Lolita

Rating:
Summary: Ya-ya...
Review: Ultimately, the great novel transcribed or adapted to the screen must fatefully fail. Unavoidably, the comparisons between the two Lolita films must come about. The original Lolita (1962) was directed by the late Stanley Kubrick and was adapted for the screen by Nabokov himself. To keep things short in this review...the modern Lolita lacks one thing that the earlier one had: a striking irony in the view and substance of the Lolita character. The original version depicts the nymph Lolita much more convincingly. Both films benefitted from a wonderful cast, although I believe that Melanie Griffifth's (sp?) casting was somewhat of miscast. Her performance was good, but I could never get the Shelley Winter's image out of my mind. Lastly...I felt something else missing from this version. What happenend to Lolita's Ya-Ya?

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: Better than Kubrick's version
Review: This is no doubt a better and more faithful film adaptation of Nabokov's novel than Kubrick's 1962 attempt. Humbert's European experiences, totally ignored in Kubrick's film, is mentioned. Quilty's character was a flamboyant and comic presence in Kubrick's film, is dark and mysterious here, exactly the way depicted by Nabokov. And of course, this film portrays sexual feelings and behavior much more frankly than Kubrick's film could have done in the 60s.

The DVD version contains Lyne's commentary, footage of Swain's screen test, a featurette, 3 screenshots of the script (why only 3? ), and 4 deleted scenes (including one where Humbert tries to grab the apple from Lolita -- chapter 13 in the novel).

Rating:
Summary: Beautiful Production
Review: What a beautifully filmed movie -- camera, sound, costume, sets -- all perfect. However, I found myself wondering how Humbert could stand being with this obnoxious brat of a girl once the sexual curiosity was gone. Of course that's his problem, the sexual magic never ends for him. Is this love? Who knows?

Rating:
Summary: I liked the film, but it is far from a masterpiece
Review: I watched Lolita once and was impressed, but not absolutely taken by it. I expected much more from this film, its director and Jeremy Irons. Usually, a film such as this one leaves me with a desire to watch it over and over, to analyze it... But, I can honestly say that I do not have a slightest desire to see Lolita again (at least, not any time soon). The controversy around it went way out of proportion and may be done this film a disfavor, unlike to other films. Irons is so predictable and familiar that viewers, who know his previous roles, can practically guess his every gesture. On the bright side, however, the overall take on Nabokov's story is an interesting one. I enjoyed Mellany Griffith (her character playes a significant part in the story, albeit she is given very little film time). Also, Dominique Swan was so brilliant in her big on-screen debut that she made me forget the fact that she was too old for the role. She IS Lolita!

Rating:
Summary: Heartbreaking
Review: As I believe that just about everything that can possibly be said in praise of Adrian Lyne's adaptation has been eloquently done so by the previous posters, I will keep this short. Lyne's LOLITA is quite simply one of the most heartrending films I have ever seen. I was so affected by Jeremy Iron's incredible performance as Humbert Humbert that I am still shaking from its aftermath. That final scene in which Humbert stands on the hilltop, his face speckled with the blood of the man he felt had destroyed his happiness and in which he fully regrets his past actions that have lead to the destruction of a young girl's innocence, will stay with me forever. Kudos to you, Mr. Lyne for your integrity in standing firmly beside a film that you obviously believed in very strongly. The end result is a staggering achievement.

Rating:
Summary: A truly great movie adaptation of a truly great novel
Review: I've read the novel and I've seen both of the movies. Stanley Kubrick's version was good in its time but it is inevitably dated now. The Adrain Lyne version is quite simply stunning. It's daring (almost banned in Australia for goodness sake) and absolutely faithfull to the novel in a way that Kubrick's was not. Jeremy Irons is (almost) always good and Dominique Swain is someone we'll all hear a lot more about in future. Stunningly beautiful to look at, this movie adaptation of the Nabakov novel is I think the way Nabakov would have wanted the story to be told. I really can't understand the references by other reviewers to the novel's being a comedy - to me it could not really be seen as other than a (modern day) tragedy. Like Shakespeare's "Romeo and Juliet" this could be set in almost any time and would still be a classic tale of love and inevitable tragedy. This will be a hard act for Adrian Lyne to follow.

Rating:
Summary: LOLITA will one day receive its due denied it at present.
Review: Adrian Lyne`s LOLITA will one day receive its due from film historians as the greatest cinematic work of the last two decades of the 20th century: a prize denied it at the moment as we war with one another over how we are to face sexual and social reality. As Maurice Girodias wrote of the novel "Lolita": "I sensed that LOLITA would become the one great modern work of art to demonstrate once and for all the futility of moral censorship and the indispensable role of passion in literature." So does this speak also for Lyne`s film. Jeremy Irons, as Humbert, opens the film with words from Nabokov`s novel. As he first catches sight of Lolita (Dominique Swain), the camera focusses slowly and lovingly on her form as she reclines on the lawn, surrounded by the wetness, lushness, humming honey-dew freshness of the garden; reading a book, from which she looks up at Humbert and smiles tenderly, tauntingly, knowingly - radiantly. She returns to her book, but with a smile of realization; aware of him yet far from troubled; silently already conspiring with him. Thus we meet Dominique Swain, proving herself already in this opening scene one of the most accomplished actresses of our time. The camera moves to dwell on her feet, raised behind her as she lies reading, glistening against a backdrop of floral beauty; nature wordless, far more eloquent than words. The camera frequently focusses lovingly and interestingly on her feet. In a later scene she sits beside him on the veranda of the Haze house, and Miss Swain is so skilful an artiste that her movements and mannerisms are not at all feigned, but are the natural movements, expressions and mannerisms of the girl she plays, as though the camera were not there. The carefree jerking of her bronzed legs and arms against his; the brush of her hair, carelessly and as if unknowingly against his cheek. Her smile lights up the screen. Her eyes mock society: its bigotry, its prejudice. ... "I should call the police and tell them you raped me, you dirty old man," she tells Humbert later, smiling tauntingly and affectionately, her retainer showing, making him smile too. She asks "Want to see my chin wobble?", and wobbles it, making us with Humbert want to press our face, laughing, against hers. She takes her retainer from her mouth and drops it in his drink while her mother has left to get some ice. Frantically, he has to fish for it and get it back in her mouth before her mother sees. He also has to quickly dispose of her bubble-gum and pop it into his own mouth before her mother espies it. As out and out bigots condemned this movie for its frankly realistic portrayal of love, so many of its half-hearted defenders displayed cowardice in their would-be sympathy, disowning and neutralising it with: "...Of course, we know what Humbert is doing is wrong," and "... Of course, we cannot sympathise with him."! And other such timid sell-outs and non-committal verbiage. (Together with the academic so-called "psychopathological analyses" etc., which are all so much garbage, and which Peter Sellers` Quilty in the original Kubrick film version mocked so well!)

A truly great film - one of the most moving and realistically performed of all time - and a superb work of art for the more enlightened people of the future to appreciate much better than we today are able to!

Anthony Walker.

Rating:
Summary: NOT NABOKOV
Review: Those who prefer this version over Kubrick's can argue that the older movie is dated, tame. Kubrick's is not perfect, but at least it captures the tone of Nabokov's incredibly black comedy, which this version entirely misses. Humbert is not a sympathetic character, as portrayed here; rather, he is perhaps the vilest, narrator in all of literature, whose view of 1950's America in general, and suburbia in particular, are acidic and horrible and hilarious. Irons gives an entirely different performance on the unabridged audio tape -- inhabiting the shell of a loquacious monster; while in the movie, he turns the character into a dreary, troubled man, in a treatment that seems to mix Movie-of-the-Week sincerity with Cinemax soft-core filmmaking. Griffiths fails to displace Shelly Winters's brilliant performance in the Kubrick, coming across as strident and actor-ly (as well as too attractive for the role), while Langella is absolute torture to watch. Only Dominique Swain impresses, though not nearly so much as Sue Lyons in the original.

Rating:
Summary: Go for Kubrick instead
Review: Lyne's version is incredibly faithful to Nabokov's book in almost every way than Kubrick's. It gets the look of the Forties right, it details Nabokov's fascination with American pop culture beautifully, and Dominique Swain was closer to Lolita's actual age than Sue Lyon was when the earlier version was filled...

...and yet there's hardly a moment of humor in the whole thing. You'd thing it was based on the dreariest, drabbest, most grim novel in the whole world if you hadn't read the book it was based on. For all of the faults that many (including Nabokov himself) had with the Kubrick version, at least it recaptured what may be perhaps the single funniest great novel of the twentieth century. Lyne's version does not.

And Melanie Griffith does not hold a CANDLE to Shelley Winters as Charlotte Haze!