Lolita

Rating:
Summary: Humbert the noble, or how to make a pedophile lovable.
Review: This is an excellent adaptation of Vladimir Nabokov's brilliant book about the sordid relationship between a grown man and a teenage girl. Although still disconcerting, the subject of pedophilia is far less shocking today than when the book was published almost 50 years ago. Yet, despite the subject matter, the book was wildly popular because it was a literary work of art, beautifully written with some of the most splendid metaphors and descriptive narrative in American literature. This was all the more amazing when one considers that English was Nabokov's second language.

Director Adrian Lynn (Fatal Attraction, 9 ½ weeks, Indecent Proposal) is no stranger to stories with perverse sexual content. His presentation of the story does the book justice although certain interpretations may not have been what Nabokov had in mind. Lynn gives us a presentation that is very sympathetic to Humbert. Nabokov's Humbert was very complex, partly a victim of his fixation on young girls, partly a sexual predator and partly a hopeless romantic. Nabokov's Lolita was extremely innocent, just approaching the threshold of sexual curiosity and urges, more playful than consciously provocative. While Nabokov hints at a mutual seduction, he leans far more heavily towards Humbert as the cause of the events even though Humbert is clearly helpless in the face of his obsession. Lolita entered into the sexual relationship more as a result of longings burgeoning from her blossoming sexuality than a desire to seduce Humbert in particular, who was not even her first lover.

Lynn's presentation transforms Humbert from the seducer into the seduced, whose weakness for young girls is manipulated by a sexually precocious siren tempting him to dash himself on the shoals of pedophilia. Lynn portrays Lolita as the aggressor, an adolescent temptress who knows she is desired and simultaneously teases and entices him to do her lustful bidding, knowing he is powerless to resist. Lynn's Humbert is more of a hapless romantic than a fiend, ennobling him as a victim of love rather than the confounded sociopath he really is. In Lynn's version, Humbert becomes the fly to Lolita's spider.

However, after the initial seduction when they take to the road, the film is very true to the book in chronicling the decay of the relationship showing Humbert's further plunge into feelings of romantic desperation and Lolita's shrewish exploitation of him as she increasingly uses sex as a weapon. The book was very effective at portraying the relationship as a symbiosis of two deficient beings, each selfishly taking from the other what was needed. Lynn does an excellent job of portraying that here. As the relationship degenerates, Lynn is effectual at portraying the ugly side of both characters. The bitterness and rancor that results is compelling. To his credit, he understands that Nabokov's story was more of a character study than a sex story and Lynn avoids the temptation of becoming too lurid, focusing instead on solid character development of two very flawed beings.

I must take a moment to give Lynn the highest praise for his period renderings. This is one of the finest portrayals of 1940's Americana I can remember. The costumes, hairstyles, cars, furniture, locations and sets create a 40's reality that is like being hurtled back in a time machine. The music is not just precise for the period, but it is perfectly integrated with the story. As the two travel, the music changes to reflect the region. Having Lolita dance and sing to period music on the radio is a nice touch because that is exactly what teenage girls of any era are apt to do.

The acting is first rate all around. When the film was made, Dominique Swain was 17, and although she looked young for her age, she could never pass for 12. So for the first part of the film before Charlotte's demise, she is simply too mature. However, for the road trip she is ideal. Though I don't agree with Lynn's early interpretation of Lolita as the teenage temptress, I can't imagine it being done any better than the performance Swain delivers. She is playful and provocative in a childlike manner, part pixie and part vamp. Once they get on the road, Swain hits stride with a performance that is almost a force of nature. She is powerful and intense, effortlessly moving back and forth between sweet innocence and the emotional torrent typified by the "murder me" scene. It is an outstanding performance with depth and breadth that is very unusual for an actor so young.

Jeremy Irons is wonderful as Humbert, giving him as amiable a personality as one could possibly imagine for a character with such vile intentions. Irons injects a good deal of wry humor into the part in addition to giving Humbert an almost quixotic romantic quality. Melanie Griffith is just the wrong actress to play Charlotte. She looks nothing like the portly and plain character described in Nabokov's book. Though her acting is fine and she is appropriately obsequious, she is far too attractive to be the repulsive troll Humbert despised. It takes away from Humbert's desperation because it hardly seems like a great sacrifice to have married Charlotte to be near Lolita.

Frank Langella (Dracula) is more obnoxious than mysterious as Quilty, making the audience want to exhort Humbert to pull the trigger as he confronts Quilty with the revolver. Again, I think this is probably Lynn's doing since his vision is clearly that of a Humbert sympathizer.

This is a fine film with great production values, terrific performances and a classic story. I feel that it surpasses Kubrik's adaptation in its ability to capture many of the finer points of Nabokov's book, even though Nabokov collaborated on the Kubrik film. I rated it an 8/10. It is definitely worth digging out of the rental stacks.

Rating:
Summary: INCREDIBLE MOVIE!
Review: The first time I saw LOLITA late one night on TV, it was amazing, Jeremy Irons drew me to the movie, as soon as I saw him, I was hooked. The next day I rented the movie, and for seven blissful days was in a fantasy of obsession and love. I still go crazy everytime anyone mentions Jeremy or LOLITA. It is truly a beautiful movie about a man and his obsession with a love. If you have not seen this movie, please do so, you will never forget the experience, as i will never either.

Rating:
Summary: Faithful to text but not the tone
Review: Lynn's version of Nabokov's novel is more faithful to the literary events of the novel, but totally misses on tone. True Nabokov's readers find themselves thrust into the uncomfortable position of seeing things through the eyes of a pedophile, but Lynn gives us pure pornography. Gone are the telling details in the text that reveal more obsession than love. Nabokov's readers are forced to decide whether they stand with Quilty or Humbert - a Hobson's choice if there ever was one. Lynn's version does not provide that opportunity. He has completely sexualized this Lotita. We only see her through Lynn's eyes as some kind of pin-up.

Say what you will about the literay faithfulness of the Kubrick version, but it totally wins on tone. We are always let in on the lies Humbert tells himself. We see Lolita, not as a young woman experiencing an early sexual awakening, but as a girl taking advantage of her power over Humbert.

The only redeeming element of Lynn's version is Jeromy Iron's narration. It made me rather long for Iron's to record Lolita as a book on tape.

Rating:
Summary: Wow . . .
Review: After reading the book and seeing both versions of this film, I must say I was amazed. Adrian Lyne's version is much better than Kubrick's. There was narration from the book, including the vital first paragraph, and many events were true to the book as well. I thought Jeremy Irons portrayed a much better Humbert Humbert than James Mason. Come to think of it, I liked the entire cast better. I did not, however, like Frank Langella, although he was truer to the book's Quilty than Peter Sellers was. Everything is done very tastefully, considering what the story is all about, and is engrossing throughout.

Rating:
Summary: Powerful and brilliantly made!
Review: This movie is very powerful. Although it has no explicit scenes of sexuality, the eroticism, sexual obsession, and drama measure off the scale. I was left shaken at the end of the movie. The acting is brilliant, the emotions radiate through the screen, the eroticism will drive you mad, and the tension will vibrate through your ribs. This is a must see must own movie, you will not have any regrets.

Rating:
Summary: The 2nd version of Nabokov's masterpiece.
Review: At first, no film version of this novel can be better than the book...

Adrian Lyne had a lot of problems with making this film. Psychological problems:
1. The novel is written by one of the greatest writers of XXth century and it is considered to be one of the best novels ever written.
2. The first adaptation was made by one of the best directors, by great Stanley Kubrick.
Than, of course, problems with censorship which is as sanctimonious as fifty year ago.
Problems of appropriate casting etc etc...

And so what do we have? Hmmm... This picture is really hard to be talking about. In some way it is good. Positive sides: wonderful music, wonderful landscapes, OF COURSE, great Jeremy Irons (Dominique Swain was pretty good but not enough to be called great). Negative sides: this picture should be better if it wasn't cut in such a way, its spirit is not a spirit of the novel, it's too melodramatic, Humbert Humbert is more romantic than Nabokov's cynical intellectual.

And so. The film and the book are incomparable. They are just different. This picture is not bad. I just didn't like it very much. Maybe uncut version (I want to watch it so much if it does exist) will be better.

Rating:
Summary: A Must-Have!!!
Review: This DVD is a definite must-have for all lovers of lolita-type movies!The DVD includes GREAT EXTRA's like commentary, deleted scenes, interviews, trailor, and much more! My review is short and to-the-point, cutting out the fancy verbage!Cast chemistry is absolutely GENUINE and incredibly believable. All cast members performed flawlessly! Plenty of steamy scenes. Plot and story holds your interest very well. This re-make version is much better than the original black and white version. Has much more erotic "Punch" to it, and older version was too comical.BEST PRO: The hot steamy Dominique scenes. WORST CON: Would loved to see some half-nude scenes, like my other 5 star movie "Beau-Pere" contained.This movie also had a very pleasant soundtrack.Two thumbs Up! BUY IT!

Rating:
Summary: Lolita as tragedy
Review: Am I the only person who finds the elimination of the comedic element from this story an improvement? The emphasis here is on the quiet desperation of Humbert's madness rather than on his hysterical enthusiasm for Lolita. When you open the book and read "Lolita, light of my life, fire of my loins!" you silently guffaw, already knowing that Nabokov intends him as an object of the same sort of amused contempt Humbert himself heaps on the cheap American scenery around him. When I heard Jeremy Irons sensuously, almost distractedly murmuring the very same words on the movie's voiceover, I was moved to compassion - and stayed there straight through the end of the film.

Hence Nabokov's Humbert and Lyne's Humbert are two very different men. With all due respect to the original, I feel that the Irons/Lyne Humbert is much more the sort of fellow who could realistically pull off such crimes without getting caught. He is silent, brooding; he guards his hand closely, escaping detection (by all except Quilty) no matter how flagrant his relations with Lolita become. I'd always thought the original Humbert was too busy sneering at Americans to successfully cover his own rear end. As played by Irons, he has no such defect.

The film's only major flaw is the characterization of Lolita. Instead of re-translating her to correspond to the new Humbert, the movie lifts her straight from the book; and the Lolita of the book is the flat object of Humbert's deluded projections. In the book, it's understood that we are seeing things through Humbert's twisted eyes; but Dominique Swain presents as an objective reality his self-serving fantasy that Lolita is the aggressor. There might be something to be said for that, to magnify even further our sympathy for Humbert; but it just doesn't make sense that a girl of that age and time would have the sexual confidence to throw herself at a grown man with such an utter lack of hesitation. In fact the film's Lolita isn't just aggressive, but supremely confident that she has Humbert in the palm of her hand. Of course, after a while he gives her plenty reason to think so; but Swain's Lolita lacks self-doubt from the very beginning - which rings quite false, at least to this twentysomething female reviewer. Consequently, when she later cools to Humbert and starts lording it over him one senses none of the satisfaction of genuine character development.

Unlike many others I feel that Melanie Griffith, who is way past her prime as a sex object, was the perfect choice for "fat cow" Mrs. Haze. It's not that her figure is all that far gone, but the combination of that persistently infantile voice and her tawdry over-the-hill prettiness - accentuated by the heavy, greasy makeup, garish Lucille Ball dye job, and form-fitting period wrap dress - produces exactly the Mrs. Haze the plot requires: attractive enough to blindly believe that she's the one Humbert likes, but too worn out to really distract him from Lolita's freshness. No disrespect to Ms. Griffith; it's her ability to play up her unique traits without flattering the character that makes Mrs. Haze so gratingly real.

Rating:
Summary: More evidence that life is unfair
Review: Its grotesquely unfair to such talented folks as director Adrian Lyne, Jeremy Irons, Frank Langella, and Dominique Swain but its impossible to really give their efforts to create the second film version of Nabakov's dark comedy a totally fair hearing. If you've seen Kubrick's brilliant 1962 version, its hard to watch this second film without comparing the two. If you want more explicit raciness, than you'll probably have a better time with Lyne's version (and to be honest, who doesn't sometimes want more explicit raciness?). However, if you're looking for a film that manages to capture Nabakov's sly wit and the wonderful perversity of his language, Kubrick's version remains unparralelled.

Anyway, taken on its own merits, Adrian Lyne's Lolita is a more-or-less average film dealing with Humbert Humbert's sexual obsession with the young nymphet Lolita Haze. Lyne has always been a flashy director but on the whole, he's far more subdued here than he has been in the past and that works to the film's credit. Since soft-core variations of this same premise have been showing up on Cinemax for the past few decades, Lyne doesn't sensationalize Humbert's attraction but proceeds rather matter-of-factly. In short, he directs the film in the exact opposite of the way we'd expect him to direct it and that brings a needed level of surprise to a story that is no longer as shocking as it once was. Though the script is never more than mediocre (jettisoning much of Nabakov's complex wordplay, probably to make the film more "accessible"), Lyne does come up with some beautiful images. While Kubrick's film showed us how beautiful black-and-white can be, it would be unfair not to mention that Lyne's version does the same thing for color. Another reviewer put it best (and so I won't try to claim this insight for my own) when they said that Lyne's images supply the eloquence of Nabakov's original prose.

As for the acting, its a mixed bag. As Lolita's mother, Melanie Griffith is rather shrill and never seemed to be truly into the character. As readers of the book know, the character is one that can both break your heart and annoy you to death. Griffith does neither. She just seems to be Melanie Griffith, slumming. Jeremy Irons is a perfect choice for Humbert and there lies the problem. His casting is too obvious and there's nothing really subversive or shocking about discovering this man is a pedophile. Its a bit like making a film about an overeducated gentleman who is revealed to be a cannibal and then casting Anthony Hopkins in the role. Sure, we know Hopkins can play the part but who's really going to be surprised? Frank Langella, as the equally perverse Clare Quilty, shows the potential to be a fascinating character but Lyne doesn't seem to know what to do with him and as a result, Langella just sort of pops up whenever the story needs to be pushed forward. However, Dominique Swain is an excellent Lolita and, unlike Sue Lyon in the original, shows evidence of being a fine actress in her own right. She brings a beguiling sense of self-centered innocence and a destructively niave sexuality to her role and, finally, she makes the film worth watching.

Rating:
Summary: A masterpiece...
Review: It's difficult to make one of the greatest novels ever written--ever--into a movie with quality characters and coherent images. This movie does it...brilliantly! This has to be Jeremy Iron's best work--he plays Humbert perfectly in this film. Miss Swain certainly suits her character physically and, every now and then, blew me away with a few fantastic moments (they were probably due to Lyne). I can forgive whatever she didn't do up to par, partly because of her inexperience and also the great cast she had to live up to. I am always intrigued by Lyne's decisions: the tone, the setting, the casting, the music--is excellent, almost as if Nabokov directed it. Lyne is a master film-maker, in my opinion, and this is movie captures all of his talent, especially his keen eye for detail and humor, no matter how subtle. Thank god I had Showtime briefly for that summer it came out--I don't know how I found this film, it must be fate! So, I encourage you to get past the ridiculous infamy surrounding Lolita--or, if you like that, embrace it...whatever--and watch this film. It's top 10 for me.