FemaleFirst.co.uk: DVD: Lolita [DVD] [1998]

Lolita [DVD] [1998]
enlarge	Director: Adrian Lyne Actors: Jeremy Irons, Dominique Swain, Melanie Griffith, Frank Langella, Suzanne Shepherd Studio: Pathe Distribution Category: DVD Buy New: £14.98 as of 25/11/2009 05:14 GMT details New (7) Used (2) Collectible (2) from £8.69 Seller: czech.out Rating: 16 reviews Sales Rank: 10704 Format: Anamorphic, PAL, Widescreen Languages: English (Original Language), English (Subtitled) Rating: Suitable for 18 years and over Region: 2 Discs: 1 Aspect Ratio: 2.35:1 DVD Layers: 2 DVD Sides: 1 Number Of Discs: 1 Running Time: 132 Minutes Shipping Weight (lbs): 0.2 Dimensions (in): 7.1 x 5.4 x 0.6 EAN: 5060002830307 ASIN: B00004S8IE Theatrical Release Date: September 25, 1998 Release Date: May 8, 2000 Availability: Usually dispatched within 1-2 business days


Similar Items: Lolita [1962] [DVD] The Lover [DVD] Stealing Beauty [1996] [DVD] Lolita (Penguin Classics) Damage [DVD] [1993]


Customer Reviews: Showing reviews 1-5 of 16 1 2 3 4 Next » Lolita - a masterpiece August 20, 2001 14 out of 17 found this review helpful I have watched lolita numerous times and i rate it as one of my all time favourite films (my norm taste being quite different ie the matrix, silence of the lambs, conair, the rock, face off, the shining, lock, stock..., billy elliot, star wars) pThe first time i ever viewed this i was sceptical as i really didnt think i would enjoy it due to the content of the storyline, i was even in two minds about viewing it as i thought id find it sickening and upsetting. I was expecting a story of a sick adult molesting a young innocent child, a topic i have strong opinions on - that of course is NOT what i saw.pTherefore when i watched the film and was swept in by jeremy irons portrayal of a man reminiscing about his childhood love and in turn falling in love with his lolita and loving her no matter what she did i was truly amazed. At the end of this film, no matter how many times i watch it, i feel so moved and so priviledged to have been able to see such a fantastic piece of work. pI know the subject matter of this film is the sort of thing most people would never consider watching or enjoying. But if people watch it with an open mind they will view a brilliant film.pI still watch this film regularly and no matter how many times i see it even though i know the subject should be sickening i feel so moved by Irons portrayal of a totally obsessed adult whose life becomes wrecked by his fascination and feelings for lolita as he knows it is wrong.pThe best film i have probably ever seen and am ever likely to see and its about a subject that i see as taboo. pA complete masterpiece.Jeremy Irons is truly amazing. Outshines Kubrick July 24, 2003 Bruce Kendall (Southern Pines, NC) 35 out of 44 found this review helpful Beginning with one of the most famous opening lines in literary history ("Lolita, light of my life, fire of my loins. My sin, my soul. Lo-lee-ta.") we are introduced once more to the inimitable Humbert Humbert and his elusive quest for the Holy Grail in the form of "nymphness" personified. And oh what a sordid sorry trek it is, taking him and his young orphaned charge to some of the seamier spots of a fifties era American landscape. To cheap hotel rooms in little podunk towns where he can for a few fleeting days share a bit of privacy with his nubile naiad. Then of course, we follow the happy pair to the final confrontaion with one Clare Quilty, the only character in cinema/literary history who could make a pedophile like Humbert Humbert look wholesome by comparison. pRemakes of movies always draw varying responses. Many critics and viewers were reluctant to favor this 1997 Adriane Lyne/Stephen Schiff/Jeremy Irons remake to the Kubrick/Nabokov/James Mason 1962 original. It's hard to argue when a novelist of the stature of Nabokov had such a direct hand in writing the screenplay (Kubrick was an uncredited co-author). Surely the work's creator would be better able to realize his vision cinematically? Yet, I believe the later film actually does a much better job in capturing the essence ot the novel. pIt boils down to casting. Shelley Winters was probably more right for the role of Lolita's Mom, Charlotte Haze, than was Melanie Griffith (almost universally described as the weakest link in the remake). That role aside, however, I think that every casting choice in the '92 version was spot-on. Irons, though he doesn't conjure up the physical characteristics of the Humbert that comes across in the novel, nevertheless did a better job than Mason in conveying Humbert's rakish libertinism. I'm so glad Dustin Hoffman, originally considered for the role, didn't land the part. This is amongst Irons' strongest performances. Dominique Swain, chosen over thousands of hopefuls who tried out for the part of Lolita, is the embodiment of all things young and lovely. I thought she also did a much better job than Sue Lyons at capturing the childish petulence that underlies most of the 12-year-old Lol's actions and reactions. She's just more believable, thanks in large part to Lyne's expert direction. Frank Langella was also much more convincing as Clare Quilty, a truly despicable fictional character, if there ever was one. Peter Sellers, due to his indelible comedic cinema persona, just could not come across as all that menacing on screen. He did, in fact, play the character for laughs, so the final confrontation came off more as farce and lost its effect. pFinally, while Kubrick is one of the greatest directors in cinema history, he may have not been best suited for this particular novel. Plus, the era he was working in was much less conducive to a fully realized treatment of such touchy subject matter. He'd hit his comedic stride two years later, with Dr. Stragelove. Lyne had a bit more artistic leeway, although the history of the film's distribution was still rather bumpy, to say the least. pLyne has now come up with two of my favorite relatively recent films, this and the 1990 Horror film, Jacob's Ladder. He's another in what's become a rather large batch of excellent contemporary British directors. Please give this, his masterpiece thus far, a try. pBEK One of the best films ever made October 25, 2003 12 out of 15 found this review helpful All to often misconcieved as being 'soft' on paedofilia, lolita is one of the few films to bring a tear to my eye. The tremendous performances of all actors involved seem to incorporate the spirit of the novel in a very tasteful way. Telling the story of a teacher who falls in love with a twelve year old who he meets out of chance and reminds him of a childhood liason, this has got to be one of the best sad films ever made. Lolita is portraid as she is in the book, a sweet and innocent girl who somehow knows exactly how to get what she wants out of men. A very enjoyable piece to view. Of poets and perverts July 1, 2008 F. Messely (Kortrijk, BELGIUM) 3 out of 3 found this review helpful Adrian Lyne's LOLITA is a great achievement, a movie that wonderfully succeeds in evoking the atmosphere of Nabokov's classic of a doomed love. Even though Dominique Swain is just that little bit too mature physically to be a convincing Nabokovian nymphet, her superb acting amply makes up for it. She is both seductress and victim. And unlike the pathetic pervert Mason/Humbert in Kubrick's version, Irons is the perfect choice here, a passionate poet instead, manipulated by Lo as well as his never fulfilled desires. Kubrick is a creative genius because he always refused to compromise, and that's exactly the reason why he shouldn't have made LOLITA, at least not back then (it seems the seventies would have been the right time). In the nineties the world was already suffering from that amplified fear of the future, frenetically over-protecting its only hope, children (Jock Sturges, and, more recently, Bill Henson), a course of action that will ultimately result in what the moral crusaders so desperately want to avoid. What makes Adrian Lyne's film so good is that he shows us two victims, Lolita as well as Humbert. The true demon, as in the novel, is Clare Quilty, not a desperate lover of innocence and beauty here, but a true exploiter of children, also convincingly portrayed by Frank Langella. Ennio Morricone's music is some of his finest, in which one can almost hear the haunting call `Lo-li-ta' repeated over and over again. This work by Nabokov is one of the saddest love stories adapted to the screen, and Adrian Lyne's version is a must-see for lovers of great literature. Not hard to understand that in a society that grows increasingly materialistic, rational, and, above all, paranoid of its own specters, that such a fine adaptation of great literature didn't reach the audience (or was hardly allowed to do so). Brilliant adaption of a brilliant novel! June 19, 2000 7 out of 10 found this review helpful This film will be seen by people in two ways. In the way i saw the film it was the most tragic love story you could imagine, the story of a man obbsessed by a young girl, no matter what she does he adores her even though he knows it is wrong, this in the end is what drives him over the edge of sanity and normal life.pThe film is very explicit and suggestive, it will cause offense to some people. But if you can understand the story froma deeper point of view it could possibly be seen as quite a masterpiece. Showing reviews 1-5 of 16 1 2 3 4 Next »

CERTAIN CONTENT THAT APPEARS ON THIS SITE COMES FROM AMAZON EU S.à.r.l. THIS CONTENT IS PROVIDED ‘AS IS’ AND IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE OR REMOVAL AT ANY TIME.