# Lolita (1997)

### reviewed by
Steve Rhodes

    LOLITA
    A film review by Steve Rhodes
    Copyright 1998 Steve Rhodes
    RATING (0 TO ****):  **

After a long and highly publicized sojourn in release purgatory, the new version of LOLITA has finally made it into wide release at the theaters. The immediate question is was it worth all the fuss?

Directed by Adrian Lyne in his usual flashy manner, the film lacks the literary feel and substance of Stanley Kubrick's 1962 classic starring James Mason, Shelley Winters, Sue Lyon and Peter Sellers. Lyne (FLASHDANCE, FATAL ATTRACTION and NINE AND 1/2 WEEKS) manages to turn Humbert Humbert into a sympathetic character. The blame for the affair is laid at the hands of his 14-year-old stepdaughter, Lolita. In this bit of perverted ethics, the stepfather is made into a poor guy who suffers a fatal attraction to young girls. And Lolita is a sexual predator, who continually seduces her stepfather. In one typical instance, she demands a raise in her allowance, among other things. He sits there "helpless" as she increases the sexual foreplay until he agrees upon the exact figure she dictates.

Jeremy Irons with his sad, pensive eyes specializes in playing tragic characters. As Humbert Humbert, especially in the narration, he puts just the perfectly hopeless spin on the role that Lyne wants. Irons, who is never less than riveting, rises way above the rest of the presentation. His narrations of Vladimir Nabokov's rich text from the novel are the film's high points.

The major problem with the production is the casting of Dominique Swain as Lolita. Her overly "cute" mannerisms almost single-handedly sink the picture. Precocious to a fault, she acts every scene in ways that would never occur in real life. She loves to sit behind Humbert while they are driving and stick her toes in his eyes, almost causing accidents. She "accidentally" drapes her body over his in contorted ways that are awkwardly staged. Fidgeting constantly like someone who mainlines sugar, she never stands still long enough to become the alluring creature that the part demands. One of the least natural of actresses, her acting shows through on every scene and gets in the way of our ever taking the film seriously.

The other two principles in the cast, Melanie Griffith as Charlotte Haze and Frank Langella as Clare Quilty, are perfectly satisfactory but little more. In the original, Shelley Winters made the part of Lolita's mother, Charlotte, convincingly loathsome. Griffith, on the other hand, plays a pleasant wife with no noticeable faults other than wanting to go to bed with her husband, who prefers her daughter instead. He uses heavy sleeping pills to avoid his "husbandly duties."

Much is made of Lolita's innocence. She tosses her braces retainer everywhere to remind you of her youth. When she can't figure out where to put them, she twirls them in her mouth like a big piece of candy. These displays of mock immaturity are directly contradicted by her actions, so few are credible.

Exquisitely filmed by Howard Atherton with a lovely gloss, the movie has meticulously constructed period sets. But Lyne has little sense of proportion. He flaunts his reconstruction of "Magic Finger" beds and "Tee Pee" motels so often that one might think the movie was a Smithsonian documentary. Already too long, the film should have had most of these period homages cut. What purpose is served with detailed close-ups of the production of an old-fashioned ice cream float?

The movie ends badly in every sense of the word. Do we really need all that gratuitous gore? And a corpse blowing blood bubbles? Please!

LOLITA runs 2:17. It is rated R for aberrant sexuality, violence, nudity and profanity and would be acceptable for teenagers only if they are both older and mature.

Email: Steve.Rhodes@InternetReviews.com Web: www.InternetReviews.com

The review above was posted to the rec.arts.movies.reviews newsgroup (de.rec.film.kritiken for German reviews).
The Internet Movie Database accepts no responsibility for the contents of the review and has no editorial control. Unless stated otherwise, the copyright belongs to the author.
Please direct comments/criticisms of the review to relevant newsgroups.
Broken URLs inthe reviews are the responsibility of the author.
The formatting of the review is likely to differ from the original due to ASCII to HTML conversion.

Related links: index of all rec.arts.movies.reviews reviews