onetwothreefour
Bluelight Crew
this is a review i wrote for another site - i really cba typing it out all differently, so i'm just gonna cut and paste. hopefully there'll be some discussion (i know that most people seem to love this film, but there are some who detest it...and my kubrick comments should make a few people angry 
), though, so i'll talk about it a bit more then. anyway...
---
Believe it or not, I actually think this, Adrian Lyne's 1997 version of Lolita, is vastly superior to Stanley Kubrick's far more revered 1962 "classic" (both of which were adapted from Vladimir Nabokov's 1955 book of the same name). In fact, though I count The Shining, Full Metal jacket and A Clockwork Orange among my favourite films, I often find Kubrick's direction to be clunky and cumbersome - it's his ideas which makes his films great. And in Lolita he had the wrong ideas, and the wrong cast (even the brilliant Peter Sellers was mis-cast). In contrast however, everything about Lyne's film screams perfection. His exceedingly beautiful and wispy cinematography comes as a refreshing change to Kubrick's in-your-face brutality.
Overshadowed upon release by the usual controversy and conservative moral outrage, the film virtually sank without a trace. Which is a shame, because the film is director Adrian Lyne's greatest achievemnt to date, and he's been around for quite some time, directing films such as Fatal Attraction and Indecent Proposal. Lolita, as if you don't already know, is the 14-year-old "nymphette", played by Dominique Swain (in her first film role) - object of Humbert Humbert's (Jeremy Irons) affection and obsession. A lifelong quest for the 'replacement' of his lost childhood love (who died of typhus at the age of 14) leads to Humbert's disturbing obsession, proclaiming her as the "fire of my loins". After some comedic events (which, in their tragic nature, really shouldn't be funny at all) that lead to Humbert becoming legal guardian of young Lo', the two embark on a roadtrip across the magnificent landscapes of America, Humbert running from the obvious illegalities of their relationship. Suffice to say, things do not end on a happy note, but if anything the ending is entirely satisfying and consistent - something which can't be said for most American movies these days.
A serenity invades Lyne's photography, and while it is truly beautiful, there are many more things to love about Lolita. Stephen Schiff's screenplay is an amazing adaptation - simultaneously retaining the psychological complexities of Nabokov's brilliant novel, whilst also capturing the story's spirit perfectly, knowing just where to deviate to make the most of Lyne's hauntingly poetic visual style. But, it's the actors which truly make Lolita the film it is. Irons is Humbert; every movement, smile, stolen glance is just as Nabokov would have had it, and it is perhaps Irons' most brilliant turn in an already excellent decades-long career.
Swain, also, for a first-time actress, is almost beyond words. Her ability to get so far inside her character's head, perfectly demonstrating every subtle nuance of Lolita, is so far ahead of Sue Lyons' wooden performance (in Kubrick's film) that the comparison practically reaches redundancy - you just have to see it for yourself. Just as Irons is Humbert, Swain makes her role one that seems to have been written for her, and her alone. Of course, this wasn't the case, but it speaks volumes of her ability as an actress - especially at such an age (Swain was sixteen through most of the film's shooting) - that she just seems so right for the role. And the subtleties of Swain's performance are played perfectly by Lyne, as his camera sees all. It is this combination of deft little touches - from Swain, Irons, and Lyne alike, which give the film its grounding (and often troubling) sense of reality.
Melanie Griffith, cast against type as Lolita's mother Charlotte - "the Haze woman" - is also wonderful. Though some have criticised the character purely for the fact that she was "annoying" (and yep, she sure was), this is actually a credit both to herself and Lyne - read Nabokov's novel, and then you'll realise just how well Griffith has the character down. Charlotte is an annoying, obnoxious windbag, and Griffith's performance is entirely indicitave of this, thus she should be commended rather than denigrated by those of us who are unaware of the origins of the character.
Clearly there are not enough superlatives for this - each time I attempt to describe one of my favourite things about the film, I discover another. This is the masterpiece which Kubrick's Lolita should have been - it's just a shame that it might never gain the recognition that it so clearly deserves.
Extras: Lyne's commentary is a difficult one - though sparse, his bursts of speech are so insightful that one can't help but be impressed; it's just such a pity that much of the track is entirely silent. i guess Lyne himself can't be entirely blamed for this though, as he is left on his lonesome for the track, and the film does run for some 131 minutes. Deleted scenes are little more than filler (though still a welcome addition), but the inclusion of a casting session - where we get to see a fresh-faced young Dominique Swain auditioning for her role - is a blessing. Swain, somehow, had this part from the beginning, and if you're not convinced after seeing this, I suggest you seek some help!
), though, so i'll talk about it a bit more then. anyway...---
Believe it or not, I actually think this, Adrian Lyne's 1997 version of Lolita, is vastly superior to Stanley Kubrick's far more revered 1962 "classic" (both of which were adapted from Vladimir Nabokov's 1955 book of the same name). In fact, though I count The Shining, Full Metal jacket and A Clockwork Orange among my favourite films, I often find Kubrick's direction to be clunky and cumbersome - it's his ideas which makes his films great. And in Lolita he had the wrong ideas, and the wrong cast (even the brilliant Peter Sellers was mis-cast). In contrast however, everything about Lyne's film screams perfection. His exceedingly beautiful and wispy cinematography comes as a refreshing change to Kubrick's in-your-face brutality.
Overshadowed upon release by the usual controversy and conservative moral outrage, the film virtually sank without a trace. Which is a shame, because the film is director Adrian Lyne's greatest achievemnt to date, and he's been around for quite some time, directing films such as Fatal Attraction and Indecent Proposal. Lolita, as if you don't already know, is the 14-year-old "nymphette", played by Dominique Swain (in her first film role) - object of Humbert Humbert's (Jeremy Irons) affection and obsession. A lifelong quest for the 'replacement' of his lost childhood love (who died of typhus at the age of 14) leads to Humbert's disturbing obsession, proclaiming her as the "fire of my loins". After some comedic events (which, in their tragic nature, really shouldn't be funny at all) that lead to Humbert becoming legal guardian of young Lo', the two embark on a roadtrip across the magnificent landscapes of America, Humbert running from the obvious illegalities of their relationship. Suffice to say, things do not end on a happy note, but if anything the ending is entirely satisfying and consistent - something which can't be said for most American movies these days.
A serenity invades Lyne's photography, and while it is truly beautiful, there are many more things to love about Lolita. Stephen Schiff's screenplay is an amazing adaptation - simultaneously retaining the psychological complexities of Nabokov's brilliant novel, whilst also capturing the story's spirit perfectly, knowing just where to deviate to make the most of Lyne's hauntingly poetic visual style. But, it's the actors which truly make Lolita the film it is. Irons is Humbert; every movement, smile, stolen glance is just as Nabokov would have had it, and it is perhaps Irons' most brilliant turn in an already excellent decades-long career.
Swain, also, for a first-time actress, is almost beyond words. Her ability to get so far inside her character's head, perfectly demonstrating every subtle nuance of Lolita, is so far ahead of Sue Lyons' wooden performance (in Kubrick's film) that the comparison practically reaches redundancy - you just have to see it for yourself. Just as Irons is Humbert, Swain makes her role one that seems to have been written for her, and her alone. Of course, this wasn't the case, but it speaks volumes of her ability as an actress - especially at such an age (Swain was sixteen through most of the film's shooting) - that she just seems so right for the role. And the subtleties of Swain's performance are played perfectly by Lyne, as his camera sees all. It is this combination of deft little touches - from Swain, Irons, and Lyne alike, which give the film its grounding (and often troubling) sense of reality.
Melanie Griffith, cast against type as Lolita's mother Charlotte - "the Haze woman" - is also wonderful. Though some have criticised the character purely for the fact that she was "annoying" (and yep, she sure was), this is actually a credit both to herself and Lyne - read Nabokov's novel, and then you'll realise just how well Griffith has the character down. Charlotte is an annoying, obnoxious windbag, and Griffith's performance is entirely indicitave of this, thus she should be commended rather than denigrated by those of us who are unaware of the origins of the character.
Clearly there are not enough superlatives for this - each time I attempt to describe one of my favourite things about the film, I discover another. This is the masterpiece which Kubrick's Lolita should have been - it's just a shame that it might never gain the recognition that it so clearly deserves.
Extras: Lyne's commentary is a difficult one - though sparse, his bursts of speech are so insightful that one can't help but be impressed; it's just such a pity that much of the track is entirely silent. i guess Lyne himself can't be entirely blamed for this though, as he is left on his lonesome for the track, and the film does run for some 131 minutes. Deleted scenes are little more than filler (though still a welcome addition), but the inclusion of a casting session - where we get to see a fresh-faced young Dominique Swain auditioning for her role - is a blessing. Swain, somehow, had this part from the beginning, and if you're not convinced after seeing this, I suggest you seek some help!
I am pretty sure I will end up loving it too, without saying one is better than the other et al ad infinitum. 
