Humbert Humbert, a British professor coming to the US to teach, rents a room in Charlotte Haze's house, but only after he sees her 14-year-old daughter, Dolores (Lolita), to whom he is immediately attracted. Though he hates the mother, he marries her as this is the only way to be close to the girl, who will prove to be too mature for her age. They start a journey together, trying to hide they're not just (step)father and daughter, throughout the country, being followed by someone whom Humbert first suspects to be from the police. The profound jealousy, and maybe some guilt from the forbidden love, seem slowly to drive the man emotionally labile. Written by
Luis Canau <luis..canau@mail.EUnet.pt>
In Australia, the film was held back from release, due to concerns about promoting pedophilia. It was granted release in 1999 with an R rating. See more »
The movie should end in 1952, not 1950. Like the novel, the year is 1947 when Humbert meets Lolita, but the book states that both cross country trips and the time they spend at Beardsley amounts to about 2 years. The film has the same "3 years later" time jump as the novel, but there's no way from summer of 1947 to fall of 1950 could they have spent a year traveling the country, stayed in Beardsley for most of the school year, had another few months on a second cross country trip, and then have Humbert searching for Lolita for 3 years. See more »
She was Lo, plain Lo, in the morning, standing four feet ten in one sock. She was Lola in slacks, she was Dolly at school. She was Dolores on the dotted line. But in my arms she was always - Lolita. Light of my life, fire of my loins. My sin. My soul.
See more »
After the credits are over there is a brief clip where Lolita is shown juggling a red apple. See more »
Having not seen Kubrick's version, I can only say...
I fell in love with Nabokov's masterpiece. Upon hearing that there was a movie adapted from the novel (I am of a younger generation) I found it hard to believe that anyone could put into visual images and dialogue what had appeared in my mind as flawless. After seeing this remade version, I came away satisfied. Hearing what countless critics had to say has never changed my view. Of course, it can never come even close to the novel, but watching Lyne's version unfold in quiet and somber light brought to mind the exact same feelings I was experiencing reading the book. Certain things did bother me. Lolita's mother in particular. Hearing Melanie Griffith deliver lines as if she were reading to a group of school children set my teeth on edge, although she went down in fine style. And having the sole reason for Humbert's obsession with nymphets wrapped up in one neat reason(Annabel) was also hard to swallow. But Dominique Swain was nearly the perfect picture of the Lolita in my mind. Wistful, vulnerable, and a fierce manipulator all at once, it's hard to believe she'd never had acting experience beforehand. Perhaps a bit too old in certain lights, she still managed to carry off a difficult role and steal every scene she was in, much like Natalie Portman in "Beautiful Girls". Certain expressions were incredibly poignant. (Think of Lo's face when Humbert denied permission to be in the play. Think of her lipstick smeared smile after being caught going out when Humbert went to the market). The essence of this movie is what formed my opinion that this was a good film. The pacing, the comparison to Kubrick didn't matter when the mood of the entire film was left. Maybe the critics are right, and I'm missing something. But when the final scene appeared, that dreamy image of Lolita's face, I was completely satisfied that Lyne did the best job anyone could have.
24 of 32 people found this review helpful.
Was this review helpful to you?