Dominique Swain Movie:

		List Price: $9.98		Label: Lions Gate Salesrank: 12094 Released: October 12, 1999
		Our Price: $48.95
		Used Price: $8.95
		MPAA Rating: R (Restricted) Media: DVD

Lolita Reviews:
Lollies, lollies, lollies, get your jailbait here!
2008-08-30 - In order to celebrate left wing loooooon Bernie Ward being sentenced for kiddie p*rn charges today, I'm going to review the movie Lolita. But nay, not the classic Stanley Kubrick Film, but instead this god-awful 1997 remake! I can't believe how awful this remake is; it actually turned a great classic like Lolita into a chick flick complete with period costumes. Gag me with a spoon!

Nobody says that you have to like the classic film, and maybe costume movies/chick flicks are your thing, but anyone with good taste would do better to stay away from this unholy mess. The arguments against the classic are so droll. I love this one: It doesn't follow the book closely enough. Every time I hear this about any film I feel my IQ being lowered significantly. The film and the book are two completely different works of art in their own right. The same goes for the Shining. So what if it deviated from the book? Kubrick created his own brilliant work of art. And as we all know, the *snicker, so called remake that was supposed to follow the book oh so closely was a complete charade!

Ah, yes, one more for good measure. I love it when people say that Kubrick's Lolita was too watered down due to the film standards of the time. I've heard one person mention that the actress who played Lolita was too old for the part. Why would they want to see a younger girl in this part? That is just creepy. Okay, if you want to see an in-depth, uncensored relationship between an adult and an adolescent, then you are just sick. Just go ahead and turn yourself in already. I'll wait. Okay, hopefully only wholesome people are still reading this.

Now that I have established the fact that Stanley Kubrick's original is far superior to this laughable attempt at filmography, I'll give it my regular recap complete with side-splitting commentary. It's so good you'll split your sides.

Starting with the cast, the man who played Humbart, the lead, actually did a pretty good job and I think he did okay at his portrayal of the original person that played him in Kubrick's. Sadly, I cannot say the same thing for Lolita's mother. I'm serious. What Godforsaken community theatre troupe was she dragged out of? Your average nun could play a stripper better than she could this role.

The way in which Humbart is introduced to Lolita is so amazingly preposterous. She is lying in the grass, underneath a sprinkler, getting soaked, reading a magazine. Now, because it is so inconceivable that someone would lie under a sprinkler, getting their magazine soaking wet, it can only be some sick wish fulfillment on behalf of the director. Lolita then looks up at him and smiles, bearing her retainer. Did they even have retainers in the 1930s or whenever this was supposed to have taken place? Who cares; this film is so bad I'll allow this unsightly anachronism to slip by me.

In the scenes that follow, the man watches her like some kind of stalker and ingratiatingly refers to her as a nymphet repeatedly. At least in the original film, we were treated to some cool rock and roll music during this montage. Here we only have dull, uninspired, watered-down classical noodling.

Lolita, then drops the F-bomb when speaking to one of her friends, while she is wearing pants. Two more anachronisms within only moments of the first. Women, particularly young girls, didn't wear pants back then. The F-bomb had also yet to be penned by the 60s crowd. There are plenty more glaring chronologically based errors to be found in this film so henceforth I will be sparing you further details.

After some filler, we have our first plot point that concerns their going to some kind of place called `hour glass lake.' This is divulged during a scene where they are sitting, Humbart, Lolita, and the mother, on a porch swing. There is a glaring continuity error here that begs to be elaborated upon. Lolita's head rests or nearly rests on his shoulder in some shots, yet when it cuts to the other camera, her head is no where near his shoulder. It seems like movie directing, much like the presidency, does not lend itself to on the job training. By the way, the `hour glass lake' sub-plot goes nowhere and is never mentioned again. Hum and the mom do go to a lake shortly after though, so perhaps this was to foreshadow it.

When Lolita is getting ready to go to camp, ending the first Act of the film, she runs into Humbart's room, jumps into his arms, and I tell you no lie, gives him a full on mouth kiss. I was terrified that the Feds were going to bust into the room at any moment.

It is also at this point where I'm pretty much going to have to cut out a lot of the plot crap that happens just to keep this review PG rated. All I can say is that the film does follow the original movie almost scene by scene. Anyone who says that the original deviated too much from the book obviously doesn't know what they are talking about. After all, Kubrick's original even had a screenplay that was written by the actual author. Not so this piece of garbage.


One more thing, at the end--and this is completely superfluous--there is full, frontal male nudity for far too long a time period than yours truly would have preferred.

Also, if you haven't noticed, my verbal vernacular has increased exponentially since my previous reviews. The reason for this is that I am so inspired by how well spoken Humbart is in both versions of Lolita, particularly the original though. I believe he's some form of professor of English. It is now my goal to be just like him...um minus the ephebophilia, natch!

This movie is so dull, so drab, boring, lifeless and emotionless. It lays there like a dead carp. All throughout there is that sickening soap opera feel that will have you thinking you've died and gone to limbo! Do not watch this estrogen bomb!

Patriarch fun fact: The author of Lolita also translated Alice in Wonderland into Russian.

One of the greatest love stories ever.
2008-08-11 - This film gets better and better each time I watch it. I never seem to tire of it. It has a fantastic poetic quality that takes it's cues from the novel. One of the greatest love tragedies I have ever come across. Not demon film everyone makes it out to be. A masterpiece in every sense of the word and Lyne's best film.

A must see for anyone who loves a good, honest love tale.

Europe and America: fatal attraction
2008-02-01 - Humbert is really a despicable human being. If there's a moral in this twisted morality tale, it's that obsession can really, really screw up your life. Oh, and also, don't write things in a diary you wouldn't want anyone you know to see.

Jeremy Irons was great, as usual. He's a lot like Johnny Depp, in that he takes roles of people I don't like but is such a good actor that he overcomes the material. Dominique Swain overdoes the nymphet act, but I blame the writer and director more than her.

Great metaphors abound. Insects being zapped after coming too close to the light. Flies stuck on flypaper. Barking dogs straight out of Greek myth. Fields of fire like something out of medieval Italian poetry.

However, the movie engaged in cheap foreshadowing by showing us at the beginning of the movie the results of the dramatic confrontation at the movie's end. I know lots of people have read the book or, like me, know its general outline, but that's no excuse for giving away part of the plot. And overall, does the movie really go anywhere we haven't been, or say anything we haven't heard? I don't think so. The story's as old as King David and Bathsheba. Three stars.

Disturbing, Sad, Funny
2008-01-24 - There's some heavy handed symbolism here and there in the movie, but all in all it's a nice update to the old Kubrick version. A scene that involves a teenager moaning in the lap of a middle aged man might disturb some viewers, and you probably don't want to show it to your high school students.

The first part of the movie comes across as dated, demented, sentimental and unrealistic, but things pick up after that. In general the film is surprisingly funny, like the book, despite the awfulness of the general situation re: daughter Lo and father Hum.

Ms Swain Should Have Won An Oscar
2007-09-03 - Both Dominique and Jeremy gave Oscar-worthy performances in this brilliant movie. The fact that Dominique had zero previous acting experience was of course the very reason that she could not possibly have won. I mean that would point out a rather obvious fact about Hollywood.....

Anyway this movie is very atmospheric and will make you happy, sad, sick, and angry. Which is exactly what a good movie is supposed to do....drag out your feelings/emotions. This is a timepiece movie and you really get a feel for the 1940's. We all know the story about an older man infatuated with a young girl so I won't rehash any of that...it is the backbone of the whole thing. Mr. Irons is absolutely perfect in the role of the hopelessly torn and consumed Humbert. He has a way of saying so much without having to say a word. Mr. Langella is the perfect villain and whereas you have empathy for Humbert, you have none for Quilte. Melanie Griffith gives a good performance as the unaware and overbearing mother who herself falls hard for Humbert.

I especially liked the fact that Dominique was never shown nude. This actually increases the erotic element of their relationship and keeps an edge on the movie. The emphasis on the girls bare feet and legs puts a punctuation mark on her coltish figure and her "barefoot girl next door" image that is so cute and yet so seductive, in a natural and innocent way.

There is also a very interesting point made (Humberts first tragic love...) regarding "sexual imprinting" that boils down to your first sexual experience sometimes being the reason you gravitate towards a certain type of person whether it be age, weight, or even sex. It is like you become fixated based on moment in time and you just continue to loop on that fixation. A most interesting theory. It may provide insight into the situation where an older adult falls hard for a young boy or girl.

Dominique makes the movie. You can't fake being a nymphette. You either are or you aren't...and she is. She is so natural, playful, and innocently sexual she literally embodies everything that is attractive about young women. Easily the best performance by an actress I have seen in a long time. She is truly a "natural".

An instant classic....