Lolita

My immediate reaction to any attempt at sympathising with Humbert is utter disbelief. What on earth were they thinking? This man is a predator, a loathsome creep who not only sexualised but also engaged in sexual acts with a young girl he was meant to protect as her legal guardian. He utterly decimated her life. Dolores was meant to be in school, experiencing a normal childhood, socialising, and flourishing. Instead, her innocence was stolen, and her future irrevocably scarred. There can be no compassion, no quarter given, for someone who commits such an egregious violation. Adding to his monstrous acts, he is also a murderer. While the man he killed may have been deserving of his fate, that does not in any way absolve Humbert of his crime or diminish the horror of his actions. My heart truly aches for Dolores. She was a victim in every sense of the word, used and abused, and ultimately met a tragic end. It is truly awful to witness.

Unnecessary remake. Too fast paced storyline.

Ending made me sad...

One of the best films created. Often overlooked for it's heavy themes and different take on reality.

On face value this will always a difficult book and film. But if you keep an open mind if reading the book, then you’ll notice extra details. It’s take a couple of readings to then read between the lines. Humbert, as an early teen, lost the girl he’d came to love. She died and he’s locked into finding a replacement all his life. At the beginning of the book you like his character but as you go through the book you increasingly come to dislike him & are against him by the end. Another thing to be aware of is that Lolita is young, very naive, wanting attention, and knowing that she’s pretty. Humbert is handsome so the two of them meeting is a recipe for eventual disaster. Add in Lolita’s mother as well so there are now three types of monstrous people in varying ways. You will be shocked by some events but this is very much a book about characters & how each plays for their own gain.

The movie had great performances all around. The unreliable narrator of Humbert really shines in this version. You see his skewed perceptions and just how wrong it is. I also feel like the explaination for his desires at the beginning was a lot better than the Kubrik version.

Adrian Lyne’s Lolita (1997) is a haunting and provocative adaptation of Vladimir Nabokov’s controversial novel. Despite being over two hours long, the pacing felt just right. The first act didn’t drag at all, and the transition to the second act was seamless, keeping me engaged throughout the film. Every scene felt necessary, with nothing added unnecessarily to stretch the runtime. The script was very well written and stayed true to Nabokov’s original novel. It captured the complexity of Humbert’s character and the disturbing dynamics of his relationship with Lolita. Jeremy Irons’ narration as Humbert added depth to the story, giving an intimate view into his twisted perspective while constantly reminding the viewer of the uncomfortable reality behind his justifications. The cinematography was outstanding, moving in harmony with Humbert’s narration. The film’s focus on Lolita’s legs and feet was a subtle but powerful visual choice, directly reflecting the meticulous and fetishistic way Nabokov’s Humbert describes her in the book. He often noticed her bare feet, her sandals, and the way she moved, emphasizing her youth and innocence while twisting those details into objects of his obsession. The camera captured this fixation without needing explicit explanations, immersing the viewer in Humbert’s distorted mindset. The soundtrack was beautifully done, complementing the film’s emotional shifts. It expressed Humbert’s feelings, from his infatuation and longing to his jealousy and guilt. The music never overwhelmed the scenes but added a layer of emotional complexity that made the film even more immersive. Adrian Lyne’s direction brought intentional discomfort. The lingering on certain scenes and objects, like Humbert’s stairs, was not random. These moments were designed to make the viewer feel trapped in the same uneasiness as Humbert’s world. It forced me to sit with the moral weight of the story and think about the darkness behind Humbert’s actions. While they echo Humbert’s fixation and Nabokov’s descriptions, they can feel exploitative in a medium as visual as film. This stylistic choice makes the audience complicit in Humbert’s gaze, which is arguably the point, but it may alienate viewers or overshadow the film’s critique of his behavior. Adrian Lyne’s Lolita is a visually stunning and narratively complex film, but it is not without its flaws. It is undeniably ambitious, tackling one of the most difficult stories in literature, and it does so with technical brilliance. However, the film's reliance on Humbert’s perspective and its sensual style raise questions about how effectively it critiques its protagonist and the story’s darker themes.

ahhh idk; i didn't think this was that good. & I struggled to actually believe his attraction to her - she was a brat.

Coming from the lens of Humbert being a unreliable narrator, and Nabokov's original source material, this movie is very...conflicting. I feel like they certainly could of shown more of Dolores slipping through Humbert's unreliability. The true Dolores, what she was going through and the trauma she was living through. Dolores's character is hollow because of the perspective of the film, which does ring true to the book Lolita. But I feel like they could of added in more. The ending is heartbreaking, this film is worth a watch and isn't bad.

It's worth watching to see two leads performance even though it doesn't beyond the classic by Kubrick. Voice-over by Jeremy Irons always wins.