Memorable, crazy movie

Fantastic!

A Disappointing Continuation

Although I seem to have had higher expectations than I thought, the movie is super entertaining.

This movie deserves a 10 but loses two points for two specific reasons. The first reason is that Melanie Griffith was horribly, unbelievably and terribly miscast. I don't know why on God's green earth she was cast but she's all wrong for the role. Luckily, she doesn't "Nicolas Cage" this film (as in ruins it), but boy is she terrible and sticks out like a sore thumb in an otherwise well-cast and acted movie.The second reason the movie loses a point is that it tried way too hard to make Lolita childlike. Yes, children are immature, but c'mon...the way the movie made her act, Lolita wasn't just immature for her age; she was practically mentally disabled. Not even the girl she hung out with was that immature. I don't know what the point was but it was really over the top and made it seem as if Lyne was overcompensating for the fact that the actress was older than the character she was playing. In any event, it was really annoying, especially the scene when she gives Humbert breakfast in bed with only one shoe. (What kid would be so stupid and lazy as to not look for another pair of shoes?)With that, here's what I loved about the film. I absolutely hate the cult status surrounding Lolita. I read the book and saw the Kubrick film and saw nothing more than what it was, an average story about a pedophile's obsession with a young girl, nothing more, nothing less. But for some reason, people have elevated an average story to "classic literary" status, I guess because they equate taboo with "intellectual" and "high caliber." And so they've imbued this average story with a level of depth, intellectualism and sophistication that it never had. In other words, they've romanticized the story and the character itself.It's gotten to the point where people have made Humbert Humbert some kind of sympathetic Greek tragedy-type figure and painted his "love" for Lolita as "tragic" because, poor guy, he only fell for her because his childhood sweetheart died. Gimme a break. There was nothing ever more to this character than the fact that he was a creepy sociopath and pedophile. Hence why I love this adaptation. A lot of people hated it, and the reason why is that Lyne pulled no punches of stripping this "literary classic" of all the romanticizing heaped upon it by fans. Fans wanted a a sympathetic tragic hero that they could feel comfortable with and embrace, the guy we see in the first half of the movie, who always has this befuddled, dopey, deer-caught-in-the- headlights look about him that plays him up as an innocent victim swept by his desires. They wanted that Humbert, not the one who starts physically abusing Lolita when he can no longer control her, or the guy who breaks into another man's house and pumps him full of lead while he's sleeping in bed. (That whole sequence of Quilty running around in a bathrobe never happened; Humbert, in his delusion, dreamed that up.)Lyne exposed the character for what he was--a crazy, paranoid psychopath and a pathetic pedophile piece of crap who kept clinging to this unrealistic sexual fantasy of the nymphet (a docile, submissive, willing child-woman who can be screwed at his leisure and convenience without any problems), even as Lolita kept acting out with the mental and emotional capacity of a child (complete with temper tantrums, obnoxious pranks, crying jags, bratty behavior and neediness). The fact that everyone keeps complaining about the gruesome murder scene involving Quilty pretty much confirms that this is the opposite of what fans wanted in an adaptation, which was a romanticized version of a pedophile and cold-blooded murderer. Kudos for Adrian Lyne for attempting to finally strip away all the romanticizing that fans of Lolita have been doing with this character and book.As for other aspects of the film, the cinematography and art design is second to none. It really does look like its of its time and they did a bang up job getting all the details right, right down to the vintage "Camay Brides" ads that were plastered on Lolita's bedroom wall.So, an 8/10 for me, and only because of the poor casting of Melanie Griffith and the over the top childishness of Lolita.

Don't let the subject matter of Vladimir Nabokov's book put you off, it is a brilliant book and one of the most entertaining, thought-provoking, poignant and daring pieces of literature there is.Stanley Kubrick's 1962 'Lolita' film, while not one of the great director's best, even when comparatively downplayed, is a brave and worthy attempt and is a fascinating film that gets funnier, more layered, sensual and better with each viewing. This is not personal bias talking, speaking as someone who is not afraid to admit that Kubrick's debut 'Fear and Desire' was a shockingly bad misfire and that he didn't properly find his style until 'The Killing', with his first masterpiece being 'Paths of Glory'.This 1997 film, directed by Adrian Lyne and starring Jeremy Irons, Dominique Swain, Melanie Griffith and Frank Langella, could have been a disaster and to be honest in hindsight I prepared myself for it to be. Actually it is a much better film than expected. It is more faithful to the book and there is more of the story, which understandably will make some prefer this film. The book is very challenging to adapt and like Kubrick's this is a more than laudable effort that should be applauded for trying. At the same time though there is something missing, a case of being more faithful not always equalling better. Despite more of the story and details being here, Kubrick's version, even when hindered by issues with the economy and censorship which played a part in not having the full impact of the book, this reviewer found more layered and with much more of a sense of danger and ahead-of-its-time feel, with this version almost too conservative and soft-focused in places.It also drags badly in some of the final third, especially towards the end with some long-winded scenes that go on longer than they needed to, giving the film a slightly overlong and stretched feel. And while the cast do very well on the whole, Melanie Griffith disappoints and is no match for the hilarious and poignant Shelley Winters in the earlier version. Griffith is too attractive, and not only is more irritating than funny but fails to bring any tragic dimension to the character.However, 'Lolita' (1997) is an incredibly well-made film, with spot-on attention to detail and it's shot and photographed superbly. Lyne is no Kubrick, which in all honesty is a big ask, but does a very solid job directing, directing with an elegance and tension. The script is intelligently written, with more focus on the tragic and sexual elements, which are pretty well done and well balanced. Some parts are quite moving and there is a genuine sensuality, one does miss the deliciously black humour though. The story is mostly well executed and is absorbing, everything included is well told and nearly incoherent and rarely dull but could have had slightly more impact.Jeremy Irons makes for a splendid Humbert, a cruel but tortured character here (thankfully not the total creep that Humbert could have been in lesser hands) that Irons plays with the right amount of cruelty and pathos, while he is somewhat too civilised to be classed as a monster he is very believable as a seducer. Dominique Swain in the title role, like Sue Lyon, is too old, but is compellingly sensual and gorgeously seductive. The chemistry between them is beautifully played. Frank Langella is suitably odious as Humbert, and just as sinister as Peter Sellers. Before one forgets, the music score is really quite marvellous, whimsical, haunting and elegiac, and there is a preference to the one in the earlier version.All in all, much better than expected and certainly not a sacrilege. It's just that despite being more faithful it feels like there is something missing as a result of perhaps being too faithful. 7/10 Bethany Cox

To begin with, I will say that Adrian Lyne's one of my favorite directors. Whatever he does, he adds his unmistakable personal stamp on filming. The depth and detail are overwhelming. Each frame is a picture by itself. He is a master at creating atmospheres along with music and photography.He is also a provocateur, and he likes to be considered as such. One of the recurring subjects is the attraction between men and women, which can also be seen in "Unfaithful (2002)," "Indecent Proposal (1997)," "Fatal Attraction (1987)," "Nine 1/2 Weeks (1986) "" Flashdance (1983) "and" Foxes (1980) ".On "Lolita" The film seemed intense and intimate in equal measure. And even could say that is extremely private, as depicts personal feelings and sensations that could cause rejection or criticism.For me, there is nothing to criticize.The question of our capacity to empathize with Jeremy Irons role, arises.The psychological game between the two protagonists is as intense as unstable, and the roles of dominator and dominated are exchanged. We finally have a dramatic situation in which nobody wins, so it is as real as life itself.We stand before a, deeply and brutally honest movie.9/10

Having seen both worthwhile movies if I had to recommend an experience of this book to someone I'd suggest the Audio book with Jeremy Irons reading. It's my understanding that he often does this in preparation for a film role. If you haven't read Nabokov it's a unique experience -- imagine passing your hand over a beautifully textured tapestry and being surprised and delighted by the shimmering colors that appear at your touch. I found myself laughing out loud at times with delight at the turn of a phrase. Between the writing and Iron's wonderful voice and acting it's a treat. More powerful in a way because of the grotesque subject matter. For a short story preview of Nabokov's style find "Spring in Fialta" which can be found as a PDF on the web.