Rating: 
Summary: Lolita Film Review, A European Viewpoint
Review: The film Lolita attracted a lot of attention, but, in my view, misguided, the actors and actresses playing superb parts in the transition from book to film, although the subject matter supposed to be controversial, is deep within each of us, in the human psyche. Jeremy Irons, plays a gripping, agonising role as Humbert Humbert, while Dominique Swain, who plays Lolita, stirs it up a treat, mischevious and delightful. All in all, very watchable, edge-of-the-seat-stuff. More at home in enlightened Europe, than in puritanical United States.
Rating: 
Summary: Unforgettable opening scene
Review: This 90s adaptation of Nabokov's masterpiece is filmed in a sumptuous visual style, with a lot of soft focus and golden hues. Said focus and hues are appropriate for a work that purports to be the rueful reminiscences of a half-mad professor composed in the confines of a prison cell. In this sense, Lyne's adaptation is true to the original, as I understand it anyway. The inevitable comparisons to Kubrick's version and to the original novel aside, this film is a success based on these two simple criteria: it is full of memorable images and it rewards repeated viewings. It's worth watching for the riveting opening scene alone, in which the camera tracks Humbert's slowly weaving car along an open (and, of course, highly picturesque) country road.
Rating:
Summary: Tragic love
Review: Lolita is a film of forbiddenlove and the tragic results of that love. Irons gives a great performance and newcomer Swain is excellent in her first role. I look forward to seeing her in furture roles. This is a very good movie with the DVDbeing your best bet, but even the VHS is of good quality.
Rating:
Summary: .
Review: Although maybe a trifle more "tender" and "dramatic" than Nabokov probably ever intended the story to be, Adrian Lyne's interpretation works well, displays a real sense of energy and originality, and I think displays a greater understanding of the more subtle elements of Nabokov's artistry than some others seem to feel. The film is admirable in that it always seems to know what it is doing, and why. The aesthetic style is quite intoxicating, and there are moments in the film which are genuinely brilliant. There is a good dose of humor leftover from the book (as their should be), and it is well done; some of Irons' facial expressions and reactions are priceless, and the direction is often clever. Small details are used to great advantage, and often in a vaguely surreal way, and this at the very least *is* keeping in the spirit of Nabokov's writing in general. Another aspect that is keeping in the spirit of Nabokov's writing are the occasional hints of the characters' awareness that they are the pawns of another reality (dictated by the author) -- it surprised me to hear Langella point out that Irons was a "foreign entity of a foreign literary agent" or something of the sort (for the Quilty character, like Nabakov, is a writer.) There are elements of the film that remained a bit befuddling, and the stylism of the movie does go a little too over-the-top at points, but in general, this is quite a cinematic treat. Excellent performances, competant and aesthetic direction, well-handled drama, well-handled comedy, and an admirable dose of literary surrealism -- it adds up fairly nicely.
Rating:
Summary: Still not sure what to make of it..eventually, i hope i will
Review: My advice to anyone who's interested... see this version, see Kubrick's version, read Nabokov's book, read Nabokov's screenplay... then see what you think. This version has been accused of taking the tragedy of Lolita out of context from Nabokov's original intent of mocking such seriousness. In that respect, Kubrick's version is far better. Then again, his version is also guilty of torturing the audience with the ridiculous performances of James Mason and Peter Sellers. Lyne's version of Lolita, in terms of actors, succeeds far better than Kubrick's. In addition, the cinematography of the modern version is also admirable. Simply put, the movie LOOKS beautiful. A bit too long in some parts.. a bit too short in others... Adrian Lyne is an odd man. An odd director at that. Nonetheless, the movie is an interesting, and perhaps unique, addition to American Cinema. See the first recommendation. Then decide for yourself.
Rating:
Summary: One Word: Art
Review: Adrian Lyne's film is like a piece of art. Unlike Kubrick's version, I feel that this film is the epitome of Vladimir Nabokov's brilliant novel. From the opening scenes to the end, I feel a sense of satisfaction - it completely captures the novel's essence. Every line is uttered with feeling from the talented cast. Jeremy Irons, Dominique Swain, and Melanie Griffith truly understand the characters. The cinematography, location, acting, costumes, script, and music all blend so wonderfully together. If you want to see a great adaptation from book to film, see this one!
Rating:
Summary: A beautiful, carefully crafted movie.
Review: There is a moment in Adrian Lyne's LOLITA that effectively captures the twisted, yet surprisingly innocent feeling that Vladimir Nabokov wanted to portray with his novel. When Lolita, wonderfully played by newcomer Dominique Swain, is rushing up the stairs to say goodbye to Humbert Humbert (Jeremy Irons), before she leaves for summer camp, you realize that the look of excitement in Jeremy Irons face, and the nervous posture he has is that of an innocent child in love.Indeed it is true that Humbert is a child at heart, a fact which becomes clear early in the movie, when we learn a little bit about Humbert's first encounter with love and its subsequent painful and unexpected loss. It seems impossible to not compare Lyne's version with Stanley Kubrick's version, made over 35 years ago. I have to admit that I am an avid Kubrick fan, and that I always thought his version of Nabokov's novel, if not faithfully reproduced, was a classic. So it was that with apprehension (and some morbid curiosity) I decided to watch Lyne's version. Boy was I blown away. It is a terrible thing that our society as a whole, at this day and age, can't see pass the taboo that apparently clogs the story. It is sad because Lyne's LOLITA is an excellent and beautiful film in every respect. From Lyne's carefully crafted visual style, to the outstanding performance given by both Swain but especially by Irons (this is his movie), to the heart-breaking music score by legendary composer Ennio Morricone. Everything is in place here. It is clear that Lyne has a profound understanding of the novel, he successfully directs the story in a way the slowly engulfs you and never seems to fall into the traps that plagued Kubrick's version. There are a great many things that you will discover in this movie, not the least of which is the realization that, deep down inside, there is a place in each and everyone of us where love seems to have no age. In the end you understand the reasons behind the story, you will see Humbert's joy reflected in your eyes and his tears will fall down your face, but perhaps most shocking of all, you will feel like him. Please, do yourself a favor and see this movie on DVD. Trimark has done an excellent job by including a very insightful commentary track by Adrian Lyne, a wealth of deleted scenes (some of which I wish were on the film), theatrical trailers, and perhaps the most wonderful feature of all, a casting session with Jeremy Irons and Dominique Swain, where you see them rehearse a scene, and later get to see the final scene. Highly recommended.
Rating:
Summary: A Treasure of a Film
Review: Lolita is a tragic melodrama, both sad and sensitive. Professor Humbert takes one look at Lolita and is immediately both obsessed and devoted. As a viewer, I was able to both admire him and see his hollow selfishness. Admirable for the poignancy and dedication of his pursuit and selfish because he saw her for her sexual precociousness. Now, I didn't think the movie was able to establish a clear path between her innocence and her sexual episodes with Humbert. As a viewer, I was caught off guard by her first open-mouthed kiss with him. She begins the movie as an innocent child who leafs through pictures of movie star photos, then Humbert shows up and she sees the way he looks at her and engages in playful flirtation, and this leads to manipulation on her part, such as when she asks him to try and dissuade her mother's plans. I viewed this as the behavior of a playful and perceptive girl who was intrigued by the new-found power she was able to exert. Even agreeing with Humbert's assessment of her as a nymphet, I was not convinced of her leap as someone who was newly conscious of her sexual influence to someone who sought to engage in sex with a man in his forties. I think part of the problem is that the movie was narrated and seen by Hubert's perspective and we were not shown a very clear view of Lolita's motivation. However, once their relationship was established I found it to be thoroughly convincing. Also, are we to believe that Humbert honestly felt and guily towards what he had done? After three years without Lolita, whereupon he had time to examine their relationship, his only course of action was to go to her home and ask here to leave with him. An action that would uproot her from the stability of her new home and satisfy his obsession. It is only after this rejection, that he asks for her forgiveness. He later goes to Quilty's house, what many feel - in a state of self-hatred and regret. Given support by his statement, "You cheated me out of my redemption." But I think this is the wrong conclusion. After three years of reflection, he decided that he still wanted her, and it is logical to assume that he didn't go to Quilty's house out of self-hatred, but out of anger and jealousy - that he took her away from him. It is only in one of the final frames of the movie where he expresses the magnitude of what he has done. How he has taken away her childhood. But this doesn't come until the police have closed in on him and there is no hope that he will be reunited with her. And as much as I want to, I don't believe him when he says, 'It was not the poignancy of Lolita's absence by my side, but the absence of her voice in the children's chorus.' I believe it to be the converse statement and that his sadness is a result of Lolita's forever absence by his side. Finally, I wonder if Lolita was truly a victim in these events. There are arguments to be made that Lolita benefited from her relationship with Humbert. Even despite Lolita's own opinion near the end of the film where she is unwilling to forgive Humbert. Her opinion, which is shared by the majority of people - that a 40 year old man's relationship with a 14 year old - doesn't make it correct. There are arguments to be made that her sexual precociousness is consistent with her sexual behavior towards Humbert and that his devotion towards her is something to be admired. She even continued to have friends and act in a school play while under Humbert's wing. However, I think back to her playful exchange with her friend on the front lawn after a tennis match and the modern dance she invented and I think it is wrong to dismiss her childhood so easily. Ultimately, she was mistreated despite a devotion displayed on Humbert's part that would be seen as beautiful if it were guided towards the right person.
Rating: 
Summary: Yeeeagh!
Review: 20 minutes into this overwrought "costume thing" (as John Cleese might put it) and I ran screaming for the Kubrick version. Nuff said?
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.
|
