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: Get a grip, man!!
Review: Okay, where are the smelling salts? Somebody should've waved some under spineless Humbert Humbert's nose to have him wake up and take control of his life. Watching LOLITA is like watching a slow-motion train wreck, yet more frustrating, simply because the characters are totally unpleasant--and because the wreck is so easily avoidable. Jeremy Irons gives a wimpy sleaziness to the role of Humbert: a revulsion akin to having some slimy creature crawling up your pants leg. Only Humbert is crawling all over an adolescent girl, young Lolita Haze (Dominique Swain). The obsession Humbert has for this immature, boorish teenager is revolting, and little Lolita--bless her vampy heart--responds by playing Humbert like a classical violin. Accordingly, the viewer is forced to watch the dysfunctional development of a one-sided relationship, with the manipulative Lolita firmly in charge of an alleged grown man. Such a relationship is destined for heartbreak, tragedy, and doom, and in this respect LOLITA doesn't disappoint. We see several lives shattered, including a most bizarre confrontation between Humbert and another jellyfish competing for Lolita's prurient desires, the chain-smoking Clare Quilty (Frank Langella). I had to book a double session with my shrink after watching that ugly piece of cinema, and I'm still having recurring nightmares. Ultimately, LOLITA is the story of a man who fails dismally at being a man. I'm a big fan of several of director Adrian Lyne's films--but this is not one of them.
--D. Mikels
Rating: 
Summary: My Favorite Movie
Review: This is an awesome movie. The movie looks great and has wonderful settings. I think Dominique Swain was born to play Lolita in this movie; the other casting seems perfect too. The story and plot are great and should actually prevent people from hurting children in any way. The DVD has some excellent special features. I love the footage of Ms. Swain and Mr. Irons practicing the fight scene. If you have never seen the movie this is one you should watch (rent, VHS, whatever). If you are a fan, you should own this DVD and watch the DVD extras.
Rating:
Summary: Great re-telling.
Review: I feel as though a bit of the dark humor was lost in this re-telling of the book, but it's nevertheless a great watch. Dominique Swain, though young, is TOTALLY sexy! Jeremy Irons is morbidly lovable, and you can't even help but feel sympathetic. This is a movie that I genuniely enjoy.
Rating: 
Summary: A gallant try, but nowhere close to the original
Review: Give director Adrian Lyne loads of credit for the guts to remake this classic Stanley Kubrick film well over a generation after the original made its mark. And for those who've never heard of Vladimir Nabokov and the original "Lolita," they'll find this film intriguing. But having read the book and seen the Kubrick film a number of times, it's impossible not to compare the original and the remake. A true high point is Ennio Morricone's score. It's outstanding, lending high drama with some subtle, haunting arrangements in key places. As to the film itself, Jeremy Irons is a so-so Humbert Humbert. He's a fine actor, although there's a slightly sinister quality about him which makes him less pitiable than James Mason as Humbert in 1961. Dominique Swain, while a fine young actress as well and more than capable of exploiting Humbert's mind as he attempted to exploit her, is far too sexually aware in this role. Sue Lyon as Lolita in 1961 was much more childlike--Swain, while she had loads of childlike moments, seems to use her sexuality as a weapon. The difference is subtle but noticeable. Nothing against Melanie Griffith, who has had some fine roles in her career, but she's no Shelley Winters. Winters as Charlotte Haze gave this film a number of great comedic moments as well as the brilliance she brought to the screen as Humbert's especially needy wife. And the less said about the Clare Quilty character, the better. Peter Sellers was excellent in the original, popping up throughout the movie with great comedic moments. His clowning around, even in facing death, was fantastic. This Quilty is portrayed as dark and mysterious, and there are only a handful of brief speaking parts. We barely know him by the time a broken Humbert confronts and kills him. And the death scene is much too graphic and way over the top for this viewer. I truly don't understand the motivation--if it was intended as black humor, it doesn't work. Another aspect of this film that bothers me is the prologue. Irons narrates a series of scenes explaining that he fell in love as a fourteen year old with a beautiful girl in his native France. Her death due to illness mere months later breaks the young Humbert emotionally. Irons states that his emotional growth was stunted, and he can only guess that his attraction to the youthful Lolita was a need his soul had to reconcile the lost romance of his youth. Here in the politically correct new millenium, Humbert more or less tells us that he was a victim, and I suppose that makes everything okay. No need for any of that stuff--the original film was much more successful in going directly from the lead-up to Quilty's death to the set-up of his introduction to Charlotte and Lolita Haze. And perhaps this version of the film (at 137 minutes) is a wee bit long. The endless motel scenes, after Charlotte has died and Humbert and Lolita are meandering toward Ohio for his teaching assignment in the fall, become monotonous. It's clear that Lolita is planning an escape. There's no need to make us wait that long for her to get away. Once in Ohio, things begin to fall apart, of course, and Lyons and Swain are effective in these scenes--he's reduced to begging her not to leave him, and she bats her eyes and rubs his thighs when she wants money or a role in the school play. The most compelling scene in the film is near the end. Lolita has long since escaped, and three years have elapsed when Humbert receives a letter from her asking for money (she's married, pregnant and all but poverty-stricken). He asks her to leave with him. She thinks he wants to go to a motel, but he wants her to run away with him for good. She wounds him by saying that she would run back off with Clare Quilty before leaving with him--after having revealed that Quilty was casting her in porn roles. Irons, in refusing her hug when her eyes widen at the cash he's brought her, is very believable in his hurt. Overall, a good film, though not a great one by any stretch, and my list of complaints come with the inevitable comparison to a true classic of an original. The film was shot especially well, and the extras--namely the interviews with Irons and Swain--are interesting. Sure, you won't enjoy it as much as the Kubrick original, but it's well worth your time--especially at this bargain-basement price.
Rating:
Summary: Bizarre, semi-erotic love story
Review: "LOLITA": I bought this DVD based on its recommendation following my past purchase of "Beau Pere". Like Beau Pere, I was first taken-back by the relationship between the two main characters -- a middle-aged man romancing a 14-year-old nymphet -- however, after becoming engrossed in the situation surrounding the two, I found much more -- Action, intrigue, mystery, and a damn good storyline! The storyline of Lolita, left me surprised to see it reveal more than just a typical child molestation synopsis. In all actuality, it seemed to be focused more on the 2 character-in-conflict synopses (1 & 2) --- --- (1): "man-vs-man"; best seen in the power-struggle relationship between step-father Humbert Humbert & and his child-lover, Deloris Haze (Lolita), as well as the conflict which arises between Humbert and his lover's pursuer.-- and --(2): "man-vs-self"; as seen in Humbert's struggle with own morality/position involving his parent-lover relationship with his step-daughter, Deloris ("I was not quite prepared for the reality of my dual roll; on the one hand, the willing currupter of an innocent -- & on the other, Humbert the happy housewife" [excerpt: film "Lolita" 1998]).The cinematography of this film is extremely well done, especially in scenes involving suggestive erotism (while being tasteful, it gets the point across without being lasciviously graphic). Very modern in its technique, the imagery, camera angels, and film speed manipulation really help sell the story and drawn the viewer more into the tale of this unusual couple (step-father/daughter-lover situation). The props and costume design for this movie are impressive and seem to hold true to the time-period in which the tale of Lolita takes place. Very realistic!, you kind of get a sense of what things were really like in that era (I belive the 1940's). The acting in this film is also very convincing, I must mention. OTHER PLUSES for this dvd are the special features; i.e. the "featurette", director's commentary, screen test, etc. All are very informative and helpful in understanding this Adrian Lyne masterpiece!! I definitely recommend this film for those who are intrigued by bizarre semi-erotic love stories (Lolita; "In the end, it's a love story; It's a strange & awful love story" --Adrian Lyne-- excerpt: dvd featurette [Lolita]).Post Script: Some of the truly disturbing & contraversial scenes were not included in the final cut of the 1998 theatrical release, however, are made available via this digital dsic edition (I don't know about the VHS format) -- To view these provocative outtakes, access the "Extra Footage" section on this dvd; They're worth watching....
Rating: 
Summary: Lame Lolita.
Review: To associate this horrible movie with Nabokov is a shame. It has none of the wit and dark humor that made the Nabokov novel so great, and it has none of the charm and subtlety of Kubrick's movie. Bleak, bloodless, boring.
Rating:
Summary: Outdoes Kubrick
Review: Beginning with one of the most famous opening lines in literary history ("Lolita, light of my life, fire of my loins. My sin, my soul. Lo-lee-ta.") we are introduced once more to the inimitable Humbert Humbert and his elusive quest for the Holy Grail in the form of "nymphness" personified. And oh what a sordid sorry trek it is, taking him and his young orphaned charge to some of the seamier spots of a fifties era American landscape. To cheap hotel rooms in little podunk towns where he can for a few fleeting days share a bit of privacy with his nubile naiad. Then of course, we follow the happy pair to the final confrontaion with one Clare Quilty, the only character in cinema/literary history who could make a pedophile like Humbert Humbert look wholesome by comparison. Remakes of movies always draw varying responses. Many critics and viewers were reluctant to favor this 1997 Adriane Lyne/Stephen Schiff/Jeremy Irons remake to the Kubrick/Nabokov/James Mason 1962 original. It's hard to argue when a novelist of the stature of Nabokov had such a direct hand in writing the screenplay (Kubrick was an uncredited co-author). Surely the work's creator would be better able to realize his vision cinematically? Yet, I believe the later film actually does a much better job in capturing the essence ot the novel. It boils down to casting. Shelley Winters was probably more right for the role of Lolita's Mom, Charlotte Haze, than was Melanie Griffith (almost universally described as the weakest link in the remake). That role aside, however, I think that every casting choice in the '92 version was spot-on. Irons, though he doesn't conjure up the physical characteristics of the Humbert that comes across in the novel, nevertheless did a better job than Mason in conveying Humbert's rakish libertinism. I'm so glad Dustin Hoffman, originally considered for the role, didn't land the part. This is amongst Irons' strongest performances. Dominique Swain, chosen over thousands of hopefuls who tried out for the part of Lolita, is the embodiment of all things young and lovely. I thought she also did a much better job than Sue Lyons at capturing the childish petulence that underlies most of the 12-year-old Lol's actions and reactions. She's just more believable, thanks in large part to Lyne's expert direction. Frank Langella was also much more convincing as Clare Quilty, a truly despicable fictional character, if there ever was one. Peter Sellers, due to his indelible comedic cinema persona, just could not come across as all that menacing on screen. He did, in fact, play the character for laughs, so the final confrontation came off more as farce and lost its effect. Finally, while Kubrick is one of the greatest directors in cinema history, he may have not been best suited for this particular novel. Plus, the era he was working in was much less conducive to a fully realized treatment of such touchy subject matter. He'd hit his comedic stride two years later, with Dr. Stragelove. Lyne had a bit more artistic leeway, although the history of the film's distribution was still rather bumpy, to say the least. Lyne has now come up with two of my favorite relatively recent films, this and the 1990 Horror film, Jacob's Ladder. He's another in what's become a rather large batch of excellent contemporary British directors. Please give this, his masterpiece thus far, a try. BEK
Rating:
Summary: Charming. But NOT the real Humbert and Lolita.
Review: I so wish someone would make Lolita with the characters as Nabokov intended them. It would make for a fabulous movie. But this is not it. The film has some charming moments (especially some of the deleted scenes), some decently tense ones and a fairly gruesome killing of Claire Quilty. However, director Lyne is guilty of first degree murder of the real character of Humbert Humbert. In this movie it appears as though the poor Humbert is helplessly being swept along by the force of Lolita's budding sexuality. This may be an interesting idea for a story in itself but is decidedly not Nabokov's story. Nabokov's Humbert is precisely such a dramatic character because he is warped by the immense internal struggle of his strong morality with his utterly diabolical desires for a Lolita who at first is quite innocent. Where is the crucial cathartic scene where Humbert's evil side finally wins a first victory over his formerly implacable morality, when he drugs Lolita in order to abuse her sexually without her awareness? We also lose the Initial Lolita character in this movie. It seems like they dropped the rather more salacious Lolita, from somewhere around the middle of the story, right into the opening gambit. Making it seem as though she is rather more of a direct agent in her own corruption than Nabokov ever intended her to be. Nabokov intended to show how Humbert's intervention corrupts an initially innocent Lolita to become the salacious and promiscuous Lolita we find at the end. Yet in this film it seems as though she might well have ended up that way anyway, Humbert or no Humbert. Irons' acting in some parts is quite ludicrous. The idiotic smile on his face during the first sex scene is just too much. Caused laughs in my family. I don't think it was intended as comical. Swain's brave new interpretation of Lolita is interesting, but her blatant flirtatiousness right from the start, while cute in a way, does not make this story as good as it should be. This is a fault of the direction, not the acting. The real Lolita has yet to be made. Kubrick's version was equally unsatisfactory, though for different reasons. Still, this film is worth watching if only to delight in a rather charming debut act by Swain.
Rating:
Summary: about this title of movie......
Review: What I feel is that the story is very well written and is a good piece of movie(should not be missed). I've seen and scanned through the disc I borrowed from friends whom but this from overseas and the finding is that the rating passed the Board of Film Censorship in Singapore easily without any big problem. The movie is fine for 20 and above age group to watch but its not sutable for the under 20s as the young actress in this movie trying to put forward a 'sex motives' which is rather unfit for youngsters below the 20 age group to watch. I still find that the movie story is good and fit for watching without any sexual advancement or intercourse.... N/B: Movies that I've gone through which do not passed the rating(even with the R rating logos printed on disc) are those contains sexual advancement/intercourse, bloody violence/Murder, unusual sex moves, XXX movies.
|
