Watch
Lolita

Lolita

1997
Romance
Drama
2h 17m
Humbert Humbert, a British professor coming to the US to teach, rents a room in Charlotte Haze's house, but only after he sees her 14-year-old daughter, Dolores (Lolita), to whom he is immediately attracted. Though he hates the mother, he marries her as this is the only way to be close to the girl, who will prove to be too mature for her age... (imdb)
Your probable score
?

Lolita

1997
Romance
Drama
2h 17m
Your probable score
Avg Percentile 47.92% from 1362 total ratings

Ratings & Reviews

(1362)
Compact view
Compact view
Rated 10 Jun 2007
65
90th
The girl in this movie almost turned me into a pedophile.
Rated 28 Jan 2017
90
63rd
Mr. Sexy Pants (Jeremy Irons) cannot RETAIN(er) himself when it comes to LO(ve of his life fire of his loins). Spawn of Marnie doesn't satisfy his devilish desires as he is forced to do mandatory sex. Hold on to you pants because jawbreakers aren't the only things that get tossed out the window in this film! Banana munching soda drinking Lolita would rather have small dick Quilty instead of the big DICK RINGER (Irons). This film has the 3 Ds : Jeremy, quilty *eyeroll*, and mainly, DICK TRACY!
Rated 14 Dec 2011
100
99th
Niczym miłość po latach rozłąki, odnalazłam przypadkowo dnia pewnego film, z którym zostałam rozdzielona w czasach mego dziecięctwa.
Rated 14 Aug 2012
75
70th
I always pictured Humbert Humbert looking somewhat like Jeremy Irons, so this adaption couldn't really miss. It's just a really precious piece of junk, mostly thanks to the dearest crying JI.
Rated 09 Dec 2009
75
77th
In many ways better than Kubriks... There... I've said it...
Rated 07 Jan 2011
89
56th
6
Rated 16 May 2012
45
17th
I didn't hate it or anything, but I didn't really find much likeable about it, except for a couple of scenes. The whole thing felt unbelievable, including the performances. It seemed like the director tried really hard to make it shocking, artsy and sexy. I just found myself rolling my eyes. I will admit that he did make Lolita appear quite sexy. But, rather than showing us why Jeremy Irons' character wants to fuck her, it felt like he was trying to make us, the audience, want to fuck her.
Rated 15 Jul 2012
80
51st
a tad less comfortable than the Kubrik version, but not as good
Rated 29 Jul 2009
50
8th
I hated the book, so yeah.
Rated 14 Aug 2007
50
35th
Overrated! Original was better!
Rated 08 Oct 2014
80
37th
Viewed October 6, 2014. Pretty good, uncomfortably faithful adaptation of one of the greatest novels ever written. Fantastic performance from Jeremy Irons that really brings out the surprising amount of sympathy in Humbert Humbert.
Rated 17 Sep 2008
55
83rd
farlig
Rated 27 Jul 2009
70
35th
Un-fucking-comfortable.
Rated 02 Jun 2008
86
92nd
great rendition of a classic book. questions societies norms about age and romance, that's exactly what i love about it. also lolita's character has been extensively modified for a different age.
Rated 18 Aug 2016
69
0th
you really learn more from this than you do in school
Rated 28 Mar 2008
60
47th
You are never going to believe this, but this version is better than Kubrick's -- albeit not by much. In the first half hour, when Lyne introduces us to Humbert and him to SIN, everything is fine. Then the movie seems to just run out of things to say, which is WEIRD for a picture based on a novel... so Lyne decides to just keep throwing one more gorgeous period set at us, one more set of great costumes, one more period song. That's how an art film ended up costing $58 million *laugh*
Rated 21 Aug 2007
85
86th
Excellent treatment of the controversial book, one wonders why Mr Irons still hasn't bagged his Oscar, oh wait.......
Rated 05 Jan 2022
69
59th
A little long. A little needlessly melodramatic toward the end. Jeremy Irons is back as the quintessential hyperliterate dirty old man. He was made for this! But he really chews the ending scenes in Kingsleyesque thespian fits, and Dolores’ reactions really seem indistinguishable - at times - from the sincere bewilderment of the underlying actress.
Rated 02 Jul 2008
15
27th
ramake
Rated 14 Mar 2014
73
46th
72.500
Rated 22 Jan 2009
52
19th
Not as good as the 1962 version, and even that was one of Kubrick's lesser films. Perhaps Jeremy Irons was a slightly better Humbert Humbert than James Mason, but the element that made the earlier version stand out was Peter Sellers - to whom nobody can compare. A fairly entertaining watch, but life is short.
Rated 06 Aug 2021
89
88th
2016.10.1/????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
Rated 07 Dec 2011
70
33rd
The story felt kinda filled with blank spots. Many things seemed unexplained. The acting saves one or two of them. Sadly I didn't saw the strong drama, everything was like a joke.
Rated 19 Jul 2010
65
54th
i like how this guy operates. a little worse than the original, but this one is actually kind of funny.
Rated 21 Sep 2008
46
38th
So silly it's funny.
Rated 06 Jun 2010
20
7th
the only thing keeping me from completely hating this movie was how much i hated the book
Rated 08 Dec 2009
55
19th
They ruined the story with this movie. It's outrageous. But it grabbed my attention.
Rated 16 Feb 2010
76
72nd
Slightly disturbing movie. Directing was great and so was the acting. Love the music they used
Rated 24 Feb 2008
89
85th
Jeremy Irons is, in my humble opinion, only actor who could pull this role this good. He is briliant.
Rated 07 Mar 2016
51
35th
sleazy paedo humps his underage stepdaughter all the way across America
Rated 19 Feb 2007
55
49th
Good film.
Rated 13 Dec 2020
40
13th
Looks like a cheap teen porn movie
Rated 26 Jul 2009
90
29th
Delightfully sensitive...nonconventionally...Kubrick's was better, but classics usually feel better to me too.
Rated 02 Feb 2012
73
44th
Jeremy Irons plays the character with just the right amount of sleaze while remaining relatively empathetic. And Swain is perfectly cast as Lolita. But I, as most people probably were, was constantly comparing this to the Kubrick version. And when you do that, this one is always going to lose. While this may be more true to the spirit of the book, I miss the sardonic tone of the original - it just worked so well. The straight faced approach just isn't as entertaining.
Rated 10 Jul 2012
75
78th
The well known story was still as mesmerizing and shocking as ever. Dominique Swain at 17 was captivating as the sassy, precocious, empowered 14yr old Lolita. Jeremy Irons at 50 was oddly charismatic considering his sad despicable character. Very well made, excellent music and brilliant acting.
Rated 04 Aug 2019
70
76th
good movie
Rated 14 Aug 2007
81
71st
Has it been eight years already? Dominique has grown up before our eyes. Jeremy Irons could not have been much better as the conflicted Humbert.
Rated 25 Apr 2009
80
54th
Nothing will compare to the book, however this version is better than Kubrick's because it allows for more open interpretations (as to whether or not the narrator is a pedophile, whether Lolita is a "nymphet," etc). Kubrick's is a bit too facetious, although Nabokov did help in the production of Kubrick's version.
Rated 25 Feb 2012
79
84th
Surprisingly better than the Kubrick! Gotta love Jeremy Irons. He's just plane fantastic. All those Sentimental close-ups and micro-vibrations makes it all worthwhile.
Rated 31 Oct 2023
80
32nd
Not sure what to write about this movie, it was utterly disturbing to watch
Rated 03 Jul 2010
89
78th
I didn't see the Kubrick version. But I really like this one. Dominique Swain fits perfectly.
Rated 08 Sep 2008
74
47th
Good directing and acting made a good movie the just missed the mark. The story can't really translate from paper to film, as the book is meant to be biased and subjective, but movies can't help but be objective.
Rated 17 Sep 2007
70
63rd
very well acted by the two leads

Collections

Loading ...

Similar Titles

Loading ...

Statistics

Loading ...

Trailer

Loading ...