmed by the first half of the film, so it kind of balances out. I enjoyed the narration that Irons gives at the film's beginning, and the way he describes what kind of man would spot a nymphet among a group of schoolgirls. I expected to see Humbert merely shoot Quilty at the piano, but it is much more drawn out and nastier than I could have imagined - definitely not entertaining. By the time Lolita had left Humbert and he started tracking down the man she was with, I thought he was very pathetic. Especially when he is preparing to shoot Quilty. I like the four deleted clips on the DVD, especially the first two. The lack of a music track adds to their realism. I really like the photography of Lyne's films, but they are definitely not uplifting. Many have disaster in them. I really don't think you want your kids to see a Lyne film except maybe "Foxes" or "Flashdance". Lyne makes films similar in tone as Ridley Scott in that they both go for the darkness and morbidity of human nature. That's my comparison anyway. Lyne's are more melodramatic and adult-oriented than Scott's. I don't recommend this film for the narrow-minded and/or the faint of heart/nerve/stomach - especially the last half hour.
Rating: 
Summary: obsession
Review: first of all, im 12 year old and I read the review of
mandy from pa, girl what the hell are you talking about
'you can relate to lolita???!! tsss...whatever
This version people of lolita is the best! Jeremy irons
as the proff.humbert hum does his part excellent! obsessing
over lolita,he really does it convincing.but i have to say
Melanie griffith was discriped in the book as the fat cow,
the disturbing momma,but she is in fact a pretty woman.
clare quilty played by frank langela was great.Least
but not last lolita played by Dominique swain, she plays
her rol perfect!! I love her. The sex-scenes are convincing
and real,the childisch dresses, her aditutide evrything of her
was real, she's really a nymhet not what i can say about sue lyon.(the first lolita) although i think sue was more prettier
than dominique, she isn't someone who you would turn your head
if she walks by, and i think she's too old to play lolita.
why oh why diddnt they use a real 12 -year old????cuzz dominique
is fifteen in the movie,oh well... dispit that the movie is
beautifull and you MUST see it.
Rating: 
Summary: Wasted Opportunity
Review: By telling the source of Humbert's obsession at the onset of the film, I thought this would be an update of the film that's on par with the quality of Kubrick's version. After the first fifteen minutes, I realized I may be sorely wrong and as the film progressed, I was indeed disappointed. I'll get to the highlights of it's flaws: Swain seemed too innocent and imature as Loilita to make her believable and her "flirty" antics seemed too childish and grew repetitious and tiresome. Giving her braces was a bad idea and the blatant sexual images (eating a banana in the car during part of her journey with Humbert, badly smeared lipstick, etc.) were turnoffs if anything. Just because movies can talk about and show sex explicitly doesn't mean it's always best to do so, and comparing this version of Lolita to Kubrick's version gives many clear examples of that. Not to blame Swain for the bad portrayal of Lolita - she was only fourteen and it was her first acting role in film - it was bad decision making by director Lyne. The ending highlighted what was wrong with the whole film. To get to the point, It was totally unneccessary to show Frank Langella's genitals flopping around as he's trying to avoid death as well as his bare ass when he sits down to play the piano moments before being shot. I'm guessing that 95%, if not more, (male and female) of the people who saw that would have rather not seen it. And the unrealistic, protracted death of Langella's character, Claire Quilty, was lame. I don't know much about Adrian Lyne, but he seems to be a one-hit wonder with FATAL ATTRACTION. I haven't seen UNFAITHFUL yet, but I hear that it's a disappointment and after watching this version of LOLITA, I'm not surprised.
Rating:
Summary: The best version
Review: I don't want to get into the details of the story since you can read them in the editorial review, I just want to compare this version with the book and with Kubrick's, and for me this is the closest version to the book. Kubrick added certain details in his movie that were not written in the book, and I don't think they improved the film. This new version doesn't add or delete anything. My only critic to this movie, is that when you watch it, you feel sorry for "Humbert" (the main character-Jeremy Irons), however, when you read the book, you feel hate towards him. In the movie, Humbert seems kind of naive sometimes, but besides that, I recommend this movie very much.
Rating:
Summary: light of my life
Review: This movie deserves more adulation than it received. I had read the book before seeing this film, and unlike any other movie adaptation I've seen (with the exception maybe of A River Runs Through It), it surpassed my expectations. The casting is excellent: Irons as Humbert is all the neurotic but likeable European artist that I imagined, and Swain, instead of portraying the knowing seductress of the '62 version, (which I would argue is not how the character is written), is all precociousness, fun, and charm. This is the light and dark of humanity all wrapped up in a compelling story.
Rating:
Summary: Based on such a Great classic!
Review: This was such a great movie. Im not going to compare it to the book, because the book is always so much more wonderful. But this movie had wonderful cinematography that absolutely blew me away. Jeremy Irons is so believable as Professor Humbert, and Dominique Swain did a phenomenal job in her breakout performance. My favorite part had to most definitely be when Dolores(Lolita) was leaving for camp, and she ran back into the house and jumped into his arms, kissed him, and ran back out again. That certain scene got nominated for an MTV movie award in the Best Kiss category. (I think it should have won) This movie takes some startling turns, and at the end, you are half glad that Humbert ends up where he does. But you also wish that maybe, as dysfunctional as the relationship was, they had stayed together. This movie has it all. Even though I am just a teenager, I would reccomend this to adults (Read the book first, though.)
Rating:
Summary: Brooding, plodding misfire
Review: When this remake came out in 1998, it generated a lot of excitement and anticipation. With a more liberal climate in Hollywood and Jeremy Irons as Humbert Humbert, it must be the best adaptation of Lolita ever made, right? Wrong! Jeremy Irons seems lost and embarassed as Humbert Humbert. Melanie Griffith is woefully miscast as Charlotte Haze. Jeez, what's next, Sharon Stone as Lady Macbeth? 15-year-old newcomer Dominque Swain makes a grotesque Lolita, and the body double that replaces her in a brief nude scene looks nothing like her. Frank Langella's bestial Clare Quilty is suitably monstrous, but he's no match for Peter Sellers' wickedly funny portrayal of the perverted playwright in Stanley Kubrick's masterwork. Director Adrian Lyne's numbingly bad script is bleak and moves at a snail's pace. While he does retain some of Nabokov's gorgeous prose via Irons' voice-over narration, Lyne leaves out all the wit and dark humor that made the Nabokov novel so great. This is one bleak, depressing movie. The woefully inept screenplay gives us such a nasty... Lolita that you wonder how Humbert could ever love her and compare her with Annabel Leigh, his angelic childhood sweetheart. Humbert's obsession with Lyne's Lolita makes no sense whatsoever. Overlong, brooding, and lethally boring, this remake of Lolita proves that you need more than just a big budget, handsome sets, lavish costumes, and A-name stars to make a great movie. Avoid this stinker and stick with Kubrick's version. Better yet, read the book.
Rating:
Summary: A Beautiful Film
Review: Fulfilling and erotic yet a feeling of undesirable controlled tension. A must for the drama love story geeks.
| 
