Customer Reviews

Lolita (Widescreen)

5 star:		(63)
4 star:		(26)
3 star:		(13)
2 star:		(8)
1 star:		(8)

 

 

Ageless Lolita by Nabokov.

Weird, depressing, but true and believable love story. Love does not respect age or moral values; it is above law, logic, reason, and sex. Very fine line between pedophilia combined with latent incest and melancholic romance. Final scenes could be omitted, they don''t fit into the main plot.
Lolita is included on Time's list of the 100 best English-language novels, it is 4th on the Modern Library's 1998 list of the 100 Best Novels of the 20th century, and on World Library's list of one of The 100 Best Books of All Time.(Wikipedia)

This screen adaption of Vladimir Nabokov's sensual novel of the same name took me by suprise from the moment it began. Jeremy Irons really is fantastic as Humbert Humphrey. For a film that deals with the societal taboo of nyphettes and older men, Irons turns what could of been the role of a monster into the role of a broken man. The older Humphrey recaptures the essence of a first love when he become involved with the (very) young Dolores Hayes. Indeed the subject matter is hard to swallow, but do try to give the film a chance. Unexplainably, Lolita is one of the greatest love stories of all time. It is about a man in love with his past. I do fail to give the film five stories with good reason. Dolores Hayes is played by Dominique Swain, who although captures the vivaciousness of a young nymphette, just doesn't seem right in the role. For such a tragic story, Swain seems to have randomley stuck with some of the worst dialogue. Director Adrian Lyne stuck closely to the original novel (unlike Stanley Kubrik who sensationally skewed the story as a black comedy) but didn't quite make it all the way there. But, even with its flaws, I find Lolita to be a beautiful telling and that it probably due to the talent of Mr.Irons. Never have I seen someone play such a sad man with such sincerity.

How good did Adrian Lyne have to be to compete with Vladimir Nabokov and Stanley Kubrick in his 1997 version of the great "Lolita"? So good that he transcends wicked humor, achieving the echoes of real tragedy - well above the Python-esque thrill of absurdity achieved by Kubrick and even by the master himself, Nabokov.

Charles Dickens wrote of his favorite character, David Copperfield, that "he has a disciplined heart", and Lyne brings this eminently sane, innately forgiving love of all the novel's characters to this controlled, beautifully scored and accurately scripted film.

Lyne's closing note on the deaths of Humbert and Lolita (only a month apart, in November and December, 1950 - he of coronary thrombosis in prison, and she of complications in childbirth) tolls like a clear and gentle cathedral bell. It signals the end of an obsession comparable to the medieval idea of courtly love - which had absolutely nothing to do with marriage, but plenty to do with high-quality, sublime booty - and the end of a truly good film: a masterpiece of appreciation.

It is interesting to compare this movie and its predecessor, to "Pretty Baby."

Some critics claim "Lolita" is a true love story. I disagree.

Dominique Swain is beautiful and incredibly sexy; and Irons wants to possess her. Realistically, this can not be, so conflict, and ultimately death, ensue.

In "Pretty Baby," Brooke Shields is stunningly beautiful, adorably so, but not sexy, although she becomes a child prostitute.

While Swain obviously knows exactly what is on men's minds, Shields portrays a child playing at the sex trade.

Ultimately, her photographer-lover lets her go on to a normal childhood, just as earlier he freed the bird trapped in the whore-house. This is love.

Athough both films are visually beautiful, in "Pretty Baby," Sven Nyquist's cimematography is transcendentally so. His shots of Brooke Shields posing for her photographer-lover are like peering into the tender, throbbing core of life itself.

It is impossible to make a faithful (legal) movie of Nabokov's novel. However, this is very good approximation of it.

Jeremy Irons is perfectly cast as Humbert, and captures the kind of clueless social fumbling and bumbling which is a large part of the character in the novel. Humbert is not comfortable around people of any age. Domenique Swain, in her first role, pulls off an acceptable version of the title character, both vulnerable and crafty. Although Frank Langella is no Peter Sellers, his rendition of Clare Quilty is much more realistic and true to the novel - even the over-the-top death scene with the ballet-like movements and red spit-bubble is almost straight from the book. A real problem was casting Melanie Griffith as Charlotte - unfortunately she was completely wrong for the part - being too shrill and light.

The cinematography was excellent. The feeling of travel - 27,000 miles in the course of a couple years, and geography plays a substantial part in the book, and was well represented in the movie.

Beautiful score by Morricone, who also did the well-regarded "The Mission" score.

For all the good things in the movie, the same three things in both the Lyne and Kubrick versions bother me, as I feel it robs Humbert of some nuance to his character:
1. No mention of first wife. He was not always just into nymphets.
2. No mention of second wife, Rita, (and taping the goodbye note to her navel so she would find it).
3. The last page and a half from the book was left out. This is possibly the most moving passage of the novel - when Hubert offers his apology for all his nastiness, and his admonition to Lolita, and the revelation that neither Lolita nor Humbert are alive as we read the book, and his pathetic summation..."I am thinking of aurochs and angels, the secret of durable pigments, prophetic sonnets, the refuge of art. And this is the only immortality you and I may share, my Lolita."

The title cards at the end detailing the demise of the characters was a cheap out in both versions of the movie. Had there been a narration of the last page over, say, a scene of Humbert writing in jail (which in the novel is where the book is written in 56 days of captivity), I'd give this movie 5 stars.

The DVD has a lot of extras including a commentary, rehearsal footage and 8 deleted scenes.

Nothing replaces the book, and I suggest the "Annotated Lolita" version which has 140 pages of notes, helping with the nuances in the complex, convoluted novel.

Certainly the most compelling screen version of Lolita, Adrian Lyne has a much better feel for the story than did Stanley Kubrick, and Dominique Swain is much better cast as the young femme fatale than was Sue Lyon. But, the most striking feature of this film is the cinematography which gives the story a much more evocative feel. While it is through Humbert Humbert that we see Lolita, Lyne finds more subtle ways to probe Lolita than did Kubrick, who treated her very much as an object. I suppose in that sense it may have been a little closer to Nabokov's original telling, but Lyne has a more sensitive eye to detail and the devastating relationship that forms between Humbert and Lolita. The script stays close to the novel. Lyne lavishes much attention on the cross-country trip and the rain-soaked stay in New Orleans. I felt Jeremy Irons did a better job than James Mason in capturing Humbert's psyche, better able to convey the emotions that led to his ill-fated obsession in Lolita. The film also evocatively recalls the genesis for Humbert's obsession. It was a bold move by Adrian Lyne, demonstrating a thoughtful understanding of the novel and not trying to add any form of moral judgement on it.

Reviewers who compare this film unfavorably to the Kubrick film, that starred James Mason(!) and Peter Sellers are out-to-lunch! This new version towers over that monstrosity, hitting the same romantic, tortured note that the book does. Let me mention that it actually tells the most important parts of the novel, which the original film does not. Granted, it is a little long for that reason.

There is joy, danger, fear and passion here. The way the evil Quilty is contrasted with Humbert is perfect. The old movie was too surreal for the story. Highly recommended by people who like movies that make them feel AND think.

I do remember seeing this movie on TV a long time ago, during a free Showtime run. I recently watched the DVD version.Jeremy Irons is an Excellent actor, who handeled a very difficult role. Child Molester .Although It is the only movie I have seen with Domonique Swain, She deserved the top billing instead of Melanie Griffin or Frank Langella, who I felt played just token cameo roles.Her and Irons where the movie.I may have to view some more of Ms Swains work in the future. I'm sure because of the difficult subject matter it was not well recieved. However Overall I feel it was a good movie and I would highly recommend it.

Irons (who is hot) does a great job as Humbert here. You feel sorry for him; if anybody is a victim in this situation, he is. I don't see how anyone could say he takes advantage of Lo; she takes advantage of HIM. Overall just a very disturbing, gripping, tragic film, and certainly inappropriate for anyone under 18 (I just turned 18, hee hee...in all seriousness, though, this is an ADULT movie). As for the ending scene that some have called over-the-top in violence, I was so wrapped up in the emotion of the movie it didn't really bother me (and NOBODY is queasier than I am; I can't even dissect things at school).
(Did I mention Jeremy Irons is hot?)

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.