Smoreni Zmaj "A man marries his landlady so he can take advantage of her daughter." - The worst description of this movie possible, lie that gives completely wrong picture what you can expect to see in this film.Disturbed, but at the same time very romantic and sad love/life story, much much better than original novel by Nabokov. Maybe my favorite movie of all time.20/10"She was Lo, plain Lo in the morning, standing 4'10 in one sock. She was Lola in slacks. She was Dolly at school. She was Dolores on the dotted line. In my arms, she was always Lolita, light of my life, fire of my loins, my sins, my soul, Lolita.""I was a daisy-fresh girl and look what you've done to me. I should call the police and tell them that you raped me, you dirty old man""Despite all the danger and hopelessness of it all, I was in paradise, paradise whose skies were the color of hell flames, but a paradise still."

inioi To begin with, I will say that Adrian Lyne's one of my favorite directors. Whatever he does, he adds his unmistakable personal stamp on filming. The depth and detail are overwhelming. Each frame is a picture by itself. He is a master at creating atmospheres along with music and photography.He is also a provocateur, and he likes to be considered as such. One of the recurring subjects is the attraction between men and women, which can also be seen in "Unfaithful (2002)," "Indecent Proposal (1997)," "Fatal Attraction (1987)," "Nine 1/2 Weeks (1986) "" Flashdance (1983) "and" Foxes (1980) ".On "Lolita" The film seemed intense and intimate in equal measure. And even could say that is extremely private, as depicts personal feelings and sensations that could cause rejection or criticism.For me, there is nothing to criticize.The question of our capacity to empathize with Jeremy Irons role, arises.The psychological game between the two protagonists is as intense as unstable, and the roles of dominator and dominated are exchanged. We finally have a dramatic situation in which nobody wins, so it is as real as life itself.We stand before a, deeply and brutally honest movie.9/10

cheergal The director has done several well-known obsessively sexual films. In my view, his genius may lay within his sharp sense of subtle differences between normal and twisted affections.Pedophiles don't see adolescents are immature or silly whom other might not care socializing with. They see them as their peers. A lot of adolescent teenagers already have grown adult figures which might intensify sexual fantasies to them. It's complicated to explain why they are not attracted to adults instead. Partially, they want to control their objects of affections. This movie indeed showed those vital characters.Some scenarios were far-fetched in the story like the playwright's role and mother's death. However, they were faithful to the novel. Jeremy Irons played a very convincing Humbert who covered all the flaws in the story. I could see why this movie was censored at that time. I saw 1962 version also. It was less visual flirtations which did not stir too much alerts in the society back then. Somehow, theaters worried about being paralyzed by controversies now than then. Nonetheless, I am glad I found this movie now.

bkout Having seen both worthwhile movies if I had to recommend an experience of this book to someone I'd suggest the Audio book with Jeremy Irons reading. It's my understanding that he often does this in preparation for a film role. If you haven't read Nabokov it's a unique experience -- imagine passing your hand over a beautifully textured tapestry and being surprised and delighted by the shimmering colors that appear at your touch. I found myself laughing out loud at times with delight at the turn of a phrase. Between the writing and Iron's wonderful voice and acting it's a treat. More powerful in a way because of the grotesque subject matter. For a short story preview of Nabokov's style find "Spring in Fialta" which can be found as a PDF on the web.