Lolita (1997) [DVD] [1998]

 

 

Create your own review

Adrian Lyne's LOLITA is a great achievement, a movie that wonderfully succeeds in evoking the atmosphere of Nabokov's classic of a doomed love. Even though Dominique Swain is just that little bit too mature physically to be a convincing Nabokovian nymphet, her superb acting amply makes up for it. She is both seductress and victim. And unlike the pathetic pervert Mason/Humbert in Kubrick's version, Irons is the perfect choice here, a passionate poet instead, manipulated by Lo as well as his never fulfilled desires. Kubrick is a creative genius because he always refused to compromise, and that's exactly the reason why he shouldn't have made LOLITA, at least not back then (it seems the seventies would have been the right time). In the nineties the world was already suffering from that amplified fear of the future, frenetically over-protecting its only hope, children (Jock Sturges, and, more recently, Bill Henson), a course of action that will ultimately result in what the moral crusaders so desperately want to avoid. What makes Adrian Lyne's film so good is that he shows us two victims, Lolita as well as Humbert. The true demon, as in the novel, is Clare Quilty, not a desperate lover of innocence and beauty here, but a true exploiter of children, also convincingly portrayed by Frank Langella. Ennio Morricone's music is some of his finest, in which one can almost hear the haunting call `Lo-li-ta' repeated over and over again. This work by Nabokov is one of the saddest love stories adapted to the screen, and Adrian Lyne's version is a must-see for lovers of great literature. Not hard to understand that in a society that grows increasingly materialistic, rational, and, above all, paranoid of its own specters, that such a fine adaptation of great literature didn't reach the audience (or was hardly allowed to do so).

Kubrick's 1962 film hardly managed to hint at the real sordidness that surely comes with such an affair at the centre of this story, and hardly touched on the inner turmoil of professor Humbert. While Kubrick was very restricted in what sort of movie he could make, which more or less decided the wry, lightly satirical tone of his movie, Lyne of course was afforded much more licence to get to the nitty gritty of the story and make it more graphic and more intense, in other words more realistic. He indeed goes for a very intense and vivid narrative, and naturally enough the satirical side, a thing which was an instrinsic part of the novel, is brushed aside completely. With such a full on depiction of their relationship it would have been very difficult to combine the two.

More attention though is given to the period feel of the book, and Lyne makes a good piece of cinema out of it, really delving into the mid 20th C Americana of old brand names and neon lights and motels and long roads and gas stations in the middle of nowhere. Again the Actress playing Lolita was a good year or two too old for the part, like Lyon was in the original, but she was a whole lot sassier, more sexual looking and a lot more provocative. Also, I got the clear sense in this film that she was the one with all the power, and Humbert was a mere fool for her, being played and played and played by her. In this movie, I ended up feeling far sorrier for Humbert than I did in the original and felt far less for the highly manipulative teenager than I did with Lyon's more sympathetic, more together and more sophisticated character.

Swain went to town on her portrayal and seemed to have a ball playing the moody, petulant, sexually attractive, dangerously provocative tease and this performance both lifts the film out of the ordinary and stays in the memory in its own right - possibly worthy an Oscar nomination even, but then so was Irons's beautifully balanced portrayal of a much more innocent seducer than the one Mason played in 1962. Irons plays Humbert as a man totally given to his desire for a forbidden fruit, and totally controlled by his seducer. Here, as I think Nabokov wanted us to believe, was a seemingly innocent young thing who was really far more worldly and more powerful than the rather pure, if amoral man of books and ideals, who really did not have too much insight into the hard world of real life itself. Both Mason and Irons played this naivete very well, but Irons here gives his a real boyish edge, and more than a touch of innocence, ironically. The playing out of this dangerous role reversal is much more evident here than it was in the 1962 film.

Both the actors deserve the credit for getting this point across, and then we come to the characterisation of Quilty, the real villain of the piece. This is a far different character to the one played for laughs almost by Sellers in the original. Langella plays a truly distasteful pervert and this works for me a whole lot better than the light entertainment version Sellers gives us in Kubrick's movie. He was never the right actor for that role, but it is clear that this intensely real looking piece of slime from a seedier world altoghether would be too much in 1962. For this viewer, his uncormfortably close portrayal perfectly rounded off a superbly crafted movie, that has to be at least on the verge of being a classic, but it is probably one I'd need to watch another couple of times to be sure. It is certainly one of the best films of the last ten years or so and has to be rated as a successful movie adaption of a famous novel, which is a rare thing, whatever little quibbles the book's fans say they have with it. This movie proved the original was well, well worth a remake, and it used its broader licence very well, in my opinion. A very different beast to the original, and that must be the main point of any movie remake, to add something that it's thought the original didn't have. This film also looks much more like a rich work of art, reflecting the same quality of a very stylistic and celebrated work of literature.

Apart from the violent scenes towards the ending of the film which I felt were over the top, I mean the bit where our emotionally misguided friend shoots the pimp or whatever you want to call him., I enjoyed this movie. I'm sure many will relate to it. Jeremy Irons is good in movies like this. Anyone who has seen "Damage" will no doubt be able to compare a similar role albeit with a woman rather than a girl of 12! However, he is more likely to be remembered for other roles such as his part in "The Mission" with Robert De Niro. Lolita is sad but enlightening. This is one to touch the heart and not one you'll easily forget. The soundtrack is good too. hear it!

Share your thoughts with other customers: Create your own review

› See all 22 customer reviews on Amazon.co.uk

 

5.0 out of 5 stars great film
I like the kubric one too but I think this is better. Its closer to the book. I thought the two leads were brilliant and the morricone score is class. Read more

Published 5 days ago by jamo

5.0 out of 5 stars Beautiful
It's a wonderful, sensitive, subtle movie - the more you watch it, the more you understand its complexity. Read more

Published 4 months ago by A. Meszaros

5.0 out of 5 stars Lolita - is it a masterpiece?
I bought this DVD because I had heard a lot about it and had once tried to read it a few years ago. I was a little disturbed by the subject matter but perservered because it was... Read more

Published 20 months ago by D. C. Greenacre

5.0 out of 5 stars briliant
i came across this film by watching late nite tv a very taboo film but this film is brilliant played by jeramy ians adrian lynn is a prodegy

Published on 3 Jan 2010 by Ms. R. A. Molloy

5.0 out of 5 stars Disturbing?
Purchased this dvd to replace poor quality home-recorded from tv.
Had read the book, and seen this in cinema and tv before, and rate it more highly, but no less disturbing... Read more

Published on 27 Dec 2009 by siniclecritic

5.0 out of 5 stars Lolita
This film is definately an acquired taste! Jeremy Irons is brilliant as ever in it. It's a very mature film though it's in no way boring because of the interesting shots and... Read more

Published on 4 Feb 2009 by Mr. Gj Watchman

5.0 out of 5 stars Apologies, this is the proper wide version!
I'm editing this because my original 'review' was completely wrong and based on a combination of false memory and an incorrectly labelled box instead of facts. Read more

Published on 2 May 2008 by John Croudy

5.0 out of 5 stars an incredible film
Like many i am sure, i wasn't exactly sure what to expect when i first watched this film, and i certainly was NOT expecting to have so much feeling for Jeremy Iron's character... Read more

Published on 22 Mar 2008 by rebaby

5.0 out of 5 stars What a hopeless and helpless lovestory
Okay, I am going to write something that might upset some people. Remember that I do not approve of paedophile here at all. Read more

Published on 5 Sep 2007 by Hiro

4.0 out of 5 stars Messed up Jeremy Irons
Jeremy Irons has a penchant for playing messed up characters.
He is a messed up father in law to be who beds his son's fiance in Damage. Read more

Published on 19 Jun 2007 by Jay

Search Customer Reviews
Only search this product's reviews

› See all 22 customer reviews on Amazon.co.uk

Search Listmania!