This is a long, introspective adaptation of Nabokov's acclaimed novel 'Lolita', starring a superb Jeremy Irons and a then 15-year-old leggy Dominique Swain in the lead roles. It is an effective film in the sense that Adrian Lyne makes us see the appeal of Lolita, but at the same time makes us understand that we could never be attracted to her. It all bottles down to Humbert's (Irons) past experiences and his subconscious search for a 'child' he loved and lost when he was young, finding this child in Lolita and obsessing about her.
Lyne introduces a narrative by Humbert in Lolita, which is a vital device to the story, because seeing things from his perspective, he becomes something of a lovable pedophile. We feel for him. Everyday of his life after meeting this young girl, he is consumed with love for her and this is captured beautifully in the film through long visual shots. Their relationship is certainly an illicit affair - and it definitely feels like it from a viewer's perspective. All the kissing, fondling, cuddling, the looks - it gets rather intense and very uncomfortable at times.
Lolita is arguably one of the least likable characters in film history; she is an ill-mannered, manipulative attention-whore who knows the power she has over Humbert and uses it to her advantage for money, attention and just generally to hurt people. I have not read the book, but I understand she was a bit more subtle in it - intelligent, witty. In this film she reeks of Britney-like schoolgirl sucking on lollipops and chewing on jawbreakers. Perhaps the filmmakers thought that this would make her more accessible to late 20th century audiences. It's wildly stupid.
While the film has plenty of powerful passages, it is far too long. It really drags on toward the end so as to do the book more justice by adding pseudo-depth to it. Film is a different medium, so I think Lyne should have had a bit more fun with the script - not as much fun as Kubrick did with his version (which was unbearably silly), but lighten up just a bit. I cannot pinpoint any more negative aspects to 'Lolita' (1997), but I know there clearly are some because I was not too crazy about the film when I saw it.
7/10
Lyne introduces a narrative by Humbert in Lolita, which is a vital device to the story, because seeing things from his perspective, he becomes something of a lovable pedophile. We feel for him. Everyday of his life after meeting this young girl, he is consumed with love for her and this is captured beautifully in the film through long visual shots. Their relationship is certainly an illicit affair - and it definitely feels like it from a viewer's perspective. All the kissing, fondling, cuddling, the looks - it gets rather intense and very uncomfortable at times.
Lolita is arguably one of the least likable characters in film history; she is an ill-mannered, manipulative attention-whore who knows the power she has over Humbert and uses it to her advantage for money, attention and just generally to hurt people. I have not read the book, but I understand she was a bit more subtle in it - intelligent, witty. In this film she reeks of Britney-like schoolgirl sucking on lollipops and chewing on jawbreakers. Perhaps the filmmakers thought that this would make her more accessible to late 20th century audiences. It's wildly stupid.
While the film has plenty of powerful passages, it is far too long. It really drags on toward the end so as to do the book more justice by adding pseudo-depth to it. Film is a different medium, so I think Lyne should have had a bit more fun with the script - not as much fun as Kubrick did with his version (which was unbearably silly), but lighten up just a bit. I cannot pinpoint any more negative aspects to 'Lolita' (1997), but I know there clearly are some because I was not too crazy about the film when I saw it.
7/10