Product Details

• Amazon Sales Rank: #18926 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

Outshines Kubrick
Beginning with one of the most famous opening lines in literary history ("Lolita, light of my life, fire of my loins. My sin, my soul. Lo-lee-ta.") we are introduced once more to the inimitable Humbert Humbert and his elusive quest for the Holy Grail in the form of "nymphness" personified. And oh what a sordid sorry trek it is, taking him and his young orphaned charge to some of the seamier spots of a fifties era American landscape. To cheap hotel rooms in little podunk towns where he can for a few fleeting days share a bit of privacy with his nubile naiad. Then of course, we follow the happy pair to the final confrontaion with one Clare Quilty, the only character in cinema/literary history who could make a pedophile like Humbert Humbert look wholesome by comparison.

Remakes of movies always draw varying responses. Many critics and viewers were reluctant to favor this 1997 Adriane Lyne/Stephen Schiff/Jeremy Irons remake to the Kubrick/Nabokov/James Mason 1962 original. It's hard to argue when a novelist of the stature of Nabokov had such a direct hand in writing the screenplay (Kubrick was an uncredited co-author). Surely the work's creator would be better able to realize his vision cinematically? Yet, I believe the later film actually does a much better job in capturing the essence ot the novel.

It boils down to casting. Shelley Winters was probably more right for the role of Lolita's Mom, Charlotte Haze, than was Melanie Griffith (almost universally described as the weakest link in the remake). That role aside, however, I think that every casting choice in the '92 version was spot-on. Irons, though he doesn't conjure up the physical characteristics of the Humbert that comes across in the novel, nevertheless did a better job than Mason in conveying Humbert's rakish libertinism. I'm so glad Dustin Hoffman, originally considered for the role, didn't land the part. This is amongst Irons' strongest performances. Dominique Swain, chosen over thousands of hopefuls who tried out for the part of Lolita, is the embodiment of all things young and lovely. I thought she also did a much better job than Sue Lyons at capturing the childish petulence that underlies most of the 12-year-old Lol's actions and reactions. She's just more believable, thanks in large part to Lyne's expert direction. Frank Langella was also much more convincing as Clare Quilty, a truly despicable fictional character, if there ever was one. Peter Sellers, due to his indelible comedic cinema persona, just could not come across as all that menacing on screen. He did, in fact, play the character for laughs, so the final confrontation came off more as farce and lost its effect.

Finally, while Kubrick is one of the greatest directors in cinema history, he may have not been best suited for this particular novel. Plus, the era he was working in was much less conducive to a fully realized treatment of such touchy subject matter. He'd hit his comedic stride two years later, with Dr. Stragelove. Lyne had a bit more artistic leeway, although the history of the film's distribution was still rather bumpy, to say the least.

Lyne has now come up with two of my favorite relatively recent films, this and the 1990 Horror film, Jacob's Ladder. He's another in what's become a rather large batch of excellent contemporary British directors. Please give this, his masterpiece thus far, a try.

BEK

Lolita - a masterpiece
I have watched lolita numerous times and i rate it as one of my all time favourite films (my norm taste being quite different ie the matrix, silence of the lambs, conair, the rock, face off, the shining, lock, stock..., billy elliot, star wars)

The first time i ever viewed this i was sceptical as i really didnt think i would enjoy it due to the content of the storyline, i was even in two minds about viewing it as i thought id find it sickening and upsetting. I was expecting a story of a sick adult molesting a young innocent child, a topic i have strong opinions on - that of course is NOT what i saw.

Therefore when i watched the film and was swept in by jeremy irons portrayal of a man reminiscing about his childhood love and in turn falling in love with his lolita and loving her no matter what she did i was truly amazed. At the end of this film, no matter how many times i watch it, i feel so moved and so priviledged to have been able to see such a fantastic piece of work.

I know the subject matter of this film is the sort of thing most people would never consider watching or enjoying. But if people watch it with an open mind they will view a brilliant film.

I still watch this film regularly and no matter how many times i see it even though i know the subject should be sickening i feel so moved by Irons portrayal of a totally obsessed adult whose life becomes wrecked by his fascination and feelings for lolita as he knows it is wrong.

The best film i have probably ever seen and am ever likely to see and its about a subject that i see as taboo.

A complete masterpiece.Jeremy Irons is truly amazing.

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).