Lolita: The Book of the Film

Rating:
Summary: This movie stinks
Review: Anyone who has actually READ Nabokov's Lolita understands the character of Humbert Humbert far better than Adrian Lyne did and much better than Jeremy Irons. This movie (and screenplay) captures next to nothing of what Nabokov was attempting to tell. Instead of a witty, sarcastic, intelligent, and clever book on the timeless (and ageless) nature of love, you get a sappy, sentimental, two hours of Jeremy Irons weeping and moaning that adds up to nothing more than a movie that, if it hadn't been for the subject matter, would have been a movie of the week- AT BEST. Gimme a break. This movie stinks.

Rating:
Summary: This movie stinks
Review: Having just seen Lyne's film of "Lolita," I must say that even though I am a devout Kubrick fan, I admit it surpasses his weak 1962 film by a longshot. Jeremy Irons brings out all of Humbert's excruciating obsession; The young Dominique Swain is a lovely Lolita who perfectly captures her seductiveness and childishness at the same time. The film brims with wonderful moments; you almost feel guilty for feeling so good about a movie that deels with such subjects!

Rating:
Summary: I concur
Review: I have to agree with Jon McIntyre. Considering that the screenplay came almost verbatim from the novel, I'd have to say that you obviously didn't read the novel closely enough. I just happen to be working on a seminar paper about Lolita, from the page to the screen, and Lyne's film is an excellent depiction. Humbert is a distraught and obsessed character trapped in a frozen past, paranoid at every turn, which Jeremy Irons captured well. Lolita is a listless and rebelling teenager forced into an abusive situation disguised as love, and Dominique Swain couldn't have portrayed her any better. And this is a dark and disturbing love story, albeit one sided, not just a comic strip. If you think the intelligence is gone from this film version, watch the 1962 version. There's not much of a trace of Nabokov's poetic language. Read the book again, but this time draw your own conclusions. You've missed some important aspects entirely.

Rating:
Summary: I concur
Review: Obviously you did not really read Lolita. The depiction of Humbert in this film was brilliant and Jeremy irons did an amazing job. Here are a few reasons why you know nothing. 1. You read Lolita because someone told you to and they also told you what to expect. 2. If you expected someone to be able to include every aspect of a 309 page novel in a two hour movie, your expectations are far too high. They included the key elements to capture the true feel of the novel. 3. This movie should be praised for Dominique Swain's performance alone. She played the part perfect. 4. Get off your "Nabokov-knowing-high-horse." I think that you need to make a movie based on a Nabokov novel before you can say anything negative. Try "Despair" out and we see how far youg get.

Rating:
Summary: To the man who said it "stunk"
Review: Obviously you did not really read Lolita. The depiction of Humbert in this film was brilliant and Jeremy irons did an amazing job. Here are a few reasons why you know nothing. 1. You read Lolita because someone told you to and they also told you what to expect. 2. If you expected someone to be able to include every aspect of a 309 page novel in a two hour movie, your expectations are far too high. They included the key elements to capture the true feel of the novel. 3. This movie should be praised for Dominique Swain's performance alone. She played the part perfect. 4. Get off your "Nabokov-knowing-high-horse." I think that you need to make a movie based on a Nabokov novel before you can say anything negative. Try "Despair" out and we see how far youg get.