Lolita (1997)

Pretty Good

It’s not bad or unwatchable but despite the amplitude of the spectacle, the end result is underwhelming.

While it is a pity that the story wasn't told with more visual finesse, this is trivial compared to our real-world problems. It takes a good movie to put that into perspective.

Story: It's very simple but honestly that is fine.

This film is true to its source novel. And it also tells the uncomfortable truths: the monsters are sometimes not 100% monsters and they can be handsome. Looks like a lot of self-righteous people out there expect Humbert to be a cartoonish character, so they will be disappointed and maybe terrified when they start to sympathize with him while watching this film. And I guess they expect Lolita to be the victim - which she is, it's just that people have this idea of victims as non-threatening, saint-like individuals, void of any sex-appeal. They pretend to think that nymphets don't exist and that they have never seen Brooke Shields. Dominique Swain, what is she then? Well, I can tell you she is a perfectly cast nymphet. Jeremy Irons - I had a HUGE crush on him when Lolita came out and I just turned 18. I fell for him when I watched Damage (1992) and was just 13. It just happens sometimes that a minor falls for an older person. These things may be illegal, immoral or sick, but Lolita is not only true to the source novel, it's also true to the human nature. The director doesn't moralize, which I like. He just puts this story in front of us, taking great care of the visual elements that make the film. And everything is perfect, the acting, the costumes, the music, the dreamy photography, the editing, the camera movement... I think Lolita would have won some Oscars, had it been given a chance. Dominique Swain deserved much, much more. She is wonderfully talented. And Jeremy has always been one of those brave actors, not only in terms of choosing his parts, but also the way he somehow reveals himself in these parts. Even Melanie Griffith shines here as Lolita's obnoxious mother. Here's another awful truth: abused kids are often neglected by their mothers. Frank Langella as Clare Quilty, Humbert's nemesis, always in the shadow, is what the viewers expect Humbert to be in order to satisfy their PC demands, but he never becomes that monstrous. So, I guess this film was too much for too many people when it was released. I will always cherish it. I love it when mediocre people get upset by true art.

Adrian Lynes' Lolita is my favorite movie. It is a perfect match to the book and takes it beyond. The movie brings a strong eerie presence that was only felt slightly in the book. Humbert is not the perfect step- father he is made out to be, he is obsessive, and a pedophile. Lolita is seen mainly through his eyes, but glimpse of the real Dolores is shown throughout the movie like when she argues about the death of her mother and runs away to the diner. She isn't this "nymphet" he portrays her as, shes a normal girl taken from her normal life. Dominique Swain brings the perfect amount of attitude and innocence to perfect her character and Jeremy Irons brings the perfect amount of crazy into Humbert.

As a 14 year old in 1921 Cannes France, Humbert fell in love with older Annabelle but she dies from Typhus. In 1947, Humbert Humbert (Jeremy Irons) starts a professor job in New England. He rents a room from Charlotte Haze (Melanie Griffith) who has a flirtatious 14 year old daughter Lolita (Dominique Swain). Humbert ends up marrying dislikeful Charlotte to stay close to Lolita. Charlotte discovers Humbert's secret lust for Lolita and gets killed by a car. Humbert drives Lolita on a road trip but lies to her about her mother. There is always Clare Quilty (Frank Langella) around.The opening shot of Lolita is way too thirsty. The sprinklers getting her wet is completely over the top. It reeks of desperation from trying to top Kubrick. It's like a bad teenie porno. Melanie Griffith is an inferior Charlotte. Her character is smaller and less interesting as a minor role in this film. In another anti-Kubrick move, Quilty is reduced back to his original size. Jeremy Irons and Dominique Swain take up most of the space in this over 2 hours movie for better or worst. Dominique does a nice job. Jeremy Iron is a great actor as always.My biggest problem is that his character is constantly the victim in this version. He is superb in convincing the validity of his love for Lolita. Jeremy Iron does this sympathetic weakness. He does the same thing in 'Damage' but in this case, it's very off-putting. It goes beyond the fear of discovery. While it may be more true to the intention, it makes it a harder thing to watch. I always wonder what the movie would be like from Lolita's point of view. By the last act, I got very tired of Humbert and his patheticness. At that point, I found his narration like fingernails on the chalkboard. The movie is already too long and I couldn't wait for it to be over.

Just recently read the book. I'm kind of prudish about giving my attention to themes that are offensive - I knew Lolita was about a sexual predator, and so I avoided it for decades. (I also avoided Breaking Bad on behalf of my prudishness, but yielded when someone with a brain told me to give it a chance.) In any case, the book is enthralling, absolutely magnificent. I'll be on half.com to order all of Nabokov's English-written and English-translation stories - what a writer! (I hope I don't find out that he's a pervert.) But seriously, the story he tells is breathtakingly human, gorgeously written, even humorous.Now, this movie. Or rather, let me start with the 1959 movie, with James Mason, who did a fine job, within the constraints of 1959 movie-making. Pretty much what I expected, and so I was disappointed, altho a well-crafted movie.NOW, this movie. Jeremy Irons blew it out of the water! The only thing he didn't convey - that Mason did - was his utter disgust at touching a woman in her 30s (old, decayed flesh)... but everything else (by Irons) was blindingly perfect. And in fact, I was actually able to believe that perhaps HH did love little Lolita... (Perhaps I had read through my prudish eyes?) I tend to look with jaded eye at obsession and supreme selfishness, which were abundant in HH, of course...Yes, and yet, I do believe that the movie romanticized HH QUITE a bit. For some reason, the director wanted us to like this man. I would have preferred the total HH. Book is quite more to the point about the ugly reality of the whole situation (that's why I read).Melanie Griffith - did fine; too bad there wasn't more of her.But Dominique Swain (do I have that right?) - she was perfect in her childishness, in the girl-child-sexually-bloomin'-woman plane. Far better portrayal of Lolita than Sue Lyon (she played it like a 17 year old, and Little Lo was a mere 12 when HH discovered her). I was very pleased with the casting, and the portrayals that no doubt were part of the director's vision.