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.
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…
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.
"A forbidden love. An unthinkable attraction. The ultimate price." More like a disgusting pedophile is obsessed by the 12 year-old daughter of his landlady (and eventually his wife), manipulates and ruins poor Dolores Haze's life and her mother's, and he never really pays any price.
Lolita is not a love story, and it's not a story about love, either. It's about obsession, male entitlement, and violence. This adaptation sticks pretty closely to the book, perhaps only slightly less antagonizing of Humbert. We see everything through Humbert's gaze, but I feel like the book, despite it being narrated by Humbert, made it absolutely clear how horrible a person he was.
Overall, a good adaptation of a literary masterpiece.
This review reportedly contains spoilers. I can handle the truth.
I loved this movie, every bit of it... The story was amazing and I fell in love with the characters. Lolita is such a different-from-normal girl, it really moved me how intense of a person she was. I think that, from all the details of the film, the ones I enjoyed the most were the ones where the teenager was in, she brought a special light to everything...
In addition, the plot was very interesting and I found very curious the fact they died in the same year. It's like they were always connected, no matter how far apart from each other they were nor the fact that Dolores had probably developed hideous feeling towards her "dad".
Seriously, there's no words to describe how all of these things made me feel. I'm so happy I have finally seen it. However, I'm also looking forward to watching the 1962's version of " Lolita".
One of the most uncomfortable movies I've sat through for a number of reasons...
Full review located at:
Preserving this list for posterity as it will disappear from here:
- after number 70, "In a Land…