VeteranLight I don't have all the words right now but this film is a work of art.

Baseshment I like movies that are aware of what they are selling... without [any] greater aspirations than to make people laugh and that's it.

TrueHello Fun premise, good actors, bad writing. This film seemed to have potential at the beginning but it quickly devolves into a trite action film. Ultimately it's very boring.

Matylda Swan It is a whirlwind of delight --- attractive actors, stunning couture, spectacular sets and outrageous parties.

marcosaguado 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.

jovana-13676 This film is true to its source novel. And it also tells the uncomfortable truths: the monsters are sometimes not 100% monsters and they can be handsome. Looks like a lot of self-righteous people out there expect Humbert to be a cartoonish character, so they will be disappointed and maybe terrified when they start to sympathize with him while watching this film. And I guess they expect Lolita to be the victim - which she is, it's just that people have this idea of victims as non-threatening, saint-like individuals, void of any sex-appeal. They pretend to think that nymphets don't exist and that they have never seen Brooke Shields. Dominique Swain, what is she then? Well, I can tell you she is a perfectly cast nymphet. Jeremy Irons - I had a HUGE crush on him when Lolita came out and I just turned 18. I fell for him when I watched Damage (1992) and was just 13. It just happens sometimes that a minor falls for an older person. These things may be illegal, immoral or sick, but Lolita is not only true to the source novel, it's also true to the human nature. The director doesn't moralize, which I like. He just puts this story in front of us, taking great care of the visual elements that make the film. And everything is perfect, the acting, the costumes, the music, the dreamy photography, the editing, the camera movement... I think Lolita would have won some Oscars, had it been given a chance. Dominique Swain deserved much, much more. She is wonderfully talented. And Jeremy has always been one of those brave actors, not only in terms of choosing his parts, but also the way he somehow reveals himself in these parts. Even Melanie Griffith shines here as Lolita's obnoxious mother. Here's another awful truth: abused kids are often neglected by their mothers. Frank Langella as Clare Quilty, Humbert's nemesis, always in the shadow, is what the viewers expect Humbert to be in order to satisfy their PC demands, but he never becomes that monstrous. So, I guess this film was too much for too many people when it was released. I will always cherish it. I love it when mediocre people get upset by true art.

Shannon Welsh My first complaint is that the girl cast as Lolita was too tall for the part. Dominique Swain was pretty but she was probably five feet seven inches or taller on film. Lolita is supposed to be short. In the film, Irons who plays Humbert says that Lolita is barely five feet tall. In this movie, Lolita is clearly too big to be five feet tall. Tall and slim Dominique Swain was too tall to be short Lolita. This height problem was odd. Swain is not a bad actress, I just feel that she was miscast as Lolita. Jeremy Irons did his part very well. I feel that Melanie Griffith was also miscast. She was not old enough to be the "bopper mama." In the Kubrick version, Shelly Winters plays Charlotte Haze. Shelly Winters was on point in Kubrick's version. I actually prefer Lolita (1962) to Lolita (1997). Kubrick's version had perfect casting, a perfect script, and perfect directing. This version of Lolita could have been outstanding. The cinematography is the strongest part of the film. I loved the scene where Lolita meets Clare Quilty.

TheLittleSongbird 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