Excellent but underrated film

Did you people see the same film I saw?

Absolutely the worst movie.

It's funny, it's tense, it features two great performances from two actors and the director expertly creates a web of odd tension where you actually don't know what is happening for the majority of the run time.

Don't let the subject matter of Vladimir Nabokov's book put you off, it is a brilliant book and one of the most entertaining, thought-provoking, poignant and daring pieces of literature there is.Stanley Kubrick's 1962 'Lolita' film, while not one of the great director's best, even when comparatively downplayed, is a brave and worthy attempt and is a fascinating film that gets funnier, more layered, sensual and better with each viewing. This is not personal bias talking, speaking as someone who is not afraid to admit that Kubrick's debut 'Fear and Desire' was a shockingly bad misfire and that he didn't properly find his style until 'The Killing', with his first masterpiece being 'Paths of Glory'.This 1997 film, directed by Adrian Lyne and starring Jeremy Irons, Dominique Swain, Melanie Griffith and Frank Langella, could have been a disaster and to be honest in hindsight I prepared myself for it to be. Actually it is a much better film than expected. It is more faithful to the book and there is more of the story, which understandably will make some prefer this film. The book is very challenging to adapt and like Kubrick's this is a more than laudable effort that should be applauded for trying. At the same time though there is something missing, a case of being more faithful not always equalling better. Despite more of the story and details being here, Kubrick's version, even when hindered by issues with the economy and censorship which played a part in not having the full impact of the book, this reviewer found more layered and with much more of a sense of danger and ahead-of-its-time feel, with this version almost too conservative and soft-focused in places.It also drags badly in some of the final third, especially towards the end with some long-winded scenes that go on longer than they needed to, giving the film a slightly overlong and stretched feel. And while the cast do very well on the whole, Melanie Griffith disappoints and is no match for the hilarious and poignant Shelley Winters in the earlier version. Griffith is too attractive, and not only is more irritating than funny but fails to bring any tragic dimension to the character.However, 'Lolita' (1997) is an incredibly well-made film, with spot-on attention to detail and it's shot and photographed superbly. Lyne is no Kubrick, which in all honesty is a big ask, but does a very solid job directing, directing with an elegance and tension. The script is intelligently written, with more focus on the tragic and sexual elements, which are pretty well done and well balanced. Some parts are quite moving and there is a genuine sensuality, one does miss the deliciously black humour though. The story is mostly well executed and is absorbing, everything included is well told and nearly incoherent and rarely dull but could have had slightly more impact.Jeremy Irons makes for a splendid Humbert, a cruel but tortured character here (thankfully not the total creep that Humbert could have been in lesser hands) that Irons plays with the right amount of cruelty and pathos, while he is somewhat too civilised to be classed as a monster he is very believable as a seducer. Dominique Swain in the title role, like Sue Lyon, is too old, but is compellingly sensual and gorgeously seductive. The chemistry between them is beautifully played. Frank Langella is suitably odious as Humbert, and just as sinister as Peter Sellers. Before one forgets, the music score is really quite marvellous, whimsical, haunting and elegiac, and there is a preference to the one in the earlier version.All in all, much better than expected and certainly not a sacrilege. It's just that despite being more faithful it feels like there is something missing as a result of perhaps being too faithful. 7/10 Bethany Cox

Just recently read the book. I'm kind of prudish about giving my attention to themes that are offensive - I knew Lolita was about a sexual predator, and so I avoided it for decades. (I also avoided Breaking Bad on behalf of my prudishness, but yielded when someone with a brain told me to give it a chance.) In any case, the book is enthralling, absolutely magnificent. I'll be on half.com to order all of Nabokov's English-written and English-translation stories - what a writer! (I hope I don't find out that he's a pervert.) But seriously, the story he tells is breathtakingly human, gorgeously written, even humorous.Now, this movie. Or rather, let me start with the 1959 movie, with James Mason, who did a fine job, within the constraints of 1959 movie-making. Pretty much what I expected, and so I was disappointed, altho a well-crafted movie.NOW, this movie. Jeremy Irons blew it out of the water! The only thing he didn't convey - that Mason did - was his utter disgust at touching a woman in her 30s (old, decayed flesh)... but everything else (by Irons) was blindingly perfect. And in fact, I was actually able to believe that perhaps HH did love little Lolita... (Perhaps I had read through my prudish eyes?) I tend to look with jaded eye at obsession and supreme selfishness, which were abundant in HH, of course...Yes, and yet, I do believe that the movie romanticized HH QUITE a bit. For some reason, the director wanted us to like this man. I would have preferred the total HH. Book is quite more to the point about the ugly reality of the whole situation (that's why I read).Melanie Griffith - did fine; too bad there wasn't more of her.But Dominique Swain (do I have that right?) - she was perfect in her childishness, in the girl-child-sexually-bloomin'-woman plane. Far better portrayal of Lolita than Sue Lyon (she played it like a 17 year old, and Little Lo was a mere 12 when HH discovered her). I was very pleased with the casting, and the portrayals that no doubt were part of the director's vision.

Jeremy Irons proved to be a better choice than James Mason was in Kubrick's version. It's the kind of film that proves that a small story can be much more meaningful than a larger one. The colors are amazing and seem to follow the mood of the story. The highlight is the last scene in which Humbert surrenders. The cinematography is stark and bare, with only the soundtrack adding some effect. From an artistic standpoint, there were some plot elements and character developments I didn't think were totally needed. They do however drive the story, which seemed to be their purpose, so I can accept them. Nothing to laugh at.

Having seen both worthwhile movies if I had to recommend an experience of this book to someone I'd suggest the Audio book with Jeremy Irons reading. It's my understanding that he often does this in preparation for a film role. If you haven't read Nabokov it's a unique experience -- imagine passing your hand over a beautifully textured tapestry and being surprised and delighted by the shimmering colors that appear at your touch. I found myself laughing out loud at times with delight at the turn of a phrase. Between the writing and Iron's wonderful voice and acting it's a treat. More powerful in a way because of the grotesque subject matter. For a short story preview of Nabokov's style find "Spring in Fialta" which can be found as a PDF on the web.