Lolita

Audience Reviews

View All (964) audience reviews

Shioka O It's worth watching to see two leads performance even though it doesn't beyond the classic by Kubrick. Voice-over by Jeremy Irons always wins. Rated 3.5/5 Stars •  Rated 3.5 out of 5 stars 07/25/24 Full Review VICTORIA A What a sad story for Dolores. It’s hauntingly sad. Really amazing performances by all. Really wish I hadn’t watched it because it’s so disturbing and heartbreaking. Rated 3/5 Stars •  Rated 3 out of 5 stars 06/27/24 Full Review Jason Such an amazing performance by both leads. It always baffles me why Swain didn't excel after this film. Rated 5/5 Stars •  Rated 5 out of 5 stars 11/22/23 Full Review Leaburn O Having just finished the book, the film became required viewing. It's impossible to match the book on film but the editor did a good job and told the story relatively faithfully. It has a very different feel to the book but it's an interesting interpretation. Bought on DVD some time ago but I was awaiting completion of the book before I watched. Rated 4/5 Stars •  Rated 4 out of 5 stars 09/23/23 Full Review Bodhi R Not the masterpiece that is the novel, but a compelling film that makes you want to watch to the end. They have reduced the creepiness and brilliance of Humbert, and they have increased the maturity and attractiveness of little Lo, and thereby they have made the film more palatable for the average moviegoer. But this does tweak what is a masterpiece and therefore borders on sacrilege. You can draw your own conclusions. I thoroughly enjoyed the sets and the costumes (it really feels like the era), but I didn't enjoy the chaotic ending or the casting of Irons as Humbert; had the actor playing Quilty been cast in the role, I dare say the quality of the film may have increased tenfold. Rated 3.5/5 Stars •  Rated 3.5 out of 5 stars 09/18/23 Full Review gianni d It's impossible to get satisfied by a movie rendering of Nabokov's masterpiece Lolita if you expect a "faithful" transcription from a universe (the novel) to another one (a movie). It has no sense. In a way, it's like to pretend to transform faithfully a diamond in a cloud or viceversa. Has it some sense? No. Given this premise you can expect that a movie reflects with intelligence and sensibility the story of Lolita the novel. Adrian Lyne's one does not. He totally betrays the features of the heroine making a twelve years old brazen girl into a young harlot letting herself mate with a disfigured Humbert Humbert (totally lacking of his kind of very special cunny intelligence an evil mirth) who in Lyne's film looks like more to a conventional academic dummy messed up in a sex affaire (more than a tragic, and morbid, love story whith a little girl) with an ordinary and too far experienced teenager , whose explicit sex performances are insult to Nabokov's acrobatic language genius in his periphrastic, tightrope style when dealing whith such a delicate ground. A flop, on my opinion. As to Dmitri Nabokov, son and valued translator of his father opus, very respectful of the aesthetical and moral instances of the whole art of Nabokov, save the motto "pecunia non olet", I can see no other reason for him to give the permission, and collaborate too, to realize such a will-o'-the-wisp, rather than pale fire, referring haphazardly to Lolita. Totally different is Kubrik's rendering of the same novel, wich Nabokov, apart any distinguo, considered "a fist rate movie". I suspect he would have been horrified by Lyne's work, had he have been a seer and have a private preview of the show. Rated 1/5 Stars •  Rated 1 out of 5 stars 09/08/23 Full Review Read all reviews

Lolita

My Rating

Read More Read Less POST RATING WRITE A REVIEW EDIT REVIEW

Most Popular at Home Now