Lolita - Movie Reviews - Rotten Tomatoes

Lolita Reviews

Page 1 of 49
Super Reviewer
½ December 7, 2011
Nabakov's insightful questioning of the values of modern Western culture are still wonderfully hidden in this take on his still discomforting tale about living your dream, about the myth of having it all. Excellent turns by the cast almost give one to forget the mischevious, indelicate way the subject is approached. The puzzle here is that Nabakov's ( and the original film's ) "you-know-I'm-joking, right, just-making-a-point?" wink at you is replaced by Lyne's decision to simply tell the tale straight, w/o any curves at all ... is that a good or a bad thing? Its certainly more terrifying.
Super Reviewer
October 10, 2011
I expected it to be much more disturbing, however since it was Lolita who started all their exploits it wasn't as creepy or perverted. Saying that, it was uncomfortable to watch at times especially with the great performances by Irons and Swain. The character of Lolita was very well done as she acted incredibly childish and immature for her age but then suddenly switched when she wanted something. She knew exactly what she was doing. I sort of felt sorry for Humbert as she was blatantly playing him and he fell for it because of his past. However, he still shouldn't have given in to his desires and they both got what they deserved in the end.
Super Reviewer
½ July 17, 2011
Where do I even start with this movie?! I seem to have fallen into a trap of late of watching movies that seem to have this child/adult love theme. I had the book for ages and never read it, resigning myself to watch the movie before hand (which is something I very rarely do) and I am happy I did because now I could not imagine the characters as anyone but those in movie. Jeremy Irons again perfection, his narrative in this film haunting and resonant even if there were moments when I wondered why the hell I was watching it! Kinda slow, but never dull.
Super Reviewer
½ February 19, 2007
The remake of the hugely controversial film, original Directed by Stanley Kubrick and taken from the novel by Vladimir Nabokov.

As remakes go, the general view tends to be that the original is best in most cases, not in this one, or at least not for me.

It?s very difficult not to feel uncomfortable watching parts of this film because of the nature of the story, but Jeremy Irons was extremely impressive, with a wonderful performance from Jeremy Irons as Humbert and a great role played by Dominique Swain as Lolita too, both controversial roles.

The view of this unspeakable romance being told through a Writers eyes, almost tries to justify to justify his acting upon his feelings and instincts. What I also liked about this version was seeing the perspective from each person involved, rather telling the story just through one set of eyes.

For the first time I could see this story through the young girl?s eyes, like many girls her age having feelings for an older man and the innocence of how those feelings could come across to somebody else and be used to manipulate situations, debates are a must for this film.
Super Reviewer
September 4, 2009
Lolita is a fascinating and brave tale. It doesn't excuse the actions of it's protagonists, but explores the emotions within the characters that drive them. Lyne is a brave man attempting a story that Kubrick handled so brilliantly, but you never feel like this film is in competition with that version. Lyne brings a lot of his own talents to the film. Given the time (the 90's) and Lyne's track record, he is more at home exploring the sexual/sensual side to the relationship. It never becomes graphic or excessive, and Lyne's restraint makes it a powerful watch. Irons gives a perfect performance (much like Mason) but in no way is he cut from the same cloth. Irons seems less fatherly until later on, he also seems less sleazy, but perhaps that is just Mason's voice. Swain's debut is one of great confidence, she does innocent, playful, teasing, manipulative and evil. Morricone's saddening score, just adds deeper layers to even more complex scenes. Lolita is great because here is a film where both protagonists are the victim and the culprit.
Super Reviewer
½ October 9, 2008
Well, I must admit that the writer of this movie, which is a based on novel movie, is a brilliant writer... He can make a simple story, about an adult man who obsessed with a young girl, into an interesting story to watch... The film itself just okay, even I'm not read the book, but at least I know that the book will be greater than the movie... Jeremy Irons, the only stars played in this movie, gave a good performance... He really really shows his capacity as an old Hollywood star.... Dominique Swain, who made her big improvement for her career, was particularly show a great acting... She just looks like the young Scarlett Johansson with some talent, she can be a promised young actress if she just chooses the right movie... This Lolita movie was a good movie, but too bad it just an independent movie... It can't fly Dominique Swain career on movie industry, despite the fact that she was show a great acting here... Overall, it a great movie and a really good watch...
Super Reviewer
½ April 6, 2007
Excellent remake.
Super Reviewer
December 27, 2006
I'll stick with Kubrick's version.
Super Reviewer
November 5, 2006
Superbly cast and more faithful to the novel. I just like Kubrick's version way more.
Super Reviewer
½ August 31, 2006
I really enjoyed this one more-so than than Kubrick's version. Irons was a far more convincing Humbert, and Swann played Loltia amazingly well and convinced me she was the age they mentioned in this film.
The film deals with the topic of paedophila well and throughout the film you begin to symphathise with Humbert,but you don't realise it. The film was incredibly emotional and almost made me cry! Now I am going to read the book
Super Reviewer
November 7, 2010
I enjoyed this version of Nabokov's Lolita far better than the 60s version. I think that the film studios purposely down played its release for fear of criticisms. Jeremy Irons and Frank Langella are great as the troubled "sickos" of the piece and Dominique Swain is great. What happened to Swain anyways? She did the naked piece for PETA and now she has vanished.
Super Reviewer
February 17, 2006
None of these characters are that likeable. I guess that's the point, but it sure makes it hard to watch. Stick to the book.
Super Reviewer
½ October 2, 2013
Drama about a man's obsession and relationship with his new wife's 14 year old daughter. What seems like a very controversial subject matter starts as we see the man lose his first love to disease at age 14, freezing part of him in that moment forever, his mind constantly reminded of the happiness and passion of this time. When he meets Lolita for the first time he instantly falls in love and it seems the young girl likes him to. When the man's wife gets killed(straight after finding his manuscripts detailing his disdain for her and his love for Lolita, great timing!) this means he can track Lolita down at her boarding school and run away with her. Obviously with this type of relationship things become difficult and there are many obstacles in the way until the tragic ending. Lolita is a well made and acted film, Jeremy Irons and Dominique Swain brilliant in their respective roles and it doesn't come across as sleazy in any way, with some sly humour sometimes used. It might look like a bit dated now but Lolita is a decent drama on an interesting and controversial subject.
Super Reviewer
November 12, 2008
Lyne evolves somehow....lusciously and his sexual identity procures outrageous familiarities,oh the consequences of Fatal Attraction.Irons preserves the glimpse of passion from Mason,and what shall the penalty be?Serves as a two-folder,the provocateur Lolita and the soft-core edition of Kubrick,yet...this one doesn't get much props for its novelization.
Super Reviewer
½ December 26, 2007
Strange & Frightening!
Super Reviewer
½ December 5, 2007
Twisted yet good film. Great performances and good writing.
Super Reviewer
½ July 27, 2006
One of the best remakes I've seen. This is gonna shake you up.
½ December 22, 2013
You have to live under a rock not to know who Lolita is, but still I was pleasantly surprised how well the story was conveyed. The acting and directing are absolutely top-notch. The visuals are quite amazing as well, with meticulously designed sets recreating authentic 40's America. Regardless of whether or not you like the characters, it's a gripping and captivating watch.
½ May 2, 2013
Lolita seems like such an obvious choice of subject matter for a film that it makes it all the more puzzling when adaptations get it so wrong. Now I'm not sure if it's even possible to properly film the landmark novel. While slightly more faithful to Nabokov's novel than Kubrick's earlier attempt, Adrian Lyne completely misses the point of Lolita. There's nary a trace of black comedy or the harsh cruelness found in Nabokov's writing. Instead, you get a bizarre, sensual, and over-dramatized movie that is as puzzling as it is cheesy.

From the onset, Lyne makes several clear departures from Kubrick's film. Where Kubrick was subtle to a (pretty major) fault, Lyne is suffocatingly heavy-handed. He makes sure that no symbolism is missed, no matter how obvious or cliche it might be, until it is completely beaten into the ground. Paired with some weak performances--especially from Melanie Griffith--it sends the film into a tailspin almost immediately upon takeoff.

The plot fast-forwards through most of the set-up (where Kubrick's film really shined), choosing to dispose of Griffith early on. The breakneck speed strips out any of her motivations, leaving us baffled by her strained relationship with Lolita and the sudden marriage to Humbert. Things seem to happen for the sake of convenience and not much else. The rest of the plot is a laborious road film, with awkwardly cheesy dream sequences, flashbacks, and stilted exposition (the final confrontation, in particular, is laughably written). By the end of the piece, I was rooting for everyone to die just so that it would finally end.

Lyne had some noble intentions in tackling this project 35 years after the original film. His focus on eroticism isn't misguided (Kubrick later admitted that was one fault of his try), but the entire execution is. I'm still holding out for a rendition of Lolita worthy of it's name, but I doubt I'll see one anytime soon.
Page 1 of 49