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.

didabrera Absolutely loved this film. Superb acting and wonderful presentation of a difficult subject. Who would have thought you could have sympathy for someone in Humbert's position? Nothing offensive in this film and it certainly brings home the difficulties encountered when this sort of situation arises, plus it shows just how easy it is for it to happen!

Mobithailand After I finished the book, I watched the 1997 film version of Lolita, directed by Adrian Lynne and starring Jeremy Irons and Dominique Swain. It is a well-made film and faithfully follows the book in pretty much all respects, but omits some of the events described in the book due to time restraints.Irons is a believable seducer, 'Humbert Humbert', and he captures the essence of a man lusting after 'forbidden fruit'. Swain is excellent as the promiscuous and provocative 'Lolita' – depicted as a 14-year-old in the movie, rather than a 12-year-old, as in the book.Neither the book, nor the film in any way glorifies nor condones the act of sex with underage girls. Nor does it make any excuses for the protagonist's illicit desires and actions. It does however, seek to understand what motivated him, how he came to be the way he was and why did he go to such lengths and take such risks to satisfy his urges.If you are interested in fine literature, read the book and then maybe watch the movie. You will not be disappointed.

inioi To begin with, I will say that Adrian Lyne's one of my favorite directors. Whatever he does, he adds his unmistakable personal stamp on filming. The depth and detail are overwhelming. Each frame is a picture by itself. He is a master at creating atmospheres along with music and photography.He is also a provocateur, and he likes to be considered as such. One of the recurring subjects is the attraction between men and women, which can also be seen in "Unfaithful (2002)," "Indecent Proposal (1997)," "Fatal Attraction (1987)," "Nine 1/2 Weeks (1986) "" Flashdance (1983) "and" Foxes (1980) ".On "Lolita" The film seemed intense and intimate in equal measure. And even could say that is extremely private, as depicts personal feelings and sensations that could cause rejection or criticism.For me, there is nothing to criticize.The question of our capacity to empathize with Jeremy Irons role, arises.The psychological game between the two protagonists is as intense as unstable, and the roles of dominator and dominated are exchanged. We finally have a dramatic situation in which nobody wins, so it is as real as life itself.We stand before a, deeply and brutally honest movie.9/10