So, Ok, I have never read the book, Lolita by V. Nabakov. If either one of the film adaptions is close, then I am still dissappointed. It reminds me of the The Professional aka Leon. You get teased into what you think is going to be a thought out drama probing the real possibility of extreme relations, and taboo sex. What you end up with is a little shameful tittalation and then heaping mounds of retributory punishment and typical community standards / Hayes committee moral condemnation. It always has to end in an I-Told-You-So. Same here, but worse. Let me see if I can describe the repulsive:
1. I did not need to see Frank Langellas Genitalia. I understand Clare Quilty is supposed to represent the rich, conspiracy leading evil one in power hogging all the nymphs type guy, and that somehow I am supposed to want some kind of visceral thrill out of seeing his utmost come-uppance, but it just makes humbert look more pathetic, period.
2. Lolita- she did not need to be heartless and evil, deserving only to die in childbirth. I know heartless and evil people and I know that they all come from somewhere, but the moral intent here was to have humbert sell his soul to the devil and she just played the part.
3. This film did not need to be set so hard in the forties. The attention to period detail and soft focus photography was nice, but a destraction to the potential of the material.
4. The combination of Teen-Who-Is-Sexually-Aware, and Stupid-Leacherous-Grinning-Guy is a few stereotypes too many, and not even close too what is really going on in the world.
In a world where 12 year old girls can chat explicitly on-line, start thier own modeling sites, get lewd on web-cams and turn tricks at the mall, Lolita is sorely out of date. It could be termed as silly, but really it is sad because for all of the production value, and hoopla, it turns out to be a weak gesture at a topic that needs truly deep discussion.