"A man marries his landlady so he can take advantage of her daughter." - The worst description of this movie possible, lie that gives a completely wrong picture of what you can expect to see in this film.

Disturbed, but at the same time very romantic and sad love/life story, much much better than the original novel by Nabokov. One of my favorite movies of all time.

10/10

"She was Lo, plain Lo in the morning, standing 4'10 in one sock. She was Lola in slacks. She was Dolly at school. She was Dolores on the dotted line. In my arms, she was always Lolita, light of my life, fire of my loins, my sin, my soul, Lolita."

"I was a daisy-fresh girl and look what you've done to me. I should call the police and tell them that you raped me, you dirty old man."

"Despite all the danger and hopelessness of it all, I was in paradise, paradise whose skies were the color of hell flames, but a paradise still."

LOLITA by Adrian Lyne, was immediately and understandably compared to Stanley Kubrick's adaptation of the novel by Vladimir Nabokov, and although I think Kubrick made a wonderful film, what I do think director Lyne's version does better, is the way it captures the tragedy of it all, instead of the comedy. Tragedy in the sense that it dares more than Kubrick's film did (which I believe has nothing to do with the censorship in the 60ties), because director Lyne isn't interested in sexually or provocatively exploiting the relationship between Humbert (a marvelous Jeremy Irons) and Lolita/Dolores (Dominique Swain), he makes it sort of enigmatic, carefully lingering and beautiful. More faithful to the novel, the film successfully achieves the great character nuance of the civilized and sophisticated Humbert Humbert, and the way he falls completely in love with such a obnoxious and difficult child, who's at the same time such an alluring, facetious and sexual creature. Another stronghold for the film in its dignity as an adaption of the novel, is Ennio Morricone's sweepingly romantic and classic score. It may just be a notch better than Kubrick's film, and for me personally, as an adaptation of the novel, it also rings more true.

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, especially the beautifully delivered and powerful narration, 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 never 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 but also affecting. The chemistry between them is beautifully played. Frank Langella is suitably odious as Quilty, and just as sinister as Peter Sellers. Before one forgets, the music score is really quite marvellous, whimsical, haunting and elegiac, like its own character, 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