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…
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.
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.
Even...I don't even know where to begin. I can see where Stoker got it's inspiration. And plot. And characters. Erm...I guess it's a good thing that such taboo subjects are spoken about because it is important trust. But everyone in this film and I mean everyone is manipulative, deranged, sociopathic, creepy and in need of so e intense evaluation trust. But I guess it's cool, aesthetically. I just think it's important that people don't start to glorify this or no correctly keep on glorifying this. Because at the end of the day it's fucking creepy. Pedophilia is not the way towards. Trust. Plus it might just be me but because the film is so slow towards the last hour it got so fucking boring. I wish there was a bit of action involved. I know that the slowness adds to the aesthetic but like still.
Honestly, this is worth it just for the costume/sound/production design, cinematography and music. As an adaptation of the novel it's somehow simultaneously the equal and opposite to Kubrick's - it works from the more serious, "real", end of the story, in fact it's too frequently perceived as being just that, but just as Kubrick's found the seriousness in the comedy, Lyne finds plenty of comedy in the drama (Frank Langella's Quilty seems to be the major exception - in this version he's 100% dark). Lyne even does a lot of things exactly the same way Kubrick did. Neither movie fully captures Nabokov's novel, but between the two I'd say we're about 80% there - and maybe that's why I can…
It's an unpopular opinion but Kubrick's movie was better, if only slightly. This Lolita failed simply because one cannot capture the novel on screen faithfully what with all the internal monologue and illicit material.
True to the book in a lot of senses but really just boring and feels more like a watered down version of the true potential. Plus some scenes are just gross to watch
I was looking to watch this movie for quite a long time, so my friend also recommended this movie and god I love it, so lovely, Lolita has so many things I can relate about it's quite scary but lovely at the same time. Hey Lolita hey
What a film. I know the subject matter is controversial but the acting, direction and cinematography are all a solid cut above the crowd. The score is by Ennio Morricone. A brave film by any gauge and clearly a work of obsession by director Adrian Lyne. It will be remembered as the classic cinema retelling of one of the greatest books of the last century ahead of a very solid effort by Kubrick.
Fascinante como las mejores partes de la obra original y de Nabokov (el retorcido y negrisimo sentido del humor, el cripticismo fantasmagórico, el infinito juego con el lenguaje, el patetismo continuo de un protagonista completamente intoxicado por sus delirios de gilipollas absoluto) han sido arrojadas por la ventana desde el piso setenta y dos para que queden bien reventados contra el suelo.
Alguien debería comentarle al mundo mas a menudo que Humbert no es John Shade, sino Charles Kinbote. No, "Lolita" no es esta "trágica historia de amor enfermo" en absoluto. No, Lolita (sin comillas), no es una precoz devora hombres manipuladora que seduce a un pobre hombre de mediana edad que no puede resistirse a sus encantos. De hecho,…
my favourite part of the film was the terrible sudden zoom on the plant in the vase
I think it's actually a better adaptation than the one Kubrick did. You can actually feel Humbert's passion, despair and neurosis. It also doesn't shy away from the sexual parts which are somewhat integral to the story. But since one of the big appeal of the novel is the beauty of the prose, it's really a story that should be read, not viewed.
Preserving this list for posterity as it will disappear from here:
- after number 70, "In a Land…