Generate a number from 1 to 2999 via:
You can skip movies 10 times but never go back.
Urbane professor Humbert Humbert marries a New England widow 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…
LALALLALAL MEERA SUCKS
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…
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 censors (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…
i want her wardrobe that's all i can say about this film without getting into dark matters
Definitely a good movie - I mean, if you're able to enjoy it while screaming 'leave her alone' at the screen.
Seriously though, while the content is terrible at best (for its themes, I mean) the way this movie was done is incredible. I think it really captures what Vladimir Nabokov truly wanted to say with his book. It's not a love story and we're not supposed to empathize with Humbert, even though we're basically forced to see all the events through his point of view.
Oh, you know.. blah, blah, blah.
In reality, it's just a sad pathetic man ...you know....you know......in love with the wrong girl. Overall I've seen it more than once no matter how creeped out I get by it but I think in it's realism I'm suckered in...everytime.
I think it'a decent adaptation of the book. Almost made me feel sorry for the man which is NOT good lol.
LALALLALAL MEERA SUCKS
Part of the See You Next Wednesday challenge.
Film 4 of 7-
Remake/Re-adaptation made before the year 2000.
When remaking or readapting any material, comparisons will inevitably be drawn. So how does Lyne's Lolita compare to Kubrick's adaptation 30 years prior?
I think Lyne's is more effective in certain key areas, partly due to Kubrick's being made in a time where this kind of subject was treated with the utmost of caution. Whereas Sue Lyons' performance as the titular nymphette never quite convinced me, Dominque Swain's disturbingly oozes with sexuality, ultimately selling the concept much better. However, with this unbridled sexuality comes some annoying exaggeration, whether it be Swain's over-the-top performance, or even her amped up costume design.…
Si hablamos de Lolita en el cine, se piensa en la de Kubrick, aunque sea una puta mierda. Esta versión de 1997 pasa totalmente desapercibida y es una pena. No termina de ser del todo buena, pero es muchísimo más fiel en la esencia. Salvo algunos trompos con la cámara, conserva las formas. Solo pido que Gaspar Noé saque su versión.
This review may contain spoilers. I can handle the truth.
While I'm no fan of the book, I can respect its clarity in the fact that these are acts of pedophilia, kidnapping, and rape fantasies (at the very least). Here, I don't think the word "pedophilia" is used once, and nearly all negative aspects of the narrative are glossed over, save for Humbert's physical violence on Lolita (which I believe increased from the book?). There are points where it seems like this movie endorses relationships (if you can call them that) of this kind, which is completely unacceptable.
Miré esta película porque la tenía pendiente y aproveché un movie challenge para incluirla. La verdad que esperaba más, pero volver a adaptar una película después de que Kubrick lo haya hecho es condenarse. Lo que destaco de la película es la actuación de Jeremy Irons que me pareció muy buena y todo el tiempo sentí al personaje que yo me imaginé al leer el libro. En mi opinión, el gran error radica en perder la sutileza que tanto la novela como la película de Kubrick ostentan.
[after his parents have left, thinking he is ill] "They bought it. Incredible! One of the worst performances of my…