[REL] Lolita (1997)

Debaser

Re: [REL] Lolita (1997)

Post by Debaser »   0 likes

scenes are too dark to tell who it was
It was a struggle, but I did find a couple of dark scenes.
Debaser

Re: [REL] Lolita (1997)

Post by Debaser »   0 likes

She looks like she kisses like a 15 year old should

[Image]

[Image]

[Image]

[Image]

[Image]

[Image]

[Image]

[Image]

[Image]

[Image]

[Image]

[Image]

[Image]

[Image]

[Image]

[Image]

[Image]

[Image]

[Image]
terry666
Posts: 509
Likes:
Joined: Mon Jan 02, 2006 1:00 am

Re: [REL] Lolita (1997)

Post by terry666 »   0 likes

Debaser wrote:
scenes are too dark to tell who it was
It was a struggle, but I did find a couple of dark scenes.
Those dark scenes are the only scenes where a body double might have (but wasn't) been used. The scenes you show in the pictures are good, but not exactly stuff that would be censored out if it aired on prime time TV.

Just giving my opinion here, but I seriously found this movie to be too long and boring, and even Jeremy Irons' (a Canadian) performance couldn't save me from almost falling asleep. I wish the movie had been made in France, and maybe then it would have been truer to the book.
Debaser

Re: [REL] Lolita (1997)

Post by Debaser »   0 likes

I seriously found this movie to be too long and boring
That’s exactly how I felt about the old fashioned original version.

Out of all the movies on FLM, you decided that this is the long and boring one??

I am staggered.
terry666
Posts: 509
Likes:
Joined: Mon Jan 02, 2006 1:00 am

Re: [REL] Lolita (1997)

Post by terry666 »   0 likes

Spoiler ALERT!!!!
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

First off, this movie belongs here - so thank you for posting. (I hope you realize I gripe about the film itself, and not your release of it here.)

But... (you knew there was going to be a "but" didn't you? :) )

Before this movie was released, there was so much hype about the "content" I was expecting something along the lines of a David Hamilton film. I was quite stoked when it finally came out on DVD and watched it intently. After suffering through it though, I can't see what all the fuss was about. It's not like new ground was broken with this movie; in fact, it's like we took two steps back.

The film was watchable until about the point where they finally "do it". I did like Iron's line, (and I'm ad libbing here,) "Dear jury, I wasn't even her first." After that, there really isn't much worth seeing. I don't think this movie needed to be 137 minutes long. You are right that there are probably more boring films than this at FLM (I've posted some), but I never watched them with the same high expectations I had for this version of Lolita.
User avatar
Amadeus
Posts: 914
Likes:
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2007 1:00 am

Re: [REL] Lolita (1997)

Post by Amadeus »   0 likes

(sigh)

Still downloading.... @300bps.

Please kill me. It doesn't need to be anything fancy. You can just pull out a gun and shoot me in the head. :)
billanben
Posts: 1396
Likes:
Joined: Tue Feb 07, 2006 1:00 am

Re: [REL] Lolita (1997)

Post by billanben »   0 likes

IMO this was far superior to the original and the performances were superb and totally in character. I bet Swain had a ball making this, and Jeremy probably felt a little self-conscious given the nature of his portrayal, however, he puts himself into the part with some gusto and professionalism. The film concentrates way more on their relationship than does the original, and is consummate - that is you are not just teased with a potential scenario, you are made to feel a part of it - almost like it is asking you to become complicit. I am with DB on this one, far rather watch this than the original. That having been said, Mason was marginally better in the original for his guilty, edgy performance - simply stunning.
Debaser

Re: [REL] Lolita (1997)

Post by Debaser »   0 likes

The film was watchable until about the point where they finally "do it".


Ok, I agree with a bit of that... The sex could have been better after the build up to it.
I enjoyed all the little encounters though, and god dam she looks like she kisses great :eyecrazy
User avatar
Triela
Posts: 418
Likes:
Joined: Sun Jul 05, 2020 3:42 pm

Re: [REL] Lolita (1997)

Post by Triela »   0 likes

terry666 wrote:
Debaser wrote:For a start, Swain really was 15 :dance
In the book, Lolita was 12.

Debaser wrote:I watched a documentary on Lolita a little while ago, and I am glad to reveal that a body double wasn’t used.
Who cares? In the scenes that matter, it's so dark you hardly see anything anyway...
Always thought she was 14 in the book.

Even if she was 15, she LOOKED almost 20... even some of my female friends said so, and that they felt cheated. And no, they're straight.
User avatar
kev
Site Admin
Posts: 3632
Likes:
Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2006 1:00 am

Re: [REL] Lolita (1997)

Post by kev »   0 likes

Triela wrote:..Always thought she was 14 in the book...
According to the novel 'Lolita':
Humbert Humbert wrote:“Look, make Mother take you and me to Our Glass Lake tomorrow.” These were the textual words said to me by my twelve-year-old flame in a voluptuous whisper, as we happened to bump into one another on the front porch, I out, she in.
She most definitely was 12 when Humbert first met her in the novel...

The age changes from 12 to 14 or 15 in the films were made purely to lessen the audiences disgust in the man/child relationship aspect of the the story line..

Both Sue Lyon and Dominique Swain were allegedly 15 when their respective movies were filmed. Though Dominique looked young enough for the part, Sue could have easily passed for an older teen, even a girl into her early 20's.

kev.
Post Reply