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.

What a sad story for Dolores. It’s hauntingly sad. Really amazing performances by all. Really wish I hadn’t watched it because it’s so disturbing and heartbreaking.

Such an amazing performance by both leads. It always baffles me why Swain didn't excel after this film.

Having just finished the book, the film became required viewing. It's impossible to match the book on film but the editor did a good job and told the story relatively faithfully. It has a very different feel to the book but it's an interesting interpretation. Bought on DVD some time ago but I was awaiting completion of the book before I watched.

Not the masterpiece that is the novel, but a compelling film that makes you want to watch to the end. They have reduced the creepiness and brilliance of Humbert, and they have increased the maturity and attractiveness of little Lo, and thereby they have made the film more palatable for the average moviegoer. But this does tweak what is a masterpiece and therefore borders on sacrilege. You can draw your own conclusions. I thoroughly enjoyed the sets and the costumes (it really feels like the era), but I didn't enjoy the chaotic ending or the casting of Irons as Humbert; had the actor playing Quilty been cast in the role, I dare say the quality of the film may have increased tenfold.

It's impossible to get satisfied by a movie rendering of Nabokov's masterpiece Lolita if you expect a "faithful" transcription from a universe (the novel) to another one (a movie). It has no sense. In a way, it's like to pretend to transform faithfully a diamond in a cloud or viceversa. Has it some sense? No. Given this premise you can expect that a movie reflects with intelligence and sensibility the story of Lolita the novel. Adrian Lyne's one does not. He totally betrays the features of the heroine making a twelve years old brazen girl into a young harlot letting herself mate with a disfigured Humbert Humbert (totally lacking of his kind of very special cunny intelligence an evil mirth) who in Lyne's film looks like more to a conventional academic dummy messed up in a sex affaire (more than a tragic, and morbid, love story whith a little girl) with an ordinary and too far experienced teenager , whose explicit sex performances are insult to Nabokov's acrobatic language genius in his periphrastic, tightrope style when dealing whith such a delicate ground. A flop, on my opinion. As to Dmitri Nabokov, son and valued translator of his father opus, very respectful of the aesthetical and moral instances of the whole art of Nabokov, save the motto "pecunia non olet", I can see no other reason for him to give the permission, and collaborate too, to realize such a will-o'-the-wisp, rather than pale fire, referring haphazardly to Lolita. Totally different is Kubrik's rendering of the same novel, wich Nabokov, apart any distinguo, considered "a fist rate movie". I suspect he would have been horrified by Lyne's work, had he have been a seer and have a private preview of the show.

odd movie and very dragged out and kinda confusing.

A subject matter that has such such complex characters that leads to a very interesting story that you will never forget.

15 minutes of excess drama. I prefer Kodomo no Jikan, Silence of the Lambs, Batman (1989), and American Beauty.

As uncomfortable as the original.

Jeremy Irons delivered a mesmerizing performance as Humbert Humbert, capturing the character's inner turmoil and conflicted desires with incredible depth. His portrayal was both haunting and captivating, making me feel a mix of fascination and unease. Dominique Swain, as Lolita, brought a delicate balance of innocence and allure to the role. Her on-screen presence was simply magnetic. The film, under Adrian Lyne's direction, fearlessly tackles the provocative themes of Vladimir Nabokov's novel. It delves into the complexities of obsession and forbidden love, challenging societal norms along the way. The cinematography was visually stunning, capturing the essence of the story with striking precision. "Lolita" (1997) is a riveting and controversial adaptation that skillfully explores the dark corners of human desires. It is a thought-provoking journey that stays with you, prompting discussions long after the credits roll. If you appreciate bold storytelling and outstanding performances, this film is a must-watch.

disgusting i felt sick the whole time

This movie is great. I'd say Swain's acting, to some it may appear as if a teenager playing the role of a child, as if she acts too mature but childish at the same time... well yes! That's the point, Humbert is a narrator that isn't quite telling us every detail, as the blurb states, he's unreliable, in his mind, Lolita is making the moves. While in reality he manipulates her to do so (which is later quite evident.)

Very well acted and filmed. With tension, beauty, historical setting, humor, sensuality, etc… I was engrossed and captivated… but not not in a (very) creepy way. Ha! A pretty great film with no glaring weaknesses. Well, some of the plot twists are a tad out there but that only adds to its charm.