Lolita (1997)

I think this is a new genre that they're all sort of working their way through it and haven't got all the kinks worked out yet but it's a genre that works for me.

I'll tell you why so serious

At first rather annoying in its heavy emphasis on reenactments, this movie ultimately proves fascinating, simply because the complicated, highly dramatic tale it tells still almost defies belief.

This is a coming of age storyline that you've seen in one form or another for decades. It takes a truly unique voice to make yet another one worth watching.

Stanley Kubrick's Lolita dates back to 1962, 56 years ago and the film is as alive and pungent as it ever was. Adrian Lyne's Lolita is only 21 and it's already forgotten. Jeremy Irons is very good but it doesn't have any of the embarrassing self awareness of James Mason's Humbert Humbert. James Mason was monumental. Then, Kubrick has Shelley Winters as Mrs. Haze - in my book, her best performance - she's a jarring human spectacle. superb. Lyne chose Melanie Griffith in what very well be her worst performance and one of the worst in any movie, ever. Kubrick had Peter Sellers and his performance is already part of film legend. Frank Langella is a bit of a shock in Lyne's version, not the good kind. And then Lolita herself Stanley Kubrick had Sue Lyon and although she was a bit older than Navokov's Lolita, she is sensational. The innocent temptress and destroyer. In Lyne's version, Dominique Swain is pretty and crushingly obvious. Kubrick's version is a masterpiece, exciting to be able to say that 56 years later.

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

After I finished the book, I watched the 1997 film version of Lolita, directed by Adrian Lynne and starring Jeremy Irons and Dominique Swain. It is a well-made film and faithfully follows the book in pretty much all respects, but omits some of the events described in the book due to time restraints.Irons is a believable seducer, 'Humbert Humbert', and he captures the essence of a man lusting after 'forbidden fruit'. Swain is excellent as the promiscuous and provocative 'Lolita' – depicted as a 14-year-old in the movie, rather than a 12-year-old, as in the book.Neither the book, nor the film in any way glorifies nor condones the act of sex with underage girls. Nor does it make any excuses for the protagonist's illicit desires and actions. It does however, seek to understand what motivated him, how he came to be the way he was and why did he go to such lengths and take such risks to satisfy his urges.If you are interested in fine literature, read the book and then maybe watch the movie. You will not be disappointed.

Good adaptation of Nabokov's novel, though not as good as the 1962 Stanley Kubrick version. Captures the controversy and sinfulness of the Humbert-Lolita relationship well. Far less subtle than the Kubrick version, though not at all graphic. Does drag from about 2/3rds in though, and feels excessively long in the end. The latter scenes in the movie could easily have been condensed into something more interesting. This said, the Kubrick movie also suffered from this affliction.Mostly very similar to the Kubrick movie, plot and sub-plot wise, though this version does shed some new light on Humbert's motives, which does tie up the story quite nicely.Solid performance by Jeremy Irons as Humbert Humbert. Melanie Griffith is quite irritating as Mrs Haze. Frank Langella is also a tad irritating as Quilty. To me, Peter Sellers' portrayal of Quilty in Kubrick's version was the stand-out performance of that movie. Sellers also had more screen time.While Dominique Swain was OK in the role of Lolita, I preferred Sue Lyon's portrayal - more innocent, less bratty. If you haven't seen the Kubrick version, this is worth the watch. Less watchable if you've seen the Kubrick version, as the two movies are very similar. However, there are some differences, especially at the end, which makes this worth seeing too.