Product Details

• Amazon Sales Rank: #5690 in DVD
• Released on: 2000-05-08
• Rating: Suitable for 18 years and over
• Aspect ratio: 2.35:1
• Number of discs: 1
• Formats: Anamorphic, PAL, Widescreen
• Original language: English
• Subtitled in: English
• Number of discs: 1
• Running time: 132 minutes

Special Features
English
Region 2

Synopsis
Lyne (FATAL ATTRACTION) tries his hand at a more faithful adaptation of Nabokov's novel than Kubrick was allowed to attempt in 1962. In the process, Irons gives an amazing, tortured performance as Humbert Humbert, the professor who can not control his physical desires for 12 year-old Dolores Haze (Swain). Swain also turns in an exceptional performance as the title character. Controversy surrounded the production to the point where it languished, completed, on the shelf, for almost 2 years looking for an American distributor. The film had a successful European run before making its American debut on the Showtime cable network, and finally, to a limited art house run.

Customer Reviews

A different version of the story, much heavier than the original movie
Kubrick's 1962 film hardly managed to hint at the real sordidness that surely comes with such an affair at the centre of this story, and hardly touched on the inner turmoil of professor Humbert. While Kubrick was very restricted in what sort of movie he could make, which more or less decided the wry, lightly satirical tone of his movie, Lyne of course was afforded much more licence to get to the nitty gritty of the story and make it more graphic and more intense, in other words more realistic. He indeed goes for a very intense and vivid narrative, and naturally enough the satirical side, a thing which was an instrinsic part of the novel, is brushed aside completely. With such a full on depiction of their relationship it would have been very difficult to combine the two.

More attention though is given to the period feel of the book, and Lyne makes a good piece of cinema out of it, really delving into the mid 20th C Americana of old brand names and neon lights and motels and long roads and gas stations in the middle of nowhere. Again the Actress playing Lolita was a good year or two too old for the part, like Lyon was in the original, but she was a whole lot sassier, more sexual looking and a lot more provocative. Also, I got the clear sense in this film that she was the one with all the power, and Humbert was a mere fool for her, being played and played and played by her. In this movie, I ended up feeling far sorrier for Humbert than I did in the original and felt far less for the highly manipulative teenager than I did with Lyon's more sympathetic, more together and more sophisticated character.

Swain went to town on her portrayal and seemed to have a ball playing the moody, petulant, sexually attractive, dangerously provocative tease and this performance both lifts the film out of the ordinary and stays in the memory in its own right - possibly worthy an Oscar nomination even, but then so was Irons's beautifully balanced portrayal of a much more innocent seducer than the one Mason played in 1962. Irons plays Humbert as a man totally given to his desire for a forbidden fruit, and totally controlled by his seducer. Here, as I think Nabokov wanted us to believe, was a seemingly innocent young thing who was really far more worldly and more powerful than the rather pure, if amoral man of books and ideals, who really did not have too much insight into the hard world of real life itself. Both Mason and Irons played this naivete very well, but Irons here gives his a real boyish edge, and more than a touch of innocence, ironically. The playing out of this dangerous role reversal is much more evident here than it was in the 1962 film.

Both the actors deserve the credit for getting this point across, and then we come to the characterisation of Quilty, the real villain of the piece. This is a far different character to the one played for laughs almost by Sellers in the original. Langella plays a truly distasteful pervert and this works for me a whole lot better than the light entertainment version Sellers gives us in Kubrick's movie. He was never the right actor for that role, but it is clear that this intensely real looking piece of slime from a seedier world altoghether would be too much in 1962. For this viewer, his uncormfortably close portrayal perfectly rounded off a superbly crafted movie, that has to be at least on the verge of being a classic, but it is probably one I'd need to watch another couple of times to be sure. It is certainly one of the best films of the last ten years or so and has to be rated as a successful movie adaption of a famous novel, which is a rare thing, whatever little quibbles the book's fans say they have with it. This movie proved the original was well, well worth a remake, and it used its broader licence very well, in my opinion. A very different beast to the original, and that must be the main point of any movie remake, to add something that it's thought the original didn't have. This film also looks much more like a rich work of art, reflecting the same quality of a very stylistic and celebrated work of literature.

Of poets and perverts
Adrian Lyne's LOLITA is a great achievement, a movie that wonderfully succeeds in evoking the atmosphere of Nabokov's classic of a doomed love. Even though Dominique Swain is just that little bit too mature physically to be a convincing Nabokovian nymphet, her superb acting amply makes up for it. She is both seductress and victim. And unlike the pathetic pervert Mason/Humbert in Kubrick's version, Irons is the perfect choice here, a passionate poet instead, manipulated by Lo as well as his never fulfilled desires. Kubrick is a creative genius because he always refused to compromise, and that's exactly the reason why he shouldn't have made LOLITA, at least not back then (it seems the seventies would have been the right time). In the nineties the world was already suffering from that amplified fear of the future, frenetically over-protecting its only hope, children (Jock Sturges, and, more recently, Bill Henson), a course of action that will ultimately result in what the moral crusaders so desperately want to avoid. What makes Adrian Lyne's film so good is that he shows us two victims, Lolita as well as Humbert. The true demon, as in the novel, is Clare Quilty, not a desperate lover of innocence and beauty here, but a true exploiter of children, also convincingly portrayed by Frank Langella. Ennio Morricone's music is some of his finest, in which one can almost hear the haunting call `Lo-li-ta' repeated over and over again. This work by Nabokov is one of the saddest love stories adapted to the screen, and Adrian Lyne's version is a must-see for lovers of great literature. Not hard to understand that in a society that grows increasingly materialistic, rational, and, above all, paranoid of its own specters, that such a fine adaptation of great literature didn't reach the audience (or was hardly allowed to do so).

Not the proper wide version
I'm giving the film five stars, not the DVD. This is a beautifully made film which in my opinion has to be seen in its proper original wide 2.35:1 format to be fully appreciated. With that in mind I ordered this copy for precisely that reason; it was specified as 2.35:1. Well, I would just like to point out to anyone who cares, that this is a complete lie. On the box it does indeed say "2.35:1", then in smaller text it says "2.35:1 (approx)" followed by (in tiny text) "Widescreen Version 16:9". Hello? Just to be sure I wasn't going mad I measured the picture and it was about 1.89:1 (17:9) -- nowhere near wide enough. I would like to point out to the idiots that transfer these films that the 'V' in 'DVD' means 'Versatile'. That means that people who don't like the "black bars" can zoom the picture in their player and us obsessives can have the full frame. When DVDs first came out that was how it was done, but like most things in this world it's been stupified down to the lowest common denominator.