Ahh the remake. Valid artistic re-interpretation (or 'imagining') or shameless cash-in/exploitation? Let's be honest, some films deserve to be remade, some should have remade when they were first made, and some should be just left to remain unsullied on thieir lofty pedestals. Channel 4's decision to screen both the 1960's and 1990's versions of Vladimir Nabokov's story Lolita provided the opportunity to compare such an event and unlike in the case of Planet of The Apes, this was not a film that would be messed about with merely to appease the audience. Even though I wasn't overly sold on Stanley Kubrick's original, could a remake actually improve on it, or would the remake monster claim yet another worthless victim?

The above story overview is VERY similar to the one that I wrote for the Kubrick version of the film and I make no apologies for it as both films are uncannily similar. The events are mostly played out scene for scene and this leads me to think that perhaps they are both accurate to the original novel. So it's a dire remake then? Certainly not.

The situation between Humbert and Lolita is, while not amplified, not 'lightened' as Kubrick was forced to do. The humour of before is gone and in it's place we have straight drama. The age difference between Humbert and Lolita is emphasised and Sue Lyon's late teen temptress of before is replaced with a far more naive and, truth be told, plain teenager. While not exactly naive, here Lolita comes across as more of an innocent who does not understand the game that she's playing, rather than the sexually aware vixen of Kubrick's time. James Mason's almost fatherly figure (with his quiet respectability) pales compared to Irons' intense 'lover' and it's this (coupled with the 'younger' Lolita) that provides the feeling of obsession and the darker overtones that the film needs. Yes this may have been made in a more liberal age and the shock value may have been lessened somewhat, but by staying in 'no comedy' territory the drama of the situation is not watered down. That said though there is nothing in the way of nudity that one may expect from a more 'liberal' film. Am I falling into the trap of "oh it's an 'arty' film - get yer jugs out"? Not a bit of it and in fact I'm quite glad that they didn't.

This time around it's Jeremy Irons who steps into Humbert's shoes and he's a totally different quantity to James Mason's Humbert. Bringing all of his Shakespearean talents to the fore, Irons is marvellous in the lead role. Gone is the almost buffoon like father figure of before and in it's place is the epitome of European sophistication. Irons turns in a compelling performance that grips you with it's intensity like a rabbit caught between a pair of headlights. His emotional outpouring is strictly straight (unlike Mason who had to descend into comedy such were the constraints on Kubrick's film) and he barely puts a foot wrong. His descent from romantic fool into obsessed maniac is riveting and we feel that we have a complete understanding of what he is going through. He repels us, attracts us, and uses us. We feel pity for him, disgusted at him, and ultimately we see him as the emotional character that Humbert Humbert needs to be. This isn't a story about one man's sordid lust for a schoolgirl but rather the emotional rollercoaster that such a liason puts him in. Perhaps even a tale about the fine line between love and dangerous obsession? Read into it what you will but have no doubts, Irons is magnificent.

Shelley Winters' Charlotte was one of the highlights of the first film and she was simultaneously pitiful and repulsive character. Here though Melanie Griffiths is neither. A screechy voice makes us dislike her but her character doesn't do enough to make Irons' sacrifice (i.e. marriage) seem as great as Mason's. She's annoying yes but ultimately not the almost laughably silly romantic figure that Winters created. In fact when she gets killed off we rather feel as though she deserves it. Frank Langella steps up to replace Peter Sellers as Quilty and although Mr L does a good job, his character has too little to do, really only appearing at the very end.