Lolita [DVD] [1998]

The first time i ever viewed this i was sceptical as i really didnt think i would enjoy it due to the content of the storyline, i was even in two minds about viewing it as i thought id find it sickening and upsetting. I was expecting a story of a sick adult molesting a young innocent child, a topic i have strong opinions on - that of course is NOT what i saw.

Therefore when i watched the film and was swept in by jeremy irons portrayal of a man reminiscing about his childhood love and in turn falling in love with his lolita and loving her no matter what she did i was truly amazed. At the end of this film, no matter how many times i watch it, i feel so moved and so priviledged to have been able to see such a fantastic piece of work.

I know the subject matter of this film is the sort of thing most people would never consider watching or enjoying. But if people watch it with an open mind they will view a brilliant film.

I still watch this film regularly and no matter how many times i see it even though i know the subject should be sickening i feel so moved by Irons portrayal of a totally obsessed adult whose life becomes wrecked by his fascination and feelings for lolita as he knows it is wrong.

The best film i have probably ever seen and am ever likely to see and its about a subject that i see as taboo.

A complete masterpiece.Jeremy Irons is truly amazing.

Remakes of movies always draw varying responses. Many critics and viewers were reluctant to favor this 1997 Adriane Lyne/Stephen Schiff/Jeremy Irons remake to the Kubrick/Nabokov/James Mason 1962 original. It's hard to argue when a novelist of the stature of Nabokov had such a direct hand in writing the screenplay (Kubrick was an uncredited co-author). Surely the work's creator would be better able to realize his vision cinematically? Yet, I believe the later film actually does a much better job in capturing the essence ot the novel.

It boils down to casting. Shelley Winters was probably more right for the role of Lolita's Mom, Charlotte Haze, than was Melanie Griffith (almost universally described as the weakest link in the remake). That role aside, however, I think that every casting choice in the '92 version was spot-on. Irons, though he doesn't conjure up the physical characteristics of the Humbert that comes across in the novel, nevertheless did a better job than Mason in conveying Humbert's rakish libertinism. I'm so glad Dustin Hoffman, originally considered for the role, didn't land the part. This is amongst Irons' strongest performances. Dominique Swain, chosen over thousands of hopefuls who tried out for the part of Lolita, is the embodiment of all things young and lovely. I thought she also did a much better job than Sue Lyons at capturing the childish petulence that underlies most of the 12-year-old Lol's actions and reactions. She's just more believable, thanks in large part to Lyne's expert direction. Frank Langella was also much more convincing as Clare Quilty, a truly despicable fictional character, if there ever was one. Peter Sellers, due to his indelible comedic cinema persona, just could not come across as all that menacing on screen. He did, in fact, play the character for laughs, so the final confrontation came off more as farce and lost its effect.

Finally, while Kubrick is one of the greatest directors in cinema history, he may have not been best suited for this particular novel. Plus, the era he was working in was much less conducive to a fully realized treatment of such touchy subject matter. He'd hit his comedic stride two years later, with Dr. Stragelove. Lyne had a bit more artistic leeway, although the history of the film's distribution was still rather bumpy, to say the least.

Lyne has now come up with two of my favorite relatively recent films, this and the 1990 Horror film, Jacob's Ladder. He's another in what's become a rather large batch of excellent contemporary British directors. Please give this, his masterpiece thus far, a try.

BEK