My latest review which used to earn me between £1 - £1.44 earned me just 27p despired being quite ac...
My latest review which used to earn me between £1 - £1.44 earned me just 27p despired being quite actively read and commented on.... Good old Ciao
Member since:31.10.2005
Reviews:897
Members who trust:363
In 1962 Stanley Kubrick bought the movie Lolita to the screen, now I'm sure i'm going to offend the world when I say that the 1997 movie, widely praised and widely condemned is a far better movie; why have I gone to this extreme? Read on....
Humbert Humbert (Jeremy Irons) takes some time out of work moving to a small town in order to work on a text book, but when he arrives at his lodgings he finds they have burned to the ground. Luckily Humbert finds himself in the household of Charlotte Haze (Melanie Griffith) and her teenage daughter Lolita (Dominique Swain) proper name Delores. Humbert is strangely drawn to Lolita, her girlish ways, devastating beauty, and heady sexuality; but as Lolita is just 13 years old Humbert must restrain himself. As he finds himself closer into the family circle Humbert engages in a romance with Charlotte, not through choice but to keep him close to Lolita. When the truth is rumbled though, and Charlotte discovers that Humbert is only with her to be close to her daughter, things begin to change suddenly.
Lolita is a tale about a 40 something year old man who falls in love with a 13 year old girl, there is little humour in such a serious situation, and while Kubrick's 1962 version addressed the severity of the subject, to some level he also played the subject
for laughs, restrictions of that time in cinema history being a likely cause. 9 ½ Weeks director Adrian Lyne took Vladamir Nabakov's novel and played it out far more accurately, while there is humour, its playful humour as part of the seduction of the two leads; falling in love with a minor is a serious subject and Lyne's version fully appreciates this choosing to avoid cheap quaffs, and giving more focus to Lolita's sexuality.
Set in 1950's America, you can clearly understand that there are factors beyond the intimacy to deal with, a prime example being how the relationship (which is a ways a secret) is viewed through the eyes of others. As a result Iron's plays his character in an edgy manner, fully aware that being caught out in his despicable acts could take him down lines that are far more dangerous for him.
Lolita after a fairly whimsical opening gets down to the raw intensity of the story quickly, from the flirtations, and the dismissal of the same flirtations, it suddenly erupts into a sexual romance between the two. Lolita's sexual wants, and a combination of her willingness to experience a world of sex beyond Hubert, soon turns this movie down a very dark passage as the two characters relationship turns sinisterly volatile. Passion makes way for paranoia and this is an aspect that Jeremy Irons as an actor is so incredibly good at, despite how badly he might handle a variety of other emotions.
Dominique Swain, (an actress seldom used recently but one that is coming back to the forefront after a recent splurge of movie roles) shines as the teenage seductress. Displaying the required amount of sexuality and innocence she far outshines Sue Lyon's performance in the 62 movie. She dominates every scene.
But it's the creepy Clare Quilty played by one time Skeletor (Masters Of The Universe) Frank Langella that makes this movie so incredibly dark. Most of the movie he is hardly seen, muttering away words in the dark, playing a character who could easily be the devil; Langella does bad so incredibly well and this is a darkness that the late Peter Sellers simply could not deliver in the 1962 original. Quilty like Humbert is drawn into a creepy dark world like Humbert was, taking the movies final moments down a dark path that makes everything else in the movie seem pale in comparison.
The 1997 version of Lolita is a far more psychological piece than its predecessor focusing on the raw emotion that you might feel with anyone you were in a relationship with when you feel they have betrayed you, or at the very least are playing some very adult mind games with you. And here lies the magic of Lolita, it's most intelligent, most manipulative, and deadly character of the whole movie should theoretically be the most innocent.
Lolita is far from being what I would class as a good movie; it's fairly long, its story drawn out. But it's an acceptable movie; it shows you a world you know exists though might not want to admit too. I have seen the movie 3 times since its release, the recent viewing being the most tired looking. This being said I remember being inspired to some level by it 10 years ago during a first viewing; it's a film that deserves to be seen but not necessarily more than once.
Special Features:-
A commentary by Adrian Lyne helps you to understand the changes between the Nabakov's novel, Kubricks original and his own depiction. He addresses issues such as casting, telling the hunt to find the new Lolita, while addressing the criticism and praise of the movie's release.
A casting session shows Jeremy Iron's audition.
A featurette made during filming looks at the movie, but draws no comparisons to previous movie almost as if it's saying Kubrick's version never existed.
There are a series of deleted and never before seen sequences, but as usual nothing here to get excited about.
Finally a series of text biographies and the original US trailer for the movie.
Lolita (1997) is available on the Columbia label priced a respectable £5.99.
Spencer Hawken 03/08
How helpful would this review be to a person making a buying decision? Rating guidelines
Production Year: 2004 - Drama - Director: Michael Radford - Original Language: English - Classification: Parental Guidance - Starring: Lynn Collins, Joseph Fiennes, Jeremy Irons, Al Pacino
Production Year: 2004 - Drama - Director: Nick Cassavetes - Original Language: English - Classification: 15 years and over, 12 years and over - Starring: Rachel McAdams, Ryan Gosling, Gena Rowlands
Production Year: 2004 - Drama - Director: Istvan Szabo - Original Language: English - Classification: 12 years and over - Starring: Annette Bening, Maury Chaykin, Jeremy Irons, Michael Gambon, Bruce Greenwood
Production Year: 1986 - Drama - Director: Roland Joffe - Original Language: English - Classification: Parental Guidance, TBA - Starring: Robert De Niro, Jeremy Irons, Ray McAnally, Aidan Quinn, Ronald Pickup, Cherie Lunghi
I saw this Lolita a few weeks ago, and I must say that I was very impressed. I would most certainly call if a very good film, but I still prefer Kubrick's version. Fantastic review!
avacarrdo 31.03.2008 21:00
I read the novel at uni, but have yet to see it on screen.
Tadders 31.03.2008 15:02
No criticism from this corner. I agree that the remake is a vast improvement on the very tame, and pretty dull, original - and yes, I am a fan of Kubrick for the most part. I know 'like' is probably the wrong word for a film of this nature, but I thought it was handled brilliantly with just enough suggestion to make your skin crawl. The casting was spot on too. Very balanced review. x
From Adrian Lyne, the director of '9 And A Half Weeks' and 'Fatal Attraction', comes this ... more
powerful, provocative and profoundly moving adaptation of a twentieth century literary masterpiece. When schoolteacher Hubert marries his landlady, Charlotte Haze...
![Lolita [DVD] [1998]](http://picnica.ciao.com/uk/78543380.jpg "Lolita [DVD] [1998]")
Mar 30th, 2008
exceptional by (2%):
very helpful by (96%):
helpful by (2%):
