Watch Lolita For Free

Did you people see the same film I saw?

Absolutely brilliant

This movie was so-so. It had it's moments, but wasn't the greatest.

The first must-see film of the year.

This movie deserves a 10 but loses two points for two specific reasons. The first reason is that Melanie Griffith was horribly, unbelievably and terribly miscast. I don't know why on God's green earth she was cast but she's all wrong for the role. Luckily, she doesn't "Nicolas Cage" this film (as in ruins it), but boy is she terrible and sticks out like a sore thumb in an otherwise well-cast and acted movie.The second reason the movie loses a point is that it tried way too hard to make Lolita childlike. Yes, children are immature, but c'mon...the way the movie made her act, Lolita wasn't just immature for her age; she was practically mentally disabled. Not even the girl she hung out with was that immature. I don't know what the point was but it was really over the top and made it seem as if Lyne was overcompensating for the fact that the actress was older than the character she was playing. In any event, it was really annoying, especially the scene when she gives Humbert breakfast in bed with only one shoe. (What kid would be so stupid and lazy as to not look for another pair of shoes?)With that, here's what I loved about the film. I absolutely hate the cult status surrounding Lolita. I read the book and saw the Kubrick film and saw nothing more than what it was, an average story about a pedophile's obsession with a young girl, nothing more, nothing less. But for some reason, people have elevated an average story to "classic literary" status, I guess because they equate taboo with "intellectual" and "high caliber." And so they've imbued this average story with a level of depth, intellectualism and sophistication that it never had. In other words, they've romanticized the story and the character itself.It's gotten to the point where people have made Humbert Humbert some kind of sympathetic Greek tragedy-type figure and painted his "love" for Lolita as "tragic" because, poor guy, he only fell for her because his childhood sweetheart died. Gimme a break. There was nothing ever more to this character than the fact that he was a creepy sociopath and pedophile. Hence why I love this adaptation. A lot of people hated it, and the reason why is that Lyne pulled no punches of stripping this "literary classic" of all the romanticizing heaped upon it by fans. Fans wanted a a sympathetic tragic hero that they could feel comfortable with and embrace, the guy we see in the first half of the movie, who always has this befuddled, dopey, deer-caught-in-the- headlights look about him that plays him up as an innocent victim swept by his desires. They wanted that Humbert, not the one who starts physically abusing Lolita when he can no longer control her, or the guy who breaks into another man's house and pumps him full of lead while he's sleeping in bed. (That whole sequence of Quilty running around in a bathrobe never happened; Humbert, in his delusion, dreamed that up.)Lyne exposed the character for what he was--a crazy, paranoid psychopath and a pathetic pedophile piece of crap who kept clinging to this unrealistic sexual fantasy of the nymphet (a docile, submissive, willing child-woman who can be screwed at his leisure and convenience without any problems), even as Lolita kept acting out with the mental and emotional capacity of a child (complete with temper tantrums, obnoxious pranks, crying jags, bratty behavior and neediness). The fact that everyone keeps complaining about the gruesome murder scene involving Quilty pretty much confirms that this is the opposite of what fans wanted in an adaptation, which was a romanticized version of a pedophile and cold-blooded murderer. Kudos for Adrian Lyne for attempting to finally strip away all the romanticizing that fans of Lolita have been doing with this character and book.As for other aspects of the film, the cinematography and art design is second to none. It really does look like its of its time and they did a bang up job getting all the details right, right down to the vintage "Camay Brides" ads that were plastered on Lolita's bedroom wall.So, an 8/10 for me, and only because of the poor casting of Melanie Griffith and the over the top childishness of Lolita.

brilliant acting unique boldness powerful emotions and a mind-scarring subject.I have never seen or even thought of anything like this. It is a disturbingly well made movie and for someone who lives a movie, it can leave you with a sleepless night.

Don't let the subject matter of Vladimir Nabokov's book put you off, it is a brilliant book and one of the most entertaining, thought-provoking, poignant and daring pieces of literature there is.Stanley Kubrick's 1962 'Lolita' film, while not one of the great director's best, even when comparatively downplayed, is a brave and worthy attempt and is a fascinating film that gets funnier, more layered, sensual and better with each viewing. This is not personal bias talking, speaking as someone who is not afraid to admit that Kubrick's debut 'Fear and Desire' was a shockingly bad misfire and that he didn't properly find his style until 'The Killing', with his first masterpiece being 'Paths of Glory'.This 1997 film, directed by Adrian Lyne and starring Jeremy Irons, Dominique Swain, Melanie Griffith and Frank Langella, could have been a disaster and to be honest in hindsight I prepared myself for it to be. Actually it is a much better film than expected. It is more faithful to the book and there is more of the story, which understandably will make some prefer this film. The book is very challenging to adapt and like Kubrick's this is a more than laudable effort that should be applauded for trying. At the same time though there is something missing, a case of being more faithful not always equalling better. Despite more of the story and details being here, Kubrick's version, even when hindered by issues with the economy and censorship which played a part in not having the full impact of the book, this reviewer found more layered and with much more of a sense of danger and ahead-of-its-time feel, with this version almost too conservative and soft-focused in places.It also drags badly in some of the final third, especially towards the end with some long-winded scenes that go on longer than they needed to, giving the film a slightly overlong and stretched feel. And while the cast do very well on the whole, Melanie Griffith disappoints and is no match for the hilarious and poignant Shelley Winters in the earlier version. Griffith is too attractive, and not only is more irritating than funny but fails to bring any tragic dimension to the character.However, 'Lolita' (1997) is an incredibly well-made film, with spot-on attention to detail and it's shot and photographed superbly. Lyne is no Kubrick, which in all honesty is a big ask, but does a very solid job directing, directing with an elegance and tension. The script is intelligently written, with more focus on the tragic and sexual elements, which are pretty well done and well balanced. Some parts are quite moving and there is a genuine sensuality, one does miss the deliciously black humour though. The story is mostly well executed and is absorbing, everything included is well told and nearly incoherent and rarely dull but could have had slightly more impact.Jeremy Irons makes for a splendid Humbert, a cruel but tortured character here (thankfully not the total creep that Humbert could have been in lesser hands) that Irons plays with the right amount of cruelty and pathos, while he is somewhat too civilised to be classed as a monster he is very believable as a seducer. Dominique Swain in the title role, like Sue Lyon, is too old, but is compellingly sensual and gorgeously seductive. The chemistry between them is beautifully played. Frank Langella is suitably odious as Humbert, and just as sinister as Peter Sellers. Before one forgets, the music score is really quite marvellous, whimsical, haunting and elegiac, and there is a preference to the one in the earlier version.All in all, much better than expected and certainly not a sacrilege. It's just that despite being more faithful it feels like there is something missing as a result of perhaps being too faithful. 7/10 Bethany Cox

Having read the book and seen the movie several times now, I can assure you that if you've only watched the movie you'll have seen about 40% of what happens in the book. I'm not saying the movie is bad, it's actually quite good considering. But if you really like the movie and knows it's about a classic, if you know that much, you REALLY should read the book. As for the movie, apart from all the stuff you don't see in the book, like the comments and views of America by the main character(Humbert Humbert), also the general lust is a lot deeper in the book than it is depicted in the movie. I would say that this movie tries hard to put on the screen, fit into a little over 2 hours, the most they could have considering the amount of stuff in the book.As for the acting, it is spot on! All of the main actors and even the secondary ones are simply great! What can I say that hasn't been said about Jeremy Irons?? He's simply perfect as Humbert. Dominique Swain was chosen out of 2500 girls!! She's amazing, although if I might be so bold as to point out a miss in the movie about Lolita(Swain), it's that when she shot it, she was 15, not 12 like the real Lolita for obvious reasons, and she wasn't 1,47m(5 feet) tall like in the book, but rather about 1,69m(5'7'') tall.All of the above is for you who wants to know everything about this classic but hasn't for some reason, to read the book. I beg you to read the book. If you love reading like I do, and if you like this story like I do, please, do yourself a favor and read the book.