User Reviews

I never read Nabokov's novel nor did I watch Kubrick's Lolita, but I liked this one - yes, my feelings sometimes were ambivalent regarding some scenes, but well, I guess that was Nabokov's aim and that of the director. Production is excellent, acting too. A good one that questions in its best moments our perception of reality and our moral values.

Stanley Kubrick's Lolita wasn't Lolita. Not even close.

NOTHING can ever truly be like the book, but this is a good film. Dominique Swain plays Lolita perfectly, portraying the adolescent girl between childish but kinky complexity that is Lolita. Jeremy Irons is great too, but he is not fully Humbert. He portrays him a bit more mildly. However, this book is almost impossible to adapt.

There will never be a Lolita like Nabokov. Still, great acting and a fine script. Thank you, Adrian.

When the 1997 version of Lolita was widely censored in the US, many asked why the reaction was so strong to this film. After all, the novel was published in the US in 1958, Kubrick's film version appeared in 1962, and we hear more shocking tales of sexual depravity every day on the daytime talk shows. But after seeing Lyne's brilliant version of Lolita, I can see how he manages to breathe fresh controversy into this familiar story. Lyne's lascivious lens eroticizes Lolita's every movement and pose. The viewer is forced to see her through the eyes of Humbert and to feel his obsession and desire. We are co-conspirators in his crime, and at the end we share his shame. Rather than shocking us (and having us pull away in revulsion), Lyne draws us in and makes us face the Humbert in ourselves. This is an incredibly powerful film.

Film of a love between an adult and a girl who, from how she behaves, looks older than she is. The shots show their relationship and the attraction the man feels towards the girl well.

Based on the novel by Vladimir Nabokov, we are transported to 1947, when a middle-aged English professor (Jeremy Irons) goes to teach French literature in a small New England town and rents a room in the house of a widow (Melanie Griffith), but he only really decides to stay when he sees her daughter (Dominique Swain), a 14-year-old teenager to whom he is totally attracted. Despite not being able to stand the young woman's mother, he marries her, just to get closer to the object of his passion, as the attraction he feels for his stepdaughter is devastating. The young woman, in turn, shows to be quite mature for her age. While she is at a summer camp, her mother is run over by a car. Unhindered, her stepfather travels with his stepdaughter and tells everyone that she is his daughter, but in privacy she behaves like a lover. However, she has other plans, which will generate tragic events.

Following a cadenced atmosphere to guide his work, Adrian Lyne brings here a daring film about the synthesis of human sexuality and its inconsistencies. 'Lolita' brings in its substance numerous concepts, such as the notion of the past as a structure rooted in man, the flexibility of morality and the harmfulness of obsession, always striving to expose how human life and chance walk together.

The film begins by showing some fragments of the central character's childhood and adolescence, exposing his pleasures and ambitions. This flash forward is important to highlight the similarities Lolita would have with her childhood sweetheart and also to better introduce the character to the audience. Then, we will jump to his arrival at the house where he intended to live, getting to know the woman, the owner of the house, named Charlotte, and her daughter Dolores, a girl in her early teens. This past, once pleasurable, with the exacerbations of an individual's joys, acts as a solidified structure in the character's psychic construction. The man seems, before knowing and substantiating his passion for the teenager, to live in the shadows of these pleasant experiences of his youth. And it is at this point that the figure of the teenager fits into the resurgence of excitement for life on the part of the character. Dolores ends up making the man feel alive again, making him able to glimpse the glow of happiness he had in an already distant past. In view of this opportunity, the man ends up putting out a more instinctual side, without caring about the consequences, developing a relationship with the figure of the innocent teenager. And the figure that could get in the way of this relationship is Charlotte's character.

The 1997 feature had two very difficult barriers to overcome, the first, of course, being the difficult, daring and, in the end, disgusting raw material developed in the famous homonymous novel that Vladimir Nabokov published in 1955 and the second, the inevitable comparisons to the first film adaptation of the book by none other than the great and inimitable Stanley Kubrick in 1962. There were actually three barriers and the third was Adrian Lyne himself and the kind of reputation he ended up building for himself with his filmography, in which eroticism reigns even though this is the most superficial layer of all his work.

After all, once labeled as such or as roasted by critics and audiences avid for this kind of shallow approach, it is very difficult to escape the expectations generated and Lolita, by Lyne, of course, had everything to be a hot erotic novel in which a middle-aged man falls in love with a 14-year-old nymphet. As Lyne has never made erotic films just for the sake of eroticism, that wouldn't change here. On the contrary, the highly incendiary story of Nabokov gets a solemn, period treatment, beautifully photographed and with performances by the main duo that, I would say without fear of mistake, rival and perhaps surpass those of James Mason and Sue Lyon in the sixties feature.

In this version, Irons and Swain are formidable. It's hard to believe that the actress was practically a rookie at the time (her only previous work was a cameo in The Other Face and she, unfortunately, never had other opportunities of this size) such is her dedication and her ability to metamorphose between an innocent child a 14-year-old and a precociously mature 14-year-old with a literal facial change or gesture. Irons, on the other hand, develops his Humbert Humbert with such emotional fragility that we sometimes forget that what he does is absolutely hideous and unforgivable. The moment he first sees Lolita in the garden of Charlotte Haze's (Melanie Griffith in an often underrated role, but one that I consider better than Shelley Winters's as the same character), her dour husk is immediately torn apart and It's fascinating - and disgusting - to see this transformation on camera that continues in a crescendo that drives him to obsession, violence and madness. There is good chemistry between Irons and Swain, with good complicity in fun and romantic moments, generating due tension in the most conflicting moments.

Lyne doesn't do a remake of Kubrick to begin with. That would be cinematic sacrilege and he knew it. The screenplay that journalist Stephen Schiff wrote for his theatrical debut is a new adaptation of Nabokov's novel, one in which the "romantic" aspect of the relationship between literature professor Humbert Humbert (Jeremy Irons) and young Dolores "Lolita" Haze (Dominique Swain) is highlighted, with the acid humor of the original narrative, which Kubrick adopted, being completely muffled. In addition, Lyne, without the prior censorship that Kubrick faced and which he was very displeased with at the time, it is worth remembering, had more space to work on more explicit sequences, but, it is worth noting, maintaining his usual elegance in scenes like this. After all, contrary to what perhaps the popular imagination has wrongly fixed on the basis of images repeated ad nauseam all over the place, Lyne was never vulgar, never truly explicit. On the contrary, the filmmaker has always approached the act of having sex with extreme good taste and a lot of technique.

But it's more than evident that Lyne's approach automatically becomes much riskier when we talk about a subject as thorny as pedophilia, because that's the background of Lolita, be it the book, the Kubrick movie, be it. The nineties version. Irons was 49 at the time, while newcomer Swain was still a 17-year-old posing as a 14-year-old character (the age Kubrick used is repeated here, as the young woman is 12 in the novel) and The 32-year difference between the actors is an insurmountable chasm in any respect when one of the parties is that young, even more so in fiction, of course. Lyne knew this and, precisely because he is aware of the issue, what we see being visually contemplated in the film goes in a slow crescendo, with the director first testing the ground, only to deal much further with the carnal connection between the characters. Characters and, even so, in a considerably discreet way, with the use of the beautiful soundtrack composed by Ennio Morricone, punctuating, simultaneously, the romance and the perversion of what we see.

The usual accusations that Lolita is an immoral work in any of its incarnations reveal a misunderstanding of the basics or the simple fact that those who claim this have not read the novel or seen the movies. Like the works of Nabokov and Kubrick, Lyne's film very clearly condemns what Humbert Humbert does, without relativizing, without pushing some of the "blame" onto Lolita even considering her manipulations. By the way, by stripping the film of the acid humor subtext that Kubrick printed, including giving enormous prominence to Peter Sellers and his comic Clare Quilty, Lyne prints an even more caustic tone that leads to the mutual destruction of all the characters. His Quilty, played by a Frank Langella always in the shadows, takes on haunting contours and establishes a welcome, albeit light, layer of thriller throughout the film that strongly influences Humbert's spiral of paranoia, with a final clash between the two that It has beautiful surrealist contours.

Adrian Lyne's Lolita is the essence of the word "nymphet", and everything it means. Humbert (Jeremy Irons) is the typical passionate romantic and the images that follow perfectly illustrate the plot. The soundtrack is light, romantic and the film's photography lulls you into a dream, from which we never want to wake up. Lolita (Dominique Swain) is always seen by us viewers through Humbert's vision, and she always appears painted on canvas as a goddess. Her movements, gestures and words are highly natural and romantic in front of Lyne's camera lens, which is always in the right place at the right time. This version is a criminally underrated and forgotten film. More than that, it deserves to be rediscovered and re-appreciated in retrospect.

Undoubtedly, it is a difficult and unpleasant work due to the subject it covers, but, at the same time, it is an impressive sign of maturity from a director who, unfortunately, has always suffered - and still suffers - from the irremovable labels with which they once decided to mark it.

Sorry, but this film just can't hold a candle to the novel. (Of course, with the exception of 'Lawrence of Arabia' and its source, 'The Seven Pillars of Wisdom', I can't think of one movie based on a novel that can.) I won't dwell on its more obvious flaws, but will mention them in passing: Jeremy Irons is too old for his role; Dominique Swain is a convincing 14-year-old but not a pregnant 17-year-old; the character of Clare Quilty, a figure of black humor both in the book and in Kubrick's version, is rendered by this script as a sinister, charmless pimp. The role which has taken the most heat on this site, and which I believe is the most impressive, is the role of Lolita's mother, acted by Melanie Griffith. I've read several comments that state that this character was intended to be fat and unattractive. What these viewers may have forgotten (or perhaps they have never read the book) is that every character in the story is seen through the eyes of one person: Humbert Humbert. Therefore Lolita is described as being an enticing, irresistible nymphet, although most people who actually came into contact with her would find her to be a rather unattractive, slatternly little brat; and her mother Charlotte is described as being a 'fat cow', when the fact probably was, was that she was a normal, healthy woman who had those secondary sexual characteristics (hips, thighs, breasts) that Humbert wasn't too crazy about and which he recoiled away from as 'fat'. Nabokov deliberately romanticized Humbert's predilection for girl-children by portraying him as a man haunted by a lost childhood love (rather like Charlie Chaplin); if he hadn't done this, the reader (and viewer) could have interpreted this aversion to grown women as more of a latent homosexuality than to pedophilia. That digression aside: the movie is gorgeously photographed and beautifully scored, and the ending is as likely to bring tears as the ending of the novel. Superior in many ways to the Kubrick version--I preferred Peter Sellers' Quilty in that film, but hated the way he kept intruding so obviously throughout the movie--and inferior in others.

The first time I watched this, my mouth was hanging open. I've read _Lolita_ dozens of times, and over and over again the movie captured it exactly the way it is in my mind.

Lyne's extraordinary sense of time and place, the uncanny casting of Jeremy Irons and Dominique Swain (although I agree with some posters that Melanie Griffith wasn't up to the job; makes me miss the late great Shelley Winters), Morricone's haunting music -- they're all remarkable. And best of all, the film perfectly captures the ambiguity of the book: we can sympathize with Humbert at the same time as we recognize him as the monster he is. I don't think _Lolita_ could be done much better than this. An amazing film.

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.

The Author would be dismayed, and precisely because the story is so faithful to the book. But the story in the book was incidental, just something on which Nabokov could hang his layered challenges to concepts of narrative. The narrator is crazy, overly colors and outright lies. The story never fully exists in the book at all, and such as it does one can never be sure what is true and what imagined. Humbert is a made up name (as are all names) and clearly the narrator makes up most of the elements of his own character as well (European, Professor, Author... obviously a joke by the narrator on Nabokov).

In this film, everything makes sense, exactly the opposite of the reason the book exists. This is a beautiful film, with lovely detailed cinematography, good acting and great score, and all to solidify something that Nabokov created such that it could not be so. I believe that Peter Greenaway could make a good film of Lolita, and that he would have the courage to make it confusing and unerotic and unresolved. Why does Dolores' fate have to change in the film's epilogue? Because it ties up every last loose end. On Christmas Day no less!

(The real scandal is not that audiences/censors are shocked by prurient subjects, but that they take one of the greatest literary achievements ever and make it "explainable." Is this the only thing we can accept?)

But take the film on its own presumption that the book's story is what matters. This Lolita is too old, too pretty and sexy, too controlling. Irons is clearly narrowly channeled here and he is smart enough to know it: his frustration with the unimaginative stance of the film translates to a frustrated Humbert. I think Melanie is just right (just because HH calls her a cow means nothing). HH's violence with his previous wife should have been mentioned; her running away with the Russian cabbie is as much a setup for the Lolita fixation as the childhood dalliance, and better justifies the angst of loss. There should have been a few butterflies, and some explanation about the play: that it was written to allude to that first night at the hotel.

I highly recommend the audio tape version of Lolita. It is read by (guess...) Jeremy Irons! What he brings to the audio tape is the voice and phrasing of a man in a cell continually going over things in his own mind, embellishing and exaggerating and confusing and speculating and sometimes not at all sure about any of it. He brings this same voice to the voiceovers in the film, but it conflicts with the images which purport to represent a narrative stance of "real truth".

Having seen neither this nor the Kubrick version of Lolita, a few weeks ago, I started to wonder, if the films are really as great as they are made out to be; so, after reading as much as I could about both films, I finally bought this film on DVD. After having watched it, I was very impressed, both by the acting and the overall film quality. The theme is based on the well-known novel of the same name, by Russian author, Vladimir Nabokov. I found it very well-presented; unlike what you might expect, you don't loathe or despise Irons' character. You may find some of his actions disturbing, perhaps even disgusting. But you understand him, and you sympathize with him. The plot is great, it evolves at a very good pace, rarely standing still at any point. I don't think there was any point during the film where I was bored. The acting is great; Jeremy Irons gives a stellar performance, as do Melanie Griffith, Frank Langella and Dominique Swain. Of all those, I think it was actually Swain who impressed me the most; maybe it's because this was her first film, and she didn't have any acting experience. Or maybe it's because, well, despite knowing that she was very young when she made this film, I was, just like Irons' character, Humbert, attracted to her. Her performance as Lolita is amazing. The cinematography is very good, at times great. The dialog is well-written and well-delivered. The characters are well-written and credible. The amount of humor in the film, however little it may be, was good. It helped the viewer ease into the somewhat uncomfortable subject of the film. The climax of the film is great; despite being hinted at, throughout the film, it came as a surprise, and truly sent a chill down my spine. Now, as I mentioned early on in this review, I have not seen Stanley Kubrick's version of Lolita; I have not read the book, either. Therefore, I can't really say if this is an accurate depiction of the story or not. But I found it to be a very good piece of cinema, and I suspect most people interested in the subject would too. I recommend this to fans of any of the actors, possibly Nabokov's novel, and/or people who are interested in the subject matter. I will advise anyone who sees it, though, to be prepared; the film is quite explicit, and some will definitely take very much offense from it. If you can sit through the film, though, you probably should. It really is great. 7/10

This film is a stunning adaptation of the novel of the same name. The cinematography is absolutely beautiful and the film is brilliantly acted. The content of the story may put off many prospective viewers, but the story does not condone Humberts actions, it simply narrates them. For those of you unfamiliar with the story, Humberts (Irons) loss of his young love scars him in a way which compels him to rediscover it, through relationships with young girls. He moves to a town to accept a teaching position and while looking for suitable housing he meets Lolita Haze (Swain), a young girl who immediately catches his eye and his heart. The rest of the film chronicles their tempestuous relationship, one in which Humbert takes advantage of Lolita's natural curiosity and developing mind and body. I highly recommend this version of the film and the book to any person interested in a beautifully written, compelling story about one haunted man's selfish folly and the effect it has the young girl it revolves around.

This is a long, introspective adaptation of Nabokov's acclaimed novel 'Lolita', starring a superb Jeremy Irons and a then 15-year-old leggy Dominique Swain in the lead roles. It is an effective film in the sense that Adrian Lyne makes us see the appeal of Lolita, but at the same time makes us understand that we could never be attracted to her. It all bottles down to Humbert's (Irons) past experiences and his subconscious search for a 'child' he loved and lost when he was young, finding this child in Lolita and obsessing about her.

Lyne introduces a narrative by Humbert in Lolita, which is a vital device to the story, because seeing things from his perspective, he becomes something of a lovable pedophile. We feel for him. Everyday of his life after meeting this young girl, he is consumed with love for her and this is captured beautifully in the film through long visual shots. Their relationship is certainly an illicit affair - and it definitely feels like it from a viewer's perspective. All the kissing, fondling, cuddling, the looks - it gets rather intense and very uncomfortable at times.

Lolita is arguably one of the least likable characters in film history; she is an ill-mannered, manipulative attention-whore who knows the power she has over Humbert and uses it to her advantage for money, attention and just generally to hurt people. I have not read the book, but I understand she was a bit more subtle in it - intelligent, witty. In this film she reeks of Britney-like schoolgirl sucking on lollipops and chewing on jawbreakers. Perhaps the filmmakers thought that this would make her more accessible to late 20th century audiences. It's wildly stupid.

While the film has plenty of powerful passages, it is far too long. It really drags on toward the end so as to do the book more justice by adding pseudo-depth to it. Film is a different medium, so I think Lyne should have had a bit more fun with the script - not as much fun as Kubrick did with his version (which was unbearably silly), but lighten up just a bit. I cannot pinpoint any more negative aspects to 'Lolita' (1997), but I know there clearly are some because I was not too crazy about the film when I saw it.

7/10

This film inevitably invites comparison to Kubrick's critically acclaimed 1962 interpretation. The two interpretations, while both more or less faithful to the material, differ widely in tone. Where Kubrick's film is witty, cerebral and detached, Lyne's is passionate and emotionally driven.

Lyne's version is undoubtedly more erotic in tone than Kubrick's. Obviously, the time in which the two films were made is a factor here. More modern sensibilities allowed a younger Lolita and far more sensuality than would likely have been permitted 35 years earlier. This version has drawn some criticism for making Humbert a bit too sympathetic, for making Lo seem too much a seductress. These criticisms are perhaps valid, but there is an artistic advantage: We are seeing this story now through the simultaneously Quixotic and monstrous eyes of Humbert. We aren't given the luxury of watching this one from Kubrick's usual emotional distance nor of seeing Lo portrayed by a woman who is clearly of legal age. As a result, the scenes are both more disturbing and more powerful.

In truth, Kubrick's film is probably more in keeping with Nabokov's witty and almost facetious tone. The characterization of Clare Quilty is a perfect example. In Kubrick's film, Quilty is portrayed by the legendary comic actor Peter Sellers, who captures perfectly the witty wordplay of Quilty. Frank Langella's Quilty had a silky-smooth and sinister-sounding deep voice, but somehow his relatively straight-laced performance seemed out of step with the almost vaudevillian lines he uttered.

For me, though, this actually is a point in Lyne's favor. For Nabokov's Lolita seemed at times to devolve into literary word-play until the story itself seemed merely a hat rack for Nabokov to hang his verbal wit upon. This film instead focuses on the aspects of the novel that have led it be called "the only convincing love story of our century" by Vanity Fair.

Jeremy Irons gives a magnificent performance as Humbert. Much as he did in "Dead Ringers", he gives the impression of someone who combines deviance and vulnerability seamlessly. Dominique Swain was marvelous as Lo/Delores, combining carefree pixie, traumatized victim, and wily seductress into a complex and convincing character. Langella and Melanie Griffith were, I fear, miscast as Quilty and Charlotte Haze respectively.

A controversial film but one that's fairly faithful to the novel and it's plot. The film has a slightly cold look to it, even in shots set in summer sunshine you just get this very chilly feel looking at the screen. The music is okay and the 1947 setting is well recreated, this might be one of the best aspects actually, the art design and costumes. The lead performance by the girl playing Lolita is really good, she plays her as managing to be both energetic and wild yet moody and bored at the same time. The film has a very creepy feel to it, though as the story drives forwards the rising tension does grab your attention and hold it. The film definitely lacks the humour of the novel, it's a very sombre film unlike the 1960s version. The best scenes are probably half way through with our protagonist collecting her from the summer camp and them staying together at the hotel. The portrayal is of a girl who somehow manages to be excited and wild and adventurous yet we're reminded too at other times how she is just a scared child who's really been betrayed. Our dislike towards our protagonist also builds as he becomes increasingly jealous and possessive. The overall look of the film is very sad and cold and dirty which in a way does a good job of reflecting the tone of the film.

Critics have been raving about the faithfulness of this version, and while it is certainly faithful in the strictest sense of the word, gone is the wit, the humor, and bitterness of Nabokov's novel. They have been replaced by exactly the kind of garish puffery that Nabokov was making fun of.

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.

Very tragic. I didnt realize how traumatizing this was only until i had logged onto imdb a couple weeks later to review it. When i saw the title, i felt bad for a second. I think this film is overall great, but it is very misunderstood. If watched correctly, you will understand that there is in no way an any intention to glamorize such topics. Instead, it in its most raw form portrays the stories of many Lolita's and Humbert's throughout history. I didnt like how it was categorized under Romance in imdb, when in reality it is (an was made to be) a tragedy. In my opinion, this movie could bring more awareness to the topic than inspiration. So if people for just two hours put their prejudices away and watched it, they would understand the true message. I kept off the four stars because... i just didnt like it that much. MAybe because i am young, or in no way have an experience like this whatsoever. For some reasone it didnt appeal to me. However, I kept the 6 stars though, because I think it is a masterpiece. The cinematography is great, acting too, and most importantly it did a great job of portraying the topic in its most vulnurable, raw form. Maybe a couple of years later when i get older i will watch it again, and then it will do its justice for me.

Let's try something original; talk about this film without mentioning Nabokov or Kubrick. Impossible? Probably. But cinema owes no respect to literature, so let's meet Lyne on his own terms.

Plot: rather dull. The Humbert/Quilty confrontation is necessarily muffled. Actually, I can't keep this up. This LOLITA doesn't exist in its own right: it suffocates in the shadows of its predecessors. The whole point of the novel (NOT AGAIN. GROAN...) was a mocking of ideas of 'plot' and character. Humbert is a madman (he confesses to many stays at 'sanatoriums' (sic?)), supposedly dying in prison, who manages, in a first draft, to create a work of polished beauty and perfect artistry. Yeah right. He is constantly playing games with the reader, with Nabokov playing further games on him and us. Whole passages, of seemingly vital plot importance, are undermined by parody, pastiche, allusion, word-games. The vital final clash is played as hysterical farce, as is much of the book.

How on earth do you capture this on film? Kubrick ignored much of the (untranslatable) book to created a masterly black comedy, which forswore Humbert's mendacious viewpoint in favour of Nabokov's more detached eye (funny how the hyperintelligent Vlad failed to notice this). It is, however, primarily a Kubrickian work, with the source material serving as a blueprint for many of the director's favourite themes, especially the idea of a moral monster as point of audience identification in his struggle with a repressive society.

Lyne, rather facilely, thinks that because Kubrick did not stick to the letter of the book, that he somehow betrayed it. His film is therefore superficially authentic - we are back in 'real' America, not Kubrick's English invention (which actually transliterated very well the book's themes of appearance, pastiche, deception and reproduction). But throwing in a few 40s signifiers does not a sense of time and locale make, and Lyne completely fails to grasp Nabokov's use and subversion and understanding of popular culture, as one of the two forces shaping Lo.

The major impression one gets from the book is the sweltering heat, the 'haze' (also Lo's surname), and this too is faithfully reproduced. But this only serves to make realistic a novel which is always rupturing into the fantastic. Lyne makes the fatal error of taking Humbert at his word. The glorious mixture of wild, disturbing farce and poignant melancholy of the book, is seriously unbalanced by almost completely obliterating the former, and drowning the film in the latter.

Yes, we sympathise with Humbert, but he's a fiend - he has sex with pubescent girls; he enjoys his mastery and their pain; he tries to murder Charlotte, and only fails because he is too timid; he drugs Lo so that he can sleep with her unawares; the money he so generously offers her at the end was hers anyway, through her mother. I mention these examples because they are suppressed in the film, as it tries to make of Humbert a tragic figure. This is helped by the fact that Dominique Swain, wonderful nymphet that she is (although the ideal Lolita is surely Shirley Temple), is far too old, tall and beautiful for Lo: in an age where Catherine Zeta Jones and Sean Connery are a viable box-office item, there doesn't seem to be anything all that distasteful about the relationship.

And so the film is actually profoundly scared of the book, not daring to make us sympathise with an absolute monster. The casting of Jeremy Irons conspires in this. He is superb, his best since DEAD RINGERS, but he is not Humbert, he has no madness, no poetry; more like Charles Ryder twenty years on. James Mason specialised in suave lunatics, and his perceived 'coldness' is a perfect interpretation of Nabokov's Humbert, as opposed to Humbert's self-image.

This LOLITA is as safe as can be - there is hardly any sex at all (I mean, we wouldn't want to offend anyone, would we?); the style is glossy and fatuous, TV-movie blandness, abandoning Nabokov's figurative language, and offering none of its own. The detailed descriptions of landscape in the novel have an untranslatable moral import: Lyne gives us a few blurry shots of trees.

The film is such a mockery of Nabokov that when we do get unimaginatively large chunks from the novel, they actually, unbelievably, sound daft. The Quilty climax, one of the funniest scenes in literature, and perfect in the Kubrick (with Sellers: how could it not be?) is reduced to FATAL ATTRACTION-style psychodrama (Nabokov, even beyond the grave, was spot on about modern cinema). Once again, Lo's anguish, in the hands of a 'sensitive' male (Lyne), is reduced to hysteria.

Very sporadically, there are moments of cheeky Nabokovian farce (especially when Humbert checks that Charlotte is asleep, and the interviews with Lo's principal), but the Nabokov tone is never caught, the sense of cartoon, non-sequitur, and sheer charming Humbert bull, is rejected as not being highbrow enough. By trying to be so serious, the film ends up looking silly.