Lolita
1997 Directed by Adrian Lyne
Synopsis
A man marries his landlady so he can take advantage of her daughter.
Popular reviews
More-
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…
-
While Lyne is an obvious master of sexual tension (fatal attraction, anyone?), it is debatable whether or not it is in good taste to bestow this vision onto a fourteen year-old. Regardless, Lyne is brilliant - he makes the viewer identify with Humbert's sexual longings, moments later whipping them back to reality with a surge of guilt. Irons and Swain are top notch, and the production design cultivates 1940's America flawlessly. This version of Lolita is much truer to the original novel than Kubrick's masterpiece - it had some large shoes to fill and, in my opinion, did so with heartbreaking elegance.
-
A faithful adaptation of Nabokov's classic novel.
Jeremy Irons does a good job of poetic paedo Humbert Humbert, walking the tightrope between reprehensible and sympathetic admirably. Dominique Swain also does well, all alternating between pouts and tantrums as the pubescent Dolores, aware of the budding power she can wield over men but still retaining the childishness of her age.
The scenes between the two are uncomfortable to watch, but that is, of course, the point. Martin Amis once said that one reads Lolita, 'sprawling, nodding scandalised assent'. This is true; the novel makes us implicit in Humbert's crimes. The film can do nothing but make us voyeurs. Brave and uncompromising film making from Lyne, but ultimately degrading. -
There are very few films that I can count, less certainly than the fingers on both hands, that I can truly say I am able to watch at any time. You know how it is, you can be doing something entirely different and you find yourself absent-mindedly channel hopping, then you come across something by accident that is akin to an old friend. You stop what you're doing, possibly sit and allow yourself a wry smile, just for a minute, and that's it, you're lost, for however long is left of your time with them. Those beautiful, engaging, unavoidable characters that fuel your imagination and make your soul feel whole. And that is how I feel about Lolita, Adrian Lyne's…
-
By making Lolita a more sexual film, Lyne is taking the audience closer to the source material and thus increasing our level of discomfort. Kubrick probably would have done it like this had it not been for the sensors (who already had their noses raised towards his adaptation) limiting his choices.
Here, Lolita appears older and Humbert appears younger which gives us the illusion of the age gap being ever so slightly shorter. Some of the cinematography was brilliantly and delicately executed, something which will always come under criticism when a director reworks material Kubrick has done.
In fact, there is much here that I prefer to Kubrick's interpretation, such as the aforementioned likeness to the stunning Nabokov novel. The…
-
Lyne's version of Humbert makes the protagonist look more like an asshole than the conflicted, emotional man that he should be. It's still a great movie with some neat scenes, but still pales in comparison to Kubrick's adaptation, and I can only assume that it's a weak representation of the novel.
Recent reviews
More-
Middle aged man falls madly in love with a teenage girl. Closer to the novel than Kubrick's version but not as good. Some good acting from Jeremy Irons and Frank Langella.
-
Kicsit ugyan eltér a Kubrick féle feldolgozástól, kicsit merészebb, bevállalósabb, gyorsabb a felvezetés, de összességében ez is nagyon jó lett. Lolita itt is kiváló, pedig az elején nem hittem volna, de mégis, hasonlóan erőteljes alakítás, mint a Kubrick féle verzióban. Jeremy Irons is jól hozta szerepet, a zene nagyon eltalált, a thriller-szerű jelenetek pedig zseniálisak.
-
Es una historia muy fuera de lo común pero con todo el romance me encanto,la volvería a ver tantas veces como pudiera, no se asemeja tanto al libro ya que en el cuenta mas sobre la vida de Humbert(protagonista) así se puede entender su deseo de Humbert de sentir amor por menores.
Simplemente en una novela llena de romance,les aseguro que les gustara. -
just brilliant
-
Jeremy Irons is good as always.
-
By making Lolita a more sexual film, Lyne is taking the audience closer to the source material and thus increasing our level of discomfort. Kubrick probably would have done it like this had it not been for the sensors (who already had their noses raised towards his adaptation) limiting his choices.
Here, Lolita appears older and Humbert appears younger which gives us the illusion of the age gap being ever so slightly shorter. Some of the cinematography was brilliantly and delicately executed, something which will always come under criticism when a director reworks material Kubrick has done.
In fact, there is much here that I prefer to Kubrick's interpretation, such as the aforementioned likeness to the stunning Nabokov novel. The…
-
love lolita,Really like the performances here.Irons is terrific as the tortured soul trying to rekindle his teen love.miss swain is fantastic as the nymphet who holds all the cards and plays Irons like a drum.was going to give it 4.5 but fuck it have a 5
-
Both film adaptations of 'Lolita' have their attributes and both have their flaws. Both can boast great performances from the main cast, as Jeremy Irons and Dominique Swain do as well as James Mason and Sue Lyon did 35 years before.
The first film's flaws were that Kubrick's redrafting of Nabokov's adapted screenplay turned the film more into a quirky black comedy that watered down and cut up the subject matter to an extent (due to the censorship of the 1960s more than anything, I'm sure), and focused too much on Quilty (which Peter Sellers made up for by being brilliant), which made it a good film but a so-so adaptation. This newer adaptation goes too far the other way,…
-
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…