Sorry, this movie sucks

Horrible, fascist and poorly acted

It's a mild crowd pleaser for people who are exhausted by blockbusters.

This is one of the few movies I've ever seen where the whole audience broke into spontaneous, loud applause a third of the way in.

Charles Bronson, one of the greatest action stars of all times, and Richard Donner, one of the greatest action film directors of all times, come together and the result is quirky romantic comedy that really pushes the boundaries into Nabokov's territoy. Charles Bronson stars as American author living in London when barely sixteen year old English school girl falls in love with him. Although she's in legal age, the girl's family and relatives doesn't approve their affair. The writer's friends also aren't very supporting on that matter. That is understandable as the guy could be her father by the age.The film is not 'Lolita' as this time the older man falls under the spell of a young girl. Their relationship is plagued with more downs than ups, when sixteen year old girl fails to comprehend the world of working adults.

What can I say? This is a weird one. Filled with sitcom jingles and 60s freeze frames, LOLA is a product of its time. It's also got some stinky performances. Chucky Bronson sleeps his way through the role of a writer. Unable reveal a single note emotion, Bronson displays the sensitivity of a gravy bowl. His stone grimace may be good for getting it done and blowing away bad dudes, but it's not going to do anything for relationships. Susan George (who plays Lola) is certainly attractive. But, she's her one-note "I'm going to be a 12-year old" approach to the role grows tiresome. All and all, it's very funny to see this thing. You can't help but wonder what was going in with these B-flicks or why in the world Bronson wanted to take this role.

Well, there's Charles Bronson near his prime and heaps of nice female limbs in this film, so there is that going for it, regardless of your sex or preference, I suppose. There are other visual attractions besides the leads, though - some nice settings and camera work.The problem is that, whilst the basic plot itself is somewhat plausible, it's just not handled to the depth that it could be. Bronson does a passable job as the writer who tries to be Hubby but ends up feeling more like Daddy half the time, but it is not his best effort by far. He really does better in thrillers like "Telefon". Susan George (as well as most of the actresses playing her friends/peers) comes off as being fairly vacuous, and acts more like she's 11 than 16. Perhaps this is meant to help us share some of Bronson's character's discomfort - but then he married her because she guilts him into it, or he guilts himself? Or what? I'm not buying it. Perhaps if there were some genuine deep chemistry and passion between the two, but I don't get that. The entire relationship comes off more like a long, uncomfortable play-date.Okay, maybe it's supposed to - but then, what's the point?And whilst as a male with the typical appreciation for the female form I can't say I really object strenuously to this, but hey - she wears a miniskirt in *every* scene, even in NYC in the wintertime? C'mon...The soundtrack is also fairly hokey, even given when this film was made, and makes it feel even more contrived.I gave this film a 6 of 10 because it's pleasant enough entertainment for the I've-no-date-tonight circuit, and because I'm a Bronson fan, but no higher because it really never draws in the viewer, and fails to make any lasting statement or impression.

Miniskirt fans, this is for you! It's 1969, and we're watching a precocious Susan George in schoolgirl miniskirts, happily chatting away, burning breakfasts and generally being a teen, while Charles broods, and wanders through this flick, like he doesn't quite know how to handle a chick that's old enough to be his daughter. This is an update on the Lolita theme but has none of the sexual tension of Nabokov. Simply, a great flick if you like to fantasize about hooking up with a babe 20 years younger than you. Unfortunately, the version produced by "Passion Productions" (where did they get THAT name???), is of murky quality; if you find another (even the VHS version has to be better!), buy it. I think a better flick was the one with William Holden. At least he had FUN!