At first cheer was something to fill my days, all our days. Ages 14 to 18, a girl needs something…
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…
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…
Adrian Lyne's adaptation of Lolita is occasionally heavy handed and goes for twenty minutes longer than it needed to, but the sordid tale of a grown man's infatuation with a 14 year old girl (possibly with ADD) remains compelling, especially since Irons and Swain are so committed to their roles and deliver effective performances.
Shit. This movie is so fucked up.
I loved the book which I actually read a few years ago, and I liked the 1962 film but I've wanted to watch this adaptation for ages because for a lot of people this is the definitive version. It's definitely a lot more risque than the 1962 version, let's say Stanley Kubrick left a lot to the imagination whereas in this one it's all very clear cut and you know exactly what's going on. I'm not sure whether I preferred that or not, obviously it makes you feel a lot more uncomfortable, but I think that's good as to avoid romanticisation of this abusive relationship (seriously, the amount of people who romanticise Lolita shocks me). I think it was very…
Jeremy Irons's Humbert > James Mason's
Dominique Swain's Lolita > Sue Lyons
Shelley Winters > Melanie Griffith
Peter Sellers > Frank Langella
Love the book and not that I'm directly comparing them but there could've been a waaay better cinematic interpretation. Also, personally I didn't like the casting of Lolita. Will have to watch Kubrick's version.
"It was love at first sight, at last sight, at ever and ever sight."
The cinematography here is beautiful!
I love how Adrian Lyne creates this atmosphere full of tension and erotism without using explicit sex scenes or nudity.
Jeremy Irons is great as Humbert.
Mais um ótimo trabalho de Adrian Lyne (Atração Fatal, Alucinações do Passado), inclusive a Lolita interpretada pela bela Dominique Swain é melhor que a do filme do Kubrick, Jeremy Irons está bem no papel do professor que fica obcecado pela ninfeta.
F 33 7
Fvorita por siempre.
A fetishized, humorless version of Lolita, suffering from mr.Lyne's soft-core aesthetics and one-note reading of the story and an annoying performance by Dominique Swain as the main character. Ennio Morriccone's deeply affective, lyrical score is this movie's main saving grace.
Adrian Lyne did a much better job remaking another classic five years later, Jeremy Irons managed to overcome the controversy surrounding this film, ms Swain, now an adult, keeps making straight to video movies to this day and they all lived happily ever after.
Preserving this list for posterity as it will disappear from here:
- after number 70, "In a Land…
Feature films distributed and/or produced by Vidmark Entertainment. A company responsible for numerous wonderfully trashy vhs covers, they specialized in…