Action / Drama / Romance

Rotten Tomatoes Critics - Certified Fresh 67%
Rotten Tomatoes Audience - Upright 75%
IMDb Rating 6.9 10 42933


Uploaded By: OTTO
Downloaded 141,612 times
November 20, 2014 at 03:37 PM



Melanie Griffith as Charlotte Haze
Jeremy Irons as Humbert Humbert
Dominique Swain as Dolores 'Lolita' Haze
Frank Langella as Clare Quilty
720p.BLU 1080p.BLU
930.38 MB
24.000 fps
2hr 17 min
P/S 18 / 155
2.06 GB
24.000 fps
2hr 17 min
P/S 15 / 65

Movie Reviews

Reviewed by marilima 9 / 10

A convincing, disturbing and mesmerizing story, all at the same time

Caution is necessary when falling in love with a story like this. The relationship between Dolores Haze, or simply Lolita, and Humbert should not be seen as love. It never was. The movie presents a story of a man who chronicles his perverted obsession with a child through his own sick, twisted point of view.

In this film, H. H. has a sociopathic tendency to victimize himself. However, one cannot deny the beauty of the manifestation of his sensitivity when he cries for the first time the moment he finally finds out what happened to Dolores and in many other moments that clearly express his dementia. These troublesome scenes deserve attention because they were well executed and wonderfully played by the main actor.

Lolita is one of the best stories I have ever been able to get my hands on, but it is a cruel story. The book makes the reader feel like part of the plot because he is inside the mind of Humbert Humbert, which is brilliantly done by Nabokov, and this is not as clear or well portrayed in the movie. Perhaps, I could simply say it is more subtle… Either way, movies and books are different kinds of media and, by being so, one must take into account that there are different possibilities for each one. The 1997s adaptation fulfills its role by taking its viewers inside a pedophile's mind anyway. It enables you to see what Humbert sees, and to perceive what Lola perceives. It is a convincing, disturbing and mesmerizing story, all at the same time.

Additionally, when it comes to the movie the extreme sexualization of a child is a disturbing factor, and it might creep out the most unwary spectators. It could not be different though, it is a controversial subject portrayed in an equally controversial manner. This fact alone pushes some people away from getting to know the story, but art is a vast subject. It can be vile. It can hurt. And honestly, I am glad it does.

Fundamentally, whether you read it or watch it: Lolita is not a love story. It should be that it is, in fact, a story about pedophilia, rape and abuse – and that is what you bear in mind if you are willing to give it a try and watch it, even if the way it was made might make it a bit harder for it to be perceived as such.

Reviewed by atomicgirl-34996 8 / 10

Thank you, Adrian Lyne!

This movie deserves a 10 but loses two points for two specific reasons. The first reason is that Melanie Griffith was horribly, unbelievably and terribly miscast. I don't know why on God's green earth she was cast but she's all wrong for the role. Luckily, she doesn't "Nicolas Cage" this film (as in ruins it), but boy is she terrible and sticks out like a sore thumb in an otherwise well-cast and acted movie.

The second reason the movie loses a point is that it tried way too hard to make Lolita childlike. Yes, children are immature, but c'mon...the way the movie made her act, Lolita wasn't just immature for her age; she was practically mentally disabled. Not even the girl she hung out with was that immature. I don't know what the point was but it was really over the top and made it seem as if Lyne was overcompensating for the fact that the actress was older than the character she was playing. In any event, it was really annoying, especially the scene when she gives Humbert breakfast in bed with only one shoe. (What kid would be so stupid and lazy as to not look for another pair of shoes?)

With that, here's what I loved about the film. I absolutely hate the cult status surrounding Lolita. I read the book and saw the Kubrick film and saw nothing more than what it was, an average story about a pedophile's obsession with a young girl, nothing more, nothing less. But for some reason, people have elevated an average story to "classic literary" status, I guess because they equate taboo with "intellectual" and "high caliber." And so they've imbued this average story with a level of depth, intellectualism and sophistication that it never had. In other words, they've romanticized the story and the character itself.

It's gotten to the point where people have made Humbert Humbert some kind of sympathetic Greek tragedy-type figure and painted his "love" for Lolita as "tragic" because, poor guy, he only fell for her because his childhood sweetheart died. Gimme a break. There was nothing ever more to this character than the fact that he was a creepy sociopath and pedophile.

Hence why I love this adaptation. A lot of people hated it, and the reason why is that Lyne pulled no punches of stripping this "literary classic" of all the romanticizing heaped upon it by fans. Fans wanted a a sympathetic tragic hero that they could feel comfortable with and embrace, the guy we see in the first half of the movie, who always has this befuddled, dopey, deer-caught-in-the- headlights look about him that plays him up as an innocent victim swept by his desires. They wanted that Humbert, not the one who starts physically abusing Lolita when he can no longer control her, or the guy who breaks into another man's house and pumps him full of lead while he's sleeping in bed. (That whole sequence of Quilty running around in a bathrobe never happened; Humbert, in his delusion, dreamed that up.)

Lyne exposed the character for what he was--a crazy, paranoid psychopath and a pathetic pedophile piece of crap who kept clinging to this unrealistic sexual fantasy of the nymphet (a docile, submissive, willing child-woman who can be screwed at his leisure and convenience without any problems), even as Lolita kept acting out with the mental and emotional capacity of a child (complete with temper tantrums, obnoxious pranks, crying jags, bratty behavior and neediness). The fact that everyone keeps complaining about the gruesome murder scene involving Quilty pretty much confirms that this is the opposite of what fans wanted in an adaptation, which was a romanticized version of a pedophile and cold-blooded murderer. Kudos for Adrian Lyne for attempting to finally strip away all the romanticizing that fans of Lolita have been doing with this character and book.

As for other aspects of the film, the cinematography and art design is second to none. It really does look like its of its time and they did a bang up job getting all the details right, right down to the vintage "Camay Brides" ads that were plastered on Lolita's bedroom wall.

So, an 8/10 for me, and only because of the poor casting of Melanie Griffith and the over the top childishness of Lolita.

Reviewed by Lwchapelhill 9 / 10

A "Lolita" more true to the novel

I've read the book, twice, and seen the Kubrick movie twice and Adrian Lyne's new version is the hands-down winner. The casting, the photography, and the production values are amazing. Kubrick's version, released in 1962, was plainly nervous about the subject matter, and to offset that nervousness, cast the most charming leading man of the day, James Mason, and for Lolita, the junior sexpot Sue Lyon. Peter Sellers' manic delivery of his lines eliminated the sinister aspects of the character of Clare Quilty, and various comic moments kept the movie from being dark or obsessive.

But Lyne is not a man to shy away from the dark or obsessive. Having directed Fatal Attraction and 9 ½ Weeks, Lyne understands the dark and obsessive side of love and sex. It's interesting that in his Lolita, he keeps his understanding of the dark and obsessive as the keynote, but adds sunlight, beauty, and humor (a more sophisticated humor than Kubrick's). This dynamic works beautifully. Jeremy Irons adds a guilty edginess to many of his scenes, as when the headmistress of Dolores' school hems and haws about Dolores' understanding of sex. Irons, as the incestuous step-father, is plainly waiting to be denounced as a monster, as he assumes this conversation has resulted from Dolores telling someone about their illicit relationship. The headmistress fusses a bit more, then comes out with "Mr. Humbert, someone needs to tell that girl the facts of life!" Irons' agonizing tension and fear, followed quickly by incredulity and relief, is masterfully done.

There are many scenes that play out as they did in the book, and the small additions where Lyne has diverged from the book enhances the scenes with rich detail and beauty. The scene on the porch of the Haze house, with Humbert, Dolores, and Mrs. Haze, is wonderfully choreographed, and Swain, as Lolita, is believably kid-like, yet sensual. Her sensuality is a new toy, something to experiment with now and then. Though it's not in the book, Dolores' tossing her retainer into Humbert's drink, then Humbert trying to conceal this from "Mama Haze," is a terrific addition. Playfulness, sensuality, and concealment of a guilty secret all work to set the tone of the first half of the movie. Dolores, becoming a young woman, plays with sexuality and sensuality, but has a child's understanding of adult relations. When she's done playing with sensuality, she'll read a comic book, or listen to the radio, and she doesn't want Humbert bothering her again. Lyne brings out that contrast of normal Dolores to obsessive object Lolita—the contrast of Dolores Haze herself, and how her obsessive lover sees her.

For those nervous about the age thing, Dominique Swain was 16 when the movie was shot, and she credibly plays a coltish 14-year-old. (In contrast, Lyon was 17 when she made the earlier version, and looked close to 20, a peroxide sex bomb of the early 60s).

In the book, Dolores/Lolita is 12 when she first beds Humbert; we're not at the point where we can make a movie completely true to the book. (What would be required would be an actress of at least 17 or 18, who could credibly play a 12-year-old.)

The performance of Melanie Griffiths needs to be noted. She's beautiful, yearning, and a bit socially inept as the small-town landlady attracted to the sophisticated European professor. She and her daughter get into believable fish-wifely brawls several times, and Griffiths' voice cracks and takes on a shrill and frustrated tone. These scenes are well-done, and Griffiths handles the quick switches from charming and agreeable to infuriated mother extremely well.

The last of the main characters, Clare Quilty, is perfectly acted by Frank Langella. Where Sellers' Quilty was manic and funny, Langella makes his Quilty shadowy and sinister, which is as it should be. Near the end, as Langella's Quilty talks to Humbert, we see precisely how Quilty is Humbert's dark (darker?) side, and we see that Humbert sees it too. Langella's Quilty is almost always seen smoking a cigarette in the shadows, and his devilish presence adds a weight and gravitas to a small but crucial role.

As I noted, the production and photography are top notch. The set designs, cars, clothing, and music are all late 1940s, which is the time of the story in the novel. The Kubrick version was set in the time it was made, 1962. I appreciate Lyne getting this right. One of the themes of Nabokov's novel was post-WWII America, with its brand-new recovering economy, and its brand-new highways that spanned the country. A good portion of the book details Humbert's and Lolita's wanderings across the map of America, and Humbert's frequent incredulity and well-bred amazement at the simultaneous bounty and brassiness of his adopted country. As well, the novel portrays how much of her era Lolita is, using the slang, singing along with the popular music, and gorging on movie magazines and comic books. The attention paid to detail in Lyne's Lolita is gorgeous and eye-filling. Yet everything feels natural, with never a whiff of self-conscious retro in the entire film. There are beautifully-lighted scenes, and a sunny surface that contrasts with the dark guilty obsession of Humbert. That contrast is the crux of the movie. Kubrick's Lolita brought out the dark comedy of the novel, but Lyne's version of Lolita brings out its lyrical beauty. Both deal with the unhealthy obsessive love Humbert has for Lolita, but in very different ways. I think those who have read the book will appreciate this second version of Lolita for its beauty and for Swain's portrayal of Lolita as an ordinary bratty young teen, and Irons' portrayal of dark, yet helpless, obsession.

Read more IMDb reviews


Be the first to leave a comment