jovana-13676
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.
SnoopyStyle
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.
bkout
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.
Howard Saint
Very good film, Fully of funny moments and perverted scenes. I think this film is every mans guilty pleasure.Good old Humbert tries to resist his urges but ultimately succumbs to the sweet advances of Lo.the antagonist is debauched playwright Quilty (Frank Langella) and his appearance amid the pale fire of exploding bug-zappers really is very amusing.There are about 8 deleted scenes on youtube which I cant understand why they didn't put them in, you get to see more of Humbert's funny quips and perversion.Highly recommended movie!
AD
