Not as good as I was expecting. Much more dark then I expected also. Not really my type of movie I don't think. Although I will admit that the girl who played Lo was very good
Lyrical visuals and music (by Enio Morricone), sensual. Very different interpretation of "Lolita" from Kubrick's version. Both versions are excellent but for different reasons. I agree with Nikki, Unlike the 1962 version, this film focused heavily on the two main characters - Lolita and Humbert. It was fascinating watching both versions one after the other, like listening to the same piece of music but performed by two very different orchestras.
Several extra feature are included:casting scenes, deleted scenes, commentary by the director, etc.
I loved the driving/stopping scene in the tall forest of Northern California. Also some slow motion scenes. Nice costumes, carefully selected props, etc. Good movie.
I watched to the end in away it is a very weird and sick move
Challenging, thought-provoking and much less about sex than the reviews might lead you to believe. Unlike the 1962 version, the film focused heavily on the two main characters - Lolita and Humbert - and by the end, you really understood where they were coming from and why it happened. The final scenes were a bit violent and graphic for me, though.
Veeery sloooow & without the menace of the original b & w with james mason & shelley winters. Jeremy Irons is so wooden & frankly I didn't care a fig about any of them. But interesting to see the transformation & to-ing & fro-ing of Lolita from little girl to raunchy woman & back again.
Not interested and took a long while to watch.
An artistic movie. Portrays all sides on the issue of paedophilia.
much better than original. Great cast, tragic and erotic, Jeremy Ions is superb!!!