[after his parents have left, thinking he is ill] "They bought it. Incredible! One of the worst performances of my…
A forbidden love. An unthinkable attraction. The ultimate price.
Urbane professor Humbert Humbert (Jeremy Irons) marries a New England widow (Melanie Griffith) to be near her nymphet daughter.
I'm really happy with this movie. It was everything I expected and more.
When I watch a movie based on a book, I need them to be really really similar or I'll freak out with every change they make.
In my opinion, if someone chooses to make a movie out of a book, then they must respect the writer's views, they can't change anything that will give another meaning to the story and they sure as hell can't overlook important parts of the book.
Before this movie I watched "Lolita" by Stanley Kubrick and I didn't like it one bit because he left out so many important little things and changed a lot of others and I was so disappointed.…
This is my father's favorite novel.
It is considered one of the greatest novels written, and one of the most well known Russian litereature works.
The novel was made into a film in 1962 by Stanely Kubrick.
If there is one rule for any director, screenwriter and producer, is to never remake or redo a film that was made by Kubrick.
No matter what is your reason. You can't.
I did not watch Kubrick's film, or read the novel (I intened to).
Still I am pretty sure they will be a whole lot better than this film.
Melanie Griffith was atrocious in this film. So bad.
Now I don't know how Kubrick's adaptation is, but going by his other films,…
A beautiful film about an ugly corruption.
This is far more faithful to the novel than Kubrick's adaptation, and I think that's why I prefer this one (though it's been some time since I saw Kubrick's - have to rectify that) the strengths of the source material is easily transported to the screen, as is its weaknesses or rather, vagaries. Like the novel, we can only hear Humbert's side of the story and as we know he's not the most reliable of narrators. What was actually going on in the mind of Delores remains unclear.
The film has a stunning beguiling performance at its core from Dominique Swain, an actress so good she's inevitably disappeared and dropped off the radar…
I think the main reason Lolita is such a hard work to adapt to film is not just the subject matter, we've seen several films tackle this issue, Hollywood mainstream films even. It's that Lolita is such a mixture of different genres and style. It's a tragedy, a love story, a parody of a love story, and a black comedy all rolled into one, and told with such rich, purple prose.
The Lynne film just doesn't seem to 'get'the original novel. It does the tragedy stuff fine, but the black comedy? eh not so much.
However Jeremy irons does give a great performance, as does Dominique Swain, though at times she does come off as a little annoying. Melanie Griffith's…
Although the subject matter is controversial, there's still a fantastic story here. Jeremy Irons brings a strange likeability to a role that could easily be very one dimensional and Dominique Swain goes between innocent adolescent and manipulative vixen believably, it's a shame she hasn't had much high profile work since this film, she's rather good as an actress.
Adrian Lyne directs with a softness that adds some really beautiful elegant atmosphere to the story and the score works perfectly along with it.
It was a great decision to cast Jeremy Irons as the lead since he has access to a wide spectrum of emotions, which allows him to deliver a richer and subtler performance than that James Mason contributed to film history three decades or so before him. Irons is truly astonishing here, and so is his co-star Dominique Swain in one of her first roles. She alternates between the playful, scheming, vulnerable, arrogant, innocent, seductive and all the other states of mind that make up the Dolores "Lolita" Haze character like she knew her inside out.
Because it's played with such precision it's simultaneously a pain and a joy to watch the story unfold and see Humbert sink deeper into his…
Alright I guess the actress who played lolita looked a little old though
Don't get me wrong, I liked this movie for what it was, but definitely not for what it should be.
It plays out more like a love story than how Nabakov's novel intended it. In truth, Lolita is about a predatory man with charm that warps things to his liking and flippantly glosses over the fact that he destroyed the life of a twelve year old girl. Humbert Humbert is a monster, and a lot of people instead peg Dolores as the monster, painting her as a little seductress when in fact, she is only a twelve year old manipulated by Humbert, who literally kills her mother in order to have complete access to Dolores. Even though the movie has…
The acting wasn't the best. They also didn't do a very good job explaining that Dolores (or Lolita) was always the victim.
A beautiful retelling of a classic yet controversial (one-sided) love story. The acting is so good you begin to understand the mental state of the lead character in a whole new way.
Finally got around to watching this after reading the book months ago, from what I can remember of the book, this movie is a pretty good adaptation, even if I don't care so much for the subject matter.
It is currently /not so/ my favorite movie even tough I have read the book.
The scenery, obviously, beautiful.
I, personally, don't like the scene where Quility ran and yeah, y'know
A braver, more faithful update of the Nabokov tale, with Irons a more tortured (and, dare I say, sympathetic) Humbert. Swain’s Lolita irritates - but that’s maybe the point - and is disconcertingly ‘real’ as both victim and tease.
A worthy attempt, by the right director, 35 years on from Kubrick’s effort. Given our gradually less-censorious sensibilities, it will be interesting to see how this difficult tale might be presented to us in 2032.
What I heard then was the melody of children at play, nothing but that. And I knew that the hopelessly poignant thing was not Lolita's absence from my side, but the absence of her voice from that chorus.
film #6 of my 5 directors x 5 unseen films challenge
"she was lo, plain lo, in the morning, standing four feet ten in one sock. she was lola in slacks, she was dolly at school. she was dolores on the dotted line. but in my arms she was always - lolita. light of my life, fire of my loins. my sin. my soul."
in spite of some gorgeous imagery and strong performances by the two leads, this felt overlong, tedious, and gratuitous. a lot of the adrian lyne trademarks are here and yet they've all been put to better use in his other films. however, i was pleasantly surprised at how fleshed out dolores is and at how much screen time was devoted to her pain and to addressing how morally reprehensible the central relationship is