Please join us and support our community by submitting links to free (no fee/subscription) sources. We accept all legal and reliable hosting sources, such as: YOUTUBE.COM, CRACKLE.COM, ARCHIVE.ORG, HULU.COM, XFINITYTV.COM, official TV channel sites, etc. - for feature length movies, foreign language films, documentaries, TV series, etc. Thank you. - The Staff
discuss it @forum,
submit links @here
Good movie. Lolita was acting very immature for her age, yet very grown. I was confused at times. I think Humbert knew he was wrong so he tried to avoid physical contact but she wouldn't really allow that to happen. You have to really pay attention to this movie to understand..but I really think Humbert loved Lolita, like crazy in love with her. Nice movie..
It's to feel compassion for Humbert because of the way he and the relationship is portrayed in the movie and the book. But, bear in mind that the story is deliberately told from the point of view of Humbert. Nabakov could have easily written this story from a third person point of view, or the movie could have been shot from the third person point of view. The POV affects the story as much as the plot.
Right from the beginning we see Humbert describing himself as the injured party. He's justifying what he is about to do and what he has done. He also believes this justification. But that doesn't make it true. There are bits which reveal that he is delusional. At one point he describes what a 'nymphette' is, as a young "pre-pubescent" girl who is "subconsciously seductive." Think about that. Oh, and he also goes on to say that he is one of the few men that are able to see this. Now that what it says in the novel, and I think they say this in the movie, but I can't swear to it. But the point is that you have to remember who is telling the story and hold on to some skepticism. It's not an accident. "A Clockwork Orange" uses the same device. Everyone's probably have read Poe's "The Telltale Heart" where the narrator says: "Many think I'm mad, but I'm not mad. Just acutely aware." It's the same thing.
I want to read the book now, but can find it NOWHERE..libraries, bookstores, nothing! Can anyone tell me where I can find it? Online is my last resort probably? But yes, I liked watching this movie..it is very twisted indeed but the story is so different. Did you know that Humbert does the voice of the bad lion in Lion King? I just thought that was silly. If you won't be offended by what this movie is about, you should watch it.
Truer To The Book Then The First Movie, But Still Misses
As a big Stanley Kubrick fan it's hard for me to admit that this film equals the first. But really, they're two different films. Kubrick's film with the legendary Peter Sellers as Quilby is the over-the-top version. I think Mason's Humbert caught more of the refined English gentleman persona. Langella's QUilby, was completely opposite to Sellers but really really interesting. Whereas Seller's QUilby was more mercurial and quick, Langella's was more subtle and easy. Sellers was more scheming and brash. Langella was more patient and charming. I loved the scene on the porch with him and Irons. And also how the camera kept focusing on his finger gently tugging the leash while baiting Lolita, like an angler palying with his fish.
Where they both miss, and this is my opinion from reading the book, is that they both fail to capture the potential ambuguity of the whole story. The story is from Humbert's perspective and he's obviously deranged and delusional. From the tone of the book, the reader is often left wondering just how accurate Humbert is relating his story. The narrator is a pedophile so he is not going to realize just how wrong he is. As a matter of fact he partially blames Lolita for being subconsiously seductive. Of course he's going to believe that, he's already delusional. It's obvious from the story that his judgement is way off, and he's not seeing things as they are. I believe that the author, Nabakov, gives clues to the reader at the end that Lolita is less a seducer than Humbert sees her, and is really the victim.
There are such subtleties in the book that were incredibly hard to portray on film.
Lolita WAS innocent and naive, that's what made her a nymphet - by Nabokov's definition. It was that she didn't understand that she was being sexual while doing so, she was just doing what most girls at that age do .. pretending to be a grown up. Humbert loved her for what she was, not her glamors of being an adult.
Humbert is a complex character, more so in the book, constantly getting you to sympathize, then subsequently putting his foot in his mouth. His love borders on obsession and quite frequently in the book he is afraid that his love for her will drive him back to the sanitarium.
I think the description of this movie is disgusting, it completely forgoes any romance (which the book is FOUNDED upon) and makes it sound like something seedy and disgusting.
I love Jeremy Irons as Humbert Humbert, he captures the soul of the character magnificently, as drole and romantic as he is. Dominique Swain was prefect as well, she had the gawkiness that was needed to play the part. The movie stayed as close to the book as possible, while the 62 version did nothing but BUTCHER the hell out of it.
Lolita is not something you can just watch or just read, it is something to ruminate over.. a presence of mind, an alternative way of thinking. You've got to get past the 'pedophilia' mindframe to really understand it's beauty. I think it's one of the most believable, beautiful and tragic love stories of our time.
I read the book as well and make no bones about it, Humbert was a sick pedophile. He fantasized having children with Lolita and raising more nymphettes. He seems so vulnerable and sincere in the book because it is from his viewpoint. He is an 'unreliable narrator' much like Poe's Montessori in "The Cask of Amontillado" or the narrator in "Tell Tale Heart." The thing to bear in mind when reading from an unreliable narrator is that not only are they blind to their own flaws and rationalize and justify grave wrongs, their portrayal of details and other characters are skewed. In Nabokov's book it almost seems that Lolita has an equal hand in seducing Humbert. But it's Humbert who is relating this. At the end of the book Lolita says something ( I forget exactly) that suggests that she had felt victimized all along. Humbert doesn't pick up on that, but if the reader is astute, he/she should.
besides the plot and all of the taboo that everybody talks about, what is shown on screen in terms of explicitness of sex? boobs? genitals? what?..thanks for any answer i really dont want to click and watch not knowing if anything explicit is gonna be shown..please? any answer to my inbox would be greatly appreciated
well.. what can I say that hasn't been said. It was a good movie. I liked the actress she was able to pull off the part of a young spoiled child. But the content, well if you haven't seen or heard of it before, what the hell are you doing on the internet?
I found the film interesting. He did without a doubt love Lolita (I have not read the book), and the only thing in my opinion that was wrong at all, was the sexual aspects which where included by HIS actions. Is it wrong to love? No. Is it wrong to have sex with someone who is THAT much younger? I believe it is. If he would have only held hands, and perhaps on unique occasion kissed her, no harm done. People will say 'This is a terrible movie.' you either like it or you don't. For the majority of people, 18 is the correct age limit. However, the minority which IS harmless, suffers because of this countrys lust over simple; none complex love. Lolita is a good film, but sad.
I agree. I did a report on the book for a literature class my junior year in high school. I didn't get credit because it was not one of the books we were to read. I enjoyed it and I think it was a great movie too.
Lolita Is "Average Sexually Active 12 Year Old " 2Day..
I had a friend similar To "Lolita" - fast talking , sexually older and more mature and did things I couldn't never do ..this is the average 12 year old girl with older boyfriend today .. the man who made this novel is way ahead of his time - good movie but perverted by the man's obsession of a 12 year old girl ..with very healthy sexual appetite...he seeing his old girlfriend in her(many sick ways ,though).
I found this movie to be quite disturbing and despite agreeing that the movie was interesting and in some aspect had a good storyline, it was something that really made me furious. Many blame Lolita for being seductive and are feeling sorry for her stepfather, but I believe that it wasn't her fault at all.
Many girls that are in puberty become curious and start flirting at a very young age but this does NOT give any man the right to actually give into the temptation and actually start an affair with a 14 year old girl. Despite her being the way she was, I still believe that it was RAPE.
He only moved in because of her and already in the beginning he was attracted to her like no man should be attracted to a child. It was obvious that he wanted a sexual relationship - one could see that from the way he was looking at her etc.
Just because she wanted to 'be' with him, does not mean that he should have gone along with it. In my eyes, she wasn't innocent but looking at it from another point of view, despite everything she had done or tried to do she was still a child. However, I must admit that at some point I felt sorry for him,
not because he loved her so much..but..
because he was a lost man who was in need of psychatric help. Men like these should not be put in jail - no, they should be killed because due to having those kind of people in the world we have child-rapists that do their time and then get out and continue their lives, whilst children who have had lead a life like Lolita, will always be scarred and will have to carry their horrible past memories with them until the day they die.
I hardly give any movies a 10/10 but this one clearly deserves it simply because the storyline was perfect and it portrays how there are really people like that in this world. Recommend everyone to watch it.
Call me sick, twisted and creepy, but I really love this movie. I find it beautiful. Too bad this is exactly what teen girls are doing these days. I don't know how many of my friends have boyfriends in their 20s or 30s.
Dont really know how to give my opinion or express my feelings about this film. It was a good story, not a nice one so to speak, well i did get quite angry watching this as i started to feel sorry, first for the girl then for the man and i particularly hated myself for doing so but the depth of the movie is, to my knowledge anyway, is that i think two of the characters were cycalogically disturbed. A must see for those of you that can watch this sort of film, i found it quiet disturbing.
Its such a bad play after I saw Kubricks version from 1962!! Its rediculus how a hand of gold was been thrown away - doubting if someone every could be able to reach was already been made, though hoping to see once ever a contemporary version!
Please be advised that many video files, particularly those for recently released titles, may have a very short lifespan before they are removed from host sites. Watch Movies does not host, nor does it upload video files. Links are sourced and indexed only. For this reason, we cannot repair dead links. We do, however, endeavour to locate replacements as quickly as possible. We ask that members be patient and we apologise in advance for any inconvenience.
Watch Movies provides links to other sites on the Internet (DivX host sites, supernovatube.com, megavideo.com, myspace.com, tudou.com, veoh.com, youku.com, youtube.com, and others.) We do not host or upload any video, films, or media files. Therefore, Watch Movies is not responsible for the accuracy, compliance, copyright, legality, decency, or any other aspect of the content of other linked sites. If you have any legal issues please contact the appropriate media file owners / host sites.