Too much of everything

Terrible acting, screenplay and direction.

Strictly average movie

There are moments that feel comical, some horrific, and some downright inspiring but the tonal shifts hardly matter as the end results come to a film that's perfect for this time.

Stanley Kubrick's Lolita dates back to 1962, 56 years ago and the film is as alive and pungent as it ever was. Adrian Lyne's Lolita is only 21 and it's already forgotten. Jeremy Irons is very good but it doesn't have any of the embarrassing self awareness of James Mason's Humbert Humbert. James Mason was monumental. Then, Kubrick has Shelley Winters as Mrs. Haze - in my book, her best performance - she's a jarring human spectacle. superb. Lyne chose Melanie Griffith in what very well be her worst performance and one of the worst in any movie, ever. Kubrick had Peter Sellers and his performance is already part of film legend. Frank Langella is a bit of a shock in Lyne's version, not the good kind. And then Lolita herself Stanley Kubrick had Sue Lyon and although she was a bit older than Navokov's Lolita, she is sensational. The innocent temptress and destroyer. In Lyne's version, Dominique Swain is pretty and crushingly obvious. Kubrick's version is a masterpiece, exciting to be able to say that 56 years later.

brilliant acting unique boldness powerful emotions and a mind-scarring subject.I have never seen or even thought of anything like this. It is a disturbingly well made movie and for someone who lives a movie, it can leave you with a sleepless night.

The director has done several well-known obsessively sexual films. In my view, his genius may lay within his sharp sense of subtle differences between normal and twisted affections.Pedophiles don't see adolescents are immature or silly whom other might not care socializing with. They see them as their peers. A lot of adolescent teenagers already have grown adult figures which might intensify sexual fantasies to them. It's complicated to explain why they are not attracted to adults instead. Partially, they want to control their objects of affections. This movie indeed showed those vital characters.Some scenarios were far-fetched in the story like the playwright's role and mother's death. However, they were faithful to the novel. Jeremy Irons played a very convincing Humbert who covered all the flaws in the story. I could see why this movie was censored at that time. I saw 1962 version also. It was less visual flirtations which did not stir too much alerts in the society back then. Somehow, theaters worried about being paralyzed by controversies now than then. Nonetheless, I am glad I found this movie now.

Just recently read the book. I'm kind of prudish about giving my attention to themes that are offensive - I knew Lolita was about a sexual predator, and so I avoided it for decades. (I also avoided Breaking Bad on behalf of my prudishness, but yielded when someone with a brain told me to give it a chance.) In any case, the book is enthralling, absolutely magnificent. I'll be on half.com to order all of Nabokov's English-written and English-translation stories - what a writer! (I hope I don't find out that he's a pervert.) But seriously, the story he tells is breathtakingly human, gorgeously written, even humorous.Now, this movie. Or rather, let me start with the 1959 movie, with James Mason, who did a fine job, within the constraints of 1959 movie-making. Pretty much what I expected, and so I was disappointed, altho a well-crafted movie.NOW, this movie. Jeremy Irons blew it out of the water! The only thing he didn't convey - that Mason did - was his utter disgust at touching a woman in her 30s (old, decayed flesh)... but everything else (by Irons) was blindingly perfect. And in fact, I was actually able to believe that perhaps HH did love little Lolita... (Perhaps I had read through my prudish eyes?) I tend to look with jaded eye at obsession and supreme selfishness, which were abundant in HH, of course...Yes, and yet, I do believe that the movie romanticized HH QUITE a bit. For some reason, the director wanted us to like this man. I would have preferred the total HH. Book is quite more to the point about the ugly reality of the whole situation (that's why I read).Melanie Griffith - did fine; too bad there wasn't more of her.But Dominique Swain (do I have that right?) - she was perfect in her childishness, in the girl-child-sexually-bloomin'-woman plane. Far better portrayal of Lolita than Sue Lyon (she played it like a 17 year old, and Little Lo was a mere 12 when HH discovered her). I was very pleased with the casting, and the portrayals that no doubt were part of the director's vision.