Lolita Movie
| Resolution | Size | Download | ||
|
720x536 | 1955.51 MiB | hidivx | |
|
592x440 | 1189.29 MiB | divx | |
|
320x236 | 409.21 MiB | ipod | |
|
320x236 | 431.75 MiB | hpc | |
Storyline
TAGLINES
A forbidden love. An unthinkable attraction. The ultimate price.
The most talked about, written about, controversial movie of the year.
Forbidden, Provocative, Unforgettable.
Watch it and make up your own mind.
Humbert Humbert, a British professor coming to the US to teach, rents a room in Charlotte Haze's house, but only after he sees her 14-year-old daughter, Dolores (Lolita), to whom he is immediately attracted. Though he hates the mother, he marries her as this is the only way to be close to the girl, who will prove to be too mature for her age. They start a journey together, trying to hide they're not just (step)father and daughter, throughout the country, being followed by someone whom Humbert first suspects to be from the police. The profound jealousy, and maybe some guilt from the forbidden love, seem slowly to drive the man emotionally labile.
| Jeremy Irons | Humbert Humbert |
| Melanie Griffith | Charlotte Haze |
| Frank Langella | Clare Quilty |
| Dominique Swain | Dolores 'Lolita' Haze |
| Suzanne Shepherd | Miss Pratt |
| Keith Reddin | Reverend Rigger |
| Erin J. Dean | Mona |
| Joan Glover | Miss LaBone |
| Pat Pierre Perkins | Louise |
| Ed Grady | Dr. Melinik |
| Michael Goodwin | Mr. Beale |
| Angela Paton | Mrs. Holmes |
| Ben Silverstone | Young Humbert Humbert |
| Emma Griffiths Malin | Annabel Lee |
| Ronald Pickup | Young Humbert's Father |
| Adrian Lyne |
6.60 out of 10 (8534 votes)
Visitor Reviews
Beautiful love story!
posted on 31 Aug 2009This is a beautiful love story! He literally sacrificed his life for a few moments of ecstasy!
He loved Lolita in the deepest and purest way. We are now obsessed with pedophiles and sexual predators but this movie is not that!! All you have to hear is the love theme when he first sees her to know his feelings best viewed on your iPhone in bed. This medium is more intimate than the wide screen!
I like it better than Kubrick's
posted on 18 Aug 2009If you only have enough money in the budget to rent one of the Lolitas, and you'd rather see a more serious and beautiful version of Nabokov's story, I'd recommend the '97 update. The acting is all excellent----right down to Melanie Griffith. There are some beautiful and sad scenes in this movie.
And let me also say that even though this movie took a more heavy-hearted approach, I actually laughed more in this movie than in Kubrick's----courtesy of Swain's child-like restlessness. My complaints rest in the Quilty subplot and in the Swain's unconvincing final scene. But the rest is all great and Swain really epitomizes Nabokov's definition of a nymphet. My absolute favorite scene is the one in the middle of the night when Swain is sprawled out in front of the fridge gorging on fattening foods and reading her movie magazine whilst Iron is secretly watching her from the other room.
The little things
posted on 22 Jun 2009This movie is very well directed and casted and acted out, overall its an incredible movie. Usually I judge a good movie by comparing it to a book as in the descriptions the words used and such. Lolita does all of the little things that makes for one great film. There is the scene where lolita takes Humberts breakfast to him, and when she does she steps her one bare foot onto Humbert's left foot, and i can imagine a small warm foot against his. And she warns him "Don't tell mother I ate your bacon." Shes able to experiment with her power and exploit Humbert for his unfortunate situation. As well in the opening music of the film is very beautiful and sweet, and out of place touches of dissonent tones, reflecting Lolita and her effect on Humbert. On the one hand she is the Light of his life and the fire of his loins. On the other hand she hold him at the end of her little finger, flicking him to test his loyalty.Alex
Paints a different picture.
posted on 16 Jun 2009I have read the book and seen both version of the movie. While this movie was great I have to say that it is not like the book. If you have ever read the book you realize just how sick Humbert was indeed. In this version you don't see that at all. The book gives you a sick feeling as you read his thoughts and ideas of what he wants to do. If you finish reading Lolita you realize that it wasn't Lo' he was in love with but just little girls. I am not saying Lolita was innocent, not at all but neither was Humbert. If you see this movie alone you get to feeling sorry for Humbert and play him out as the victim. You think that if that temptress Lolita had never come a long he would have been a normal man and not the sicko he was. Sorry but no, that is not Humberts character at all. I will never feel sorry for a man that fantasizes about 8 year olds (something you didn't see in the movie). I have no sympathy for him and I really dislike that this movie tried to get some out of me. If you feel sorry for him please by all means read the book and think twice. Like I said it's a good movie but with bad intentions, it was taken all too lightly I think.
It Should have gone Straight to Video!!
posted on 07 Jun 2009Words cannot describe how bad this movie is. They try to make Humbert too sympathetic instead of a monster, when really he is a sympathetic monster, and that is the beauty of the novel Lolita, one moment you hate him the next you feel bad for him. I believe Irons could have been a good Humbert if the screenplay had been batter. Yes, Swain was too old to play Lolita but why, why on earth do they have her acting like a 5-year-old. Running and skipping and jumping and playing with dolls, by age 12 most girls are throwing out their dolls because they want to be more mature and are becoming interested in sex, which is exactly what Lolita was doing in the novel, she was smack-dab in-between the child world and adult world. I wish Swain would have remembered what it was like at that age instead of trying to over compensate for being too old by acting childish but maybe that is what the script required her to do. Griffith did an okay job but when I read the book I picture more of the Haze in the 1962 movie, meaning I see her as a bigger woman and more over the top. With all that said neither film lives up to the book but the Kubrick version gets away with more because he doesn't try to stay true to the novel, which is a masterpiece. No one will ever be able to capture the beauty of Lolita on film and I hope this is the last time they try.
Beautifully sad....
posted on 04 Jun 2009At the end of the movie, I was just plain stunned by Jeremy Irons and Dominique Swain's performances. I never thought the end result could be more powerful and haunting at the same time. It is also not lost upon me over why such an unforgettable and meaningful film could stir so much controversy in the US. There are after all much more disturbing depictions of sexuality available and to generate so much fuss over this film just indicates plain hypocrisy. This film does deal with incest and pedophilia but the moment one finishes with the film the darker overtones of the film is superbly overwritten by the film's many strengths. From the exceptional cinematography to the perfect choice in casting (I thought Melanie Griffith was adequate), this film certainly did tug at my emotions. I can't recall any film that did have quite the same effect on me before. I also thought that Adrian Lyne did a great job in this film. the whole film was beautifully done with honest and tragic human drama carrying it on. Those looking for gratuitous and explicit sexuality will certainly be disappointed... in fact, the more erotic scenes just adequately delve into the forbidden bond that the film's two main protagonists share. I will not talk any further about this movie... one should really see it to at least have an inkling of what I feel about this fantastic piece of art. This one has got to be among my all-time top 10.
Not faithful to Nabokov
posted on 23 May 2009Adrian Lyne's portrayal of the famed Nabokov novel has all of the beautiful cinematography, enrapturing score and great acting that one would expect. However, this film still falls short of actually presenting what the novel is all about. It isn't a tearjerker about the innocent Humbert Humbert being unfairly taken advantage of by the bold, yet still childlike Lolita, it is in fact the exact opposite.After watching this film, I couldn't help but feel sorry for Humbert and his endless longing for Lolita. After all, Lyne makes it seem that Lolita used him, then took off with another man who could give her the satisfaction that she needed. Nabokov never intended for this to happen in the novel, so why is Lyne so unfaithful himself to the actual story?The strong point of this film is the large performance of Jeremy Irons as Humbert, a man who truly loves Lolita very much and never could fight off any feelings for her. One can see the pain build up within Irons as the film progresses until the final scenes in which he finishes off Quilty (a very unnecessary scene). My favourite scene of the film happens to be near the end when Humbert is being followed by the police, drives into a farmer's field and proceeds to get out of his car and just stand there. This scene alone speaks more than the majority of the film itself.Melanie Griffith seems miscast as Charlotte Haze (who in Nabokov's novel is fat and unattractive), I don't know of many men who would want to subdue her with sleeping pills every night in order to pass on their "husbandly duties." Dominique Swain puzzles me in the role of Lolita. She captures the whole nymphette quality, but should have been a little more subdued at times. She seems slightly more childish in her performance than Nabokov intended.I would give a slight recommendation to the over 16 crowd who have an appreciation for the more artsy-type films like Lolita. However, it may seem quite subdued when compared to all of the hype.6/10 stars.
Great!
posted on 26 Apr 2009This movie was great. I read the book before I saw this, and it was everything I expected from a great story. The original movie was too much of Kubricks and not enough of Nabokovs book. Adrian Lyne does a spectacular job bringing this to the screen, and can actors get any better than Jeremy Irons? I don't think so.
Dreadful
posted on 22 Feb 2009Critics have been raving about the faithfulness of this version, and while it is certainly faithful in the strictest sense of the word, gone is the wit, the humor, and bitterness of Nabokov's novel. They have been replaced by exactly the kind of garish puffery that Nabokov was making fun of.
Doesn't matter how many times I see it...
posted on 16 Feb 2009...this movie still leaves me groping for words to describe how amazing it is. If I allow myself, I'll just ramble mindlessly about its merits, so let's try to do this logically.First of all, its faithfulness to Nabokov's novel is a big part of its appeal. There is a reason why the novel is as acclaimed as it is, and almost everything that was good in the novel transfers well to screen.Jeremy Irons as Humbert Humbert gives us a character that is hopelessly, but sympathetically, obsessed. Many people have a problem with the age difference between Humbert and Lolita, but as is explained in the beginning, Humbert has reasons in his past to be fixated on nymphets. It's a given that Humbert is not mentally stable, and his behavior is never shown as "right", but as the product of his instability. Dominique Swain is the perfect Lolita...capable of the sensuality of a full-grown woman, but just as capable of a temper tantrum.The filming of this movie is exquisite...I love the quick shots that are designed to make you feel what Humbert is feeling (e.g. their first kiss). Not only that, but there are some scenes that seem capable of defining the word "sensual."The thing that I love most about this movie is, of course, the love story. I'm a hopeless romantic, and the love that Humbert has for his Lolita never fails to bring tears to my eyes. You can feel Humbert's inner anguish at the situation, and at his helplessness to change it. Even though the love in this movie is between a young girl and a grown man, it is a powerful, moving love nonetheless.An excellent rendition of the novel! If you haven't seen it, go rent it right now!
A failure...
posted on 04 Feb 2009I watched this film before i read the movie or had seen Kubrick's film.When i read the book and compared it to this film, i realized that this film is a failure in representing the book of Nabokov.Sure, more of the story events take place in this film then Kubrick's, but it translated the scenes completely inaccurate as to how they were described in the book.All of the characters in the book were completely different as to how they are portrayed in this film.Humbert in the book was a mean manipulative snake type of character. A self-obsessed flamboyant character, with a taste for doing dirty deeds to reach his goals. Humbert in the book doesn't love Lolita. Not her character anyway. He is a man sexually obsessed with her looks and her age, not her personality, which he complaints time after time in the book. The Humbert character in the book was a lot closer to Clare Quilty then the 1997 movie makes it seem.This film makes Jeremy Irons's Humbert a tragic traumatized drama character full of guilt and despair. A tragic romantic lonesome man with a broken heart and basically a good person besides one little flaw.Then Lolita in the book. Lolita in the books 12, and basically not much different from your average girl in the early days of puberty. Experimenting with the power of sexuality? Yes. Slutty? No. Lolita in the book is just a girl who got into this situation by accident, and tries all that she can for her young age to stay alive.The Lolita in the book is not the sexualized naughty teenager we see in the media. That was the result of various forms of media exploitation.The Lolita in the book didn't have any blond or red braids or pigtails, and didn't wear sailor or any other stereotype outfits.The Lolita in the book was girl with dark brown bobbed hair, and a honey tanned skin, with a polka-dot bikini. However, the 1997 film portrayed Lolita the way she's been portrayed as a stereotype teenage hussy in the sex industry as well as the regular media. With her reddish blond braids and pigtails, stereotypical child-girl outfits and average ordinary sleazy teenage character, the Lolita played by Dominique Swain is NOTHING like the character in the book. Neither by look or by character. Then Clare Quilty in the book was described as a charismatic artist. Ultimately a dangerous wealthy pervert, but he was never described as a dirty old man. Clare Quilty in the book was a Humbert with a bigger house and more money.Clare Quilty in this movie is portrayed as the audience of today expects it. The "Marc Dutroux" type of sick dirty pig-like maniac.I thought this movie was good at the point when i hadn't read the book, but after i read the book, i thought is was a failure.I dislike it because when it came out, the production team and every newspaper and article claimed that this movie was made absolutely faithful to the book. When i read the book, i found out that is was all but faithful to Vladimir Nabokov's book.Kubrick's film may have been a bit shy and tame, but it was closer to the heart and soul of Nabokov's novel. It didn't hide important key elements of Humbert's twisted personality.Before you watch this movie, read the book. After you've seen this movie, read the book again.
Very little going for it
posted on 20 Jan 2009If you've read Nabokov's brilliantly written novel and / or seen Kubrick's weird but brilliant film you'll probably be disappointed with this. Although its not a bad film its not especially good either in that is doesn't really offer anything special (except some nice photography and Jeremy Irons - excellent as always). I wasn't expecting much so I can't say I was disappointed. Read the book or see Kubrick's version but don't put yourself out to see this.
Faithful adaptation with one terrific performance, but aloof film is never absorbing...
posted on 14 Jan 2009While watching Adrian Lyne's version of Vladimir Nabokov's "Lolita", the first thought that came to mind was, "Someone--either Lyne or screenwriter Stephen Schiff, or both--really loved this book." It features minor details from the novel that stick in your mind (like Lolita's love of brushing her teeth, or the sound of the toilet-paper roll spinning in the Haze bathroom) which are astutely, amusingly captured on film. Unfortunately, Frank Langella's role as Humbert Humbert's walking paranoia is played too far over the top, and the whole last act crumbles and falls apart. I did not think Dominique Swain was much of a presence as the new Lo (she's too lanky to be squirrelly and teasing, she just looks like she's showing off), but Jeremy Irons is very fine as Humbert (though he is perhaps too conventionally good-looking for the role). Melanie Griffith, on the other hand, is totally out of her league as Lo's nagging mother. Lyne's film is full of hypnotic images, but as a film per se it doesn't hold up. Stanley Kubrick's 1962 version is more surreal, more suggestive; simply by not showing as much, Kubrick got deeper into the crazy muck and mire of the book, and his interpretation is far more hypnotic. ** from ****
no summary can describe this film
posted on 02 Jan 2009Lolita really touched me in a way that I have trouble explaining why. Jeremy Irons shines in this role, as a vulnerable, weak-minded father getting "abused" by his 12-year-old stepdaughter. Contrary to what the law dictates, Humbert was not so much a pedophile as a victim of Lolita's cunning wit. From the way she toys with eating her banana to the way she always seems to have her legs propped up somewhere to expose her thighs, she was asking for it the whole time.Not to say that this kind of behaviour is acceptable; indeed, it was Humbert's responsibility to resist to Lolita's advances and to teach her better. Needless to say, pedophilia is shocking to say the least. But even more striking in this movie is the fact that even overly mature 12-year-old girls can use sex to their advantage, and in this case, get absolutely everything they want. Humbert wasn't a sick pervert: he was a man who didn't have the mental strength to resist to Lolita's (excellently played by Swain, who is nonetheless too old for the part) excellent tactics.
wonderfully done
posted on 24 Dec 2008This film is a stunning adaptation of the novel of the same name. The cinematography is absolutely beautiful and the film is brilliantly acted. The content of the story may put off many prospective viewers, but the story does not condone Humberts actions, it simply narrates them. For those of you unfamiliar with the story, Humberts (Irons) loss of his young love scars him in a way which compels him to rediscover it, through relationships with young girls. He moves to a town to accept a teaching position and while looking for suitable housing he meets Lolita Haze (Swain), a young girl who immediately catches his eye and his heart. The rest of the film chronicles their tempestuous relationship, one in which Humbert takes advantage of Lolita's natural curiosity and developing mind and body. I highly recommend this version of the film and the book to any person interested in a beautifully written, compelling story about one haunted man's selfish folly and the effect it has the young girl it revolves around.
A brilliantly riskier re-imagining of a classic story.
posted on 03 Dec 2008This film will teach people to have more respect and understanding for those with socially unexceptable behaviors. In this case, the deeply rooted desire for someone of much younger age. Lolita doesn't account for all behavior of this type, but in Humbert's case, it sure does. In the original Kubrick version, you really had to have read the book to understand why Humbert behaved the way he did. The sexual tension was barely hinted in those days. For someone who didn't know about the movie before they saw it, they probably had no clue as to what was going on. In the 97 version we understand Humbert's need to replace a lost love that was frozen in time. The cinematography was beautifully choreographed with soft natural light and gritty textures that allowed for the smooth and tempting youth of Delores (Lolita)to be enhanced. Every twist is dramatic to the point of feeling Humbert's horrible frustration when he finds himself in the same place again, with a lost love a second time. Like he missed his second chance. The acting is realistically played out in newer, more natural styles that don't hold back (Which is not often accomplished intelligently in remakes). I give this picture my highest rating.
One of the best...
posted on 18 Nov 2008I saw many films, but this is one of the best. I recommend it for all of the "real" movie funs, who looks for real emotions, feelings, break-through artists. Jeremy Irons is as good as he is...always. Dominique Swain is the most beautiful young Lady I've ever seen. This title is a must seen!Dave (from China)
Unique, brilliant, a true masterpiece
posted on 15 Nov 2008All I knew about `Lolita' before I stumbled on to this movie on cable yesterday, was that it is about a forbidden love story. I had no clue about the nature of `forbidden'ness before watching the movie. I have never read the original work, nor seen the Kubrick's version of the movie. Worse yet, I missed the initial credits and about the first five minutes of the movie as well, which apparently would have given me a good indication of how the movie ends (After being told what I missed, I thought it was a good thing that I missed it). All these resulted in one of my memorable-movie-watching experiences ever.The film is visually appealing, with a very graceful background score, which continues to ring in my ears as I write this sentence. Ever since `The Mission', Ennio Morricone is one of my all-time favorite music directors. The performances by the cast are commendable. (I beg to differ from some earlier opinions that Irons look lost in many places; I think he is exceptional and has almost brought Humbert's mental nature alive in to celluloid). A very decent technical work overall.But the very nature of the subject matter, and a script that supports it well, lies in the core of `Lolita'. [Mild Spoilers] What makes Lolita controversial? Is it the incest or the pedophilic nature of the love or both. If it is both, which one outweighs the other? I mean, is it possible to have the same strength of reluctance with one of these elements missing?And finally how much is Lolita or Humbert responsible for what had happened? I think the movie answers these questions as it flows along, if you could watch it with an open mind to the different characters in front of you. I personally would have thought the story is incomprehensible, if I were to have watched the same movie a few years ago (attributing to my `immaturity'). [End of Spoilers]Even though I understand it (at least I think, I do) I find it hard to describe the nature of love that is told in `Lolita'. But the final dialog between Humbert and Lolita and the following visuals is a pretty darn good description. I do think there were a few parts in the movie that appear rather melodramatic (I don't know if they hail from the book). But they are negligible enough to make the movie a masterpiece. I am planning to read the book and see the movie again (Hmmm, I will miss the sudden-unexpected-pore-first-time experience). `Lolita' in one line, is a beautiful puzzle that unfolds in front of your eyes, and stays in your head for a while. Highly recommend it.
No regional coding
posted on 31 Aug 2009This DVD has no regional coding, and can be played in any DVD player. Arrived with no problems.