Feature films distributed and/or produced by Vidmark Entertainment. A company responsible for numerous wonderfully trashy vhs covers, they specialized in…
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…
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…
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…
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.
I haven't seen the Kubrick version, so I should do that one day just to compare. This film is well made, considering it's controversial subject matter. We're essentially following a paedophile around as he indulges in his lust for a 14yo girl. The scenes with the two of them are well shot - it gives you enough intimacy but doesn't completely exploit the young Swain. I suspect some usage of body doubles here and there, but it's difficult to really tell where. Lyne to did a great job in shooting this.
The film itself is an interesting study on the perversion that is driving Iron's character to levels of insanity. He knows what he is doing is wrong, but just can't help himself. Is his childhood trauma really enough of an explanation into his actions? Well, probably not in the grand scheme of it all. Overall, it is good, but hardly something I'd rush back to watch again.
Heard many referances to being a 'lolita' in Lana Del Rey's songs, and had been mentioned in a few of my fave series' so me and a friend decided to watch. Interesting and slightly scarring.
The lush and beautifully photographed film, Lolita, will tear your heart out of your chest ever-so-slowly so that you feel the excrutiating pain of dying -- dying ... s-l-o-w-l-y ... ever so slowly. You feel every minute of it and that is an amazing thing.
This should not be compared to Stanley Kubrick's much-earlier film version of this novel. They are two completely different artistic takes on a complicated novel by two gifted directors. In this version, director Adrian Lyne (9 1/2 Weeks) gets his shot at telling this sordid tale of obsession and misguided love.
While the subject matter is taboo -- the story of Humbert Humbert's (Jeremy Irons -- Reversal of Fortune) love for a 14-year-old nymphet, Lolita…
Stanley Kubrick set the bar very high with his adaptation of Lolita, which is one of my favorite films and my favorite Kubrick work. So, director Adrian Lyne set out to direct, not a remake, but a different adaptation that in 1997 wouldn't be restricted by the censorship limitations Kubrick had to endure in 1962. I would love not to compare both versions but since I love so much the first one, I feel the need to.
Lyne still did a wonderful job, because his film is almost as engaging and captivating as Kubrick's. This film was released in the MPAA rating system era and, as a result, there were far more liberties to shoot more sexually provocative scenes. And,…
Closer in spirit to the novel, and a better film overall. Casting of Swain in the Lolita role feels right, and both Irons and Langella excel in their respective parts.
The Morricone score is one of his best ever.
Surpreendente filme. Retrata a paixão descontrolada de um professor sério com idade na casa dos 40 anos por uma jovem adolescente que o seduz de forma sarcástica. O professor apaixona-se, porém precisa manter-se em segredo diante do taboo. Não sabe-se se o a jovem adolescente sente algo pelo professor ou é puro sarcasmo. Um filme belíssimo. Altamente recomendado.
More like the Humbert of the book, with a more similar overall tone as well, when compared to Kubrick's awkward comedy approach.
It's extremely problematic to attempt to emulate an evocative masterpiece such as Lolita. Kubrick's approach was safer in this regard.
Nevertheless, not a bad film.
Much better than Kubrick's version, in my opinion. All the characters were portrayed very accurately and the plot line was more organized. Overall, Lyne's version is truer to the book and better executed.
- The Unnamable
- The New York Ripper
- Nightmare in Badham County
- A Clockwork Orange
- The Exorcist
- Cannibal Holocaust
- Requiem for a Dream
Because everyone loves a good controversy.
Based off AMC's list of the most controversial movies of all time.
- Eros + Massacre
- Tokyo Story
- Sunrise: A Song of Two Humans
Preserving this list for posterity as it will disappear from here:
- after number 70, "In a Land…