Rating: 
Summary: Zero star screenplay, five star production design
Review: Let's start with the pro's: beautiful photography; brilliant casting (Irons was born to visualise H.H.); flawless set design. The con's: the overall "mawkish" (as the divine V.N. would probably put it himself) atmosphere; re-written dialogue, devoid completely of the wicked Nabokovian sense of humor that makes the novel such a joyful read (try the Kubrick version for that); exaggerated emphasis on Anabell Leigh; mediocre, pathetic (as in pathos) soundtrack. In short, don't let the movie spoil the book for you. There are some great cinematic moments, though: wet Lolita, lying on the lawn; Charlotte walking on the Hourglass lake bridge; piano keys stained with Quilty's blood, and especially the blood bubble ("with juvenile connotations") on his lips' one of the novel's most striking images. Again, brilliant, beautiful, unforgettable photography.
Rating: 
Summary: Pure Beauty
Review: This Movie has been added to my top Favorite movies ever, such a beautiful movie!
Rating:
Summary: Lolita 1998
Review: Although Adrian Lyne's Lolita is a good film adaption of Vladimir Nabokov's superb novel, it contains fatal flaws. First I will say that the cinematography is glorious and the score by Ennio Morriconne lush and romantic. I expected Jeremy Irons as the obsessed Humbert Humbert to turn in a mind blowing performance. Unfortunately, he stands around looking glum most of the time. Dominique Swain as the nymphet Lolita does have several impressive moments, but ultimately is unconvincing as she comes across as nothing more than a 90s brat. I will say though that the relationship between Humbert and Lolita does have its very powerful moments, just not enough of them.I don't hold these faults to the actors. I think Adrian Lyne, the director is responsible for the films flaws. For one thing, he seems to want to make Lolita look as unattractive as possible every chance he gets. She takes out her retainer before performing oral sex on Humbert, and is frequently seen munching on bananas and getting milk mustaches. Also in one scene, we see Lolita sitting diown, laughing as she reads a comic book. The camera moves away to reveal that Humbert is making love to her. This and other scenes make the relationship between Humbert and Lolita repulsive, and if you're going to make a film based on Lolita, their relationship can't be portrayed as disgusting. The audience must be made to feel the love that Humbert has for this girl. It only partially succeeds. Irons also fails most in the ending scene where Lolita tells Humbert that she never loved him. Irons merely cries for two seconds and leaves. James Mason in Kubrick's version is much more moving. I also have a problem with the fact that Lyne seems to have duplicated the Kubrick film shot by shot in that scene. My last qualm is that this adaption is nearly completely devoid of humor, which is an essential aspect of Nabokov's story. Melanie Griffiths gives a fine performance as Charlotte Haze, but she is given far too little screen time. Frank Langella as Quilty is also quite amusing, too bad he only gets ten minutes to show it. Thus, when a 17 year old Lolita reveals to Humbert that it was Quilty who put her away, we don't care. It should be a revelation, but it is not. Quilty's death scene offers an infusion of black humor, but it is too little, too late. Jeremy Irons last few scenes as an emotionally broken Humbert are very moving though. I give this movie three stars because for all of its faults, it is involving and does deserve to be seen and compared with Stanley Kubrick's 1962 adaption. Even though it falls short when compared to it.
Rating:
Summary: I was left drained and wanted to kill Quilty over and over
Review: *Spoilers* Well I just saw this movie... After a somewhat slow start I totally got sucked in... And I was left speechless and in awe and wanted to kill Quilty over and over and over and over again... I mean Humbert sleeps with Lolita but atleast he has genuine love for her. It's questionable okay but still... He wants to make her happy... This totally blew away American Beauty in my favorite movie of all time list... I was left utterly speechless... This is one of the most powerful films I have ever seen... go see it...
Rating:
Summary: a great new adaptation of Lolita
Review: Jeremy Irons plays Humbert Humbert, 40ish professor who falls in love disastrously with a 12-year old nymphet. This movie is a closer adaptation of Nabokov's book than the Kubrick version. One flaw of the Kubrick film was that it begins with the end and it gives away crucial plot points and takes away suspense. In the Lyne version, the scene at the beginning takes place again near the end but this time, it reveals nothing. Dominique Swain is excellent as the title character. She looks and acts the part of the nymphet that Sue Lyons could have never have pulled off. Some have suggested that Miss Swain was too old to play a 12 year old child but Dolores Haze is not 12 for the whole book. A good portion of the novel takes place after she is 12. When they are on the road, she is 13. When she is in the all girl's school, she is 14. She is 17 at the end. The movie is not without flaws however. Some scenes of humor with Irons falls flat. I found Melanie Griffith to be very annoying but then again Lolita's mother was suppose to be. Thankfully she's only on screen for a short time. Lolita is shown eating bananas in the movie. Besides the phallic references, the bananas were used because the inspiration for Lolita came when Nabokov read a newspaper article about the first monkey to paint a picture. The scientist gave him the tools to draw and the first thing he drew was the bars of his cage. I can't say that this version of Lolita is better than the Kubrick, they each contain what the other misses. Kubrick's version contains the humor that Lyne's version is lacking and Lyne's version contains the sadness that Kubrick missed. Including reading Lolita, I would recommend that the viewer get both films. For Lolita, is both a satire and a sad story rolled into one. The two films in a way compliment each other.
Rating: 
Summary: Stunning adaptation.
Review: Strongly recommended. I began last evening intending to watch one of the 20 (!) DVDs in my 'to view' pile, everything from Vertigo to The Luzhin Defence. I picked out Grosse Pointe Blank which I had bought on a friend's recommendation. Needless to say I loathed it and ejected the DVD after half an hour and put Lolita on instead. This beautifully shot film really kept me involved for its 2+ hours running time. The performances are superb: Jeremy Irons is outstanding as always, but it is Dominique Swain's portrayal of Lolita which is really astonishing, considering that this was her first film role. The script is a very close adaptation of Nabokov's book (unlike Kubrick's version). The story of a man's obsession with his stepdaughter is powerful and ultimately tragic, with the final scene almost unbearably poignant. Meg Ryan and Frank Langella have smallish roles which are well handled, but it's Irons and Swain who are on screen for 95% of the time. Adrian Lyne's direction is wonderful, subtle and highly cinematic. He also demonstrates that it is possible to infuse a film with an erotic charge (and this film is erotic on occasions) without resorting to excessive nudity. The DVD is excellent, with a very fine 1.85:1 anamorphic image. There are a few flecks during the opening credits, but after that the transfer is virtually flawless. It is not a spectacular transfer (like JFK for example), but the beautiful photography comes across marvellously: 8 or 9 out of 10. The orthodox but seductive orchestral score by Morricone comes over very well on the soundtrack. The extensive extras include a very interesting excerpt (shot on videotape) of a couple of scenes in rehearsal with Irons and Swain: fascinating to see how this ends up in the film itself, as the scene is shown again just after the rehearsal clip.
Rating:
Summary: Like watching my mind's eye
Review: I judge movie adaptations of novels by how closely they come to replicating what I heard and saw in my mind as I read the novel it was based off of. "Lolita", starring Jeremy Irons, matched the vision that my mind's eye saw as I read Nabakov's novel almost perfectly. Irons' voice sounded just like I imaginged Humbert's voice would sound like if I had met the poor fool in person. Lolita, played by Lyne, looked, acted and sounded just like the little Dolly Haze did in my mind as I read the book. For any movie buff or Vladimir Nabakov reader, this movie is a must see.
Rating:
Summary: A powerful adaptation of Nabokov's novel.
Review: An interesting point to note is how different this version, with Jeremy Irons, is from the 1962 version with James Mason. Granted, moviemakers have more latitude now than 30 years ago, but the characters are quite different in many ways. I would highly recommend that a serious movie collector purchase both versions because they are both outstanding. The latter version is more provocative because the action is much more graphic, but the acting in the earlier version is slightly superior. Sue Lyons made her film debut as Lolita in the 1962 version and the girl who played Lolita in the recent version wasn't as "womanly" looking. Whatever happened to Sue Lyons? She was gorgeous! All in all, I'd have to say that the Jeremy Irons version is the more superior.
Rating:
Summary: An extraordinary work of adaptation
Review: Vladimir Nabokov described his best-known novel as "a chronicle of my love affair with the English language", and good lord, it is. Thus, when I heard that they were making a movie, I was suspicious. At least half of the pleasure of the book is Nabokov's intricate, loving, artfully stylized language. How, I was concerned to know, was Lyne going to put that on film? With intricate, loving, artfully stylizing cinematography, it turns out. I have never in my life seen an adaptation of this kind where watching the movie provides the same "feel" that reading the book does, but that is exactly what Lyne achieves. The juxtaposition of stylized, artistic composition with mundane details so real you can almost touch them, a hallmark of the novel, is perfectly realized onscreen. Dominique Swain gives an extraordinary performance, expressing perfectly the movements and mannerisms of Dolores as described in the book. Jeremy Irons is as superb as ever, and the sets and visual design bring Nabokov's grimy post-war America to the screen with all the perverse love for roadside motels, cluttered backseats, and bad taste that comes through in the novel. My only misgiving with the adaptation is a tiny one: the replacement of Humbert's lovingly described .32 automatic with a terribly dull .38 revolver. This admittedly geeky detail aside, this film still stands as the single finest adaptation of a novel I have ever seen.
Rating:
Summary: Terrific
Review: There's no such thing as an immoral book or film. One should look at this film in its medium. It's a great work of art, raising interesting issues and superbly acted. Jeremy Irons' amazing voice is just made for the voice-over, and the opening scene where he speaks for the first time is spellbinding. Dominique Swain really captured the essence of Lolita; I find Lolita very annoying myself, but nevertheless she played the role well. It's weird how the older-man, younger-girl relationship has been milked so much, but not much of the older-woman, younger-man relationship has been explored at all. Why is that, I wonder. Overall, a great movie, great direction, the only criticism I have is some of the use of "imagery"-the sharpening the pencil worked okay, but the bananas got a bit stupid. Anyhoo, a great movie. I enjoyed the innuendo-laden dialogue!
|
