Instead, you get a movie that's enjoyable enough, but leaves you feeling like it could have been much, much more.

The movie's only flaw is also a virtue: It's jammed with characters, stories, warmth and laughs.

Good films always raise compelling questions, whether the format is fiction or documentary fact.

The storyline feels a little thin and moth-eaten in parts but this sequel is plenty of fun.

This movie deserves a 10 but loses two points for two specific reasons. The first reason is that Melanie Griffith was horribly, unbelievably and terribly miscast. I don't know why on God's green earth she was cast but she's all wrong for the role. Luckily, she doesn't "Nicolas Cage" this film (as in ruins it), but boy is she terrible and sticks out like a sore thumb in an otherwise well-cast and acted movie.The second reason the movie loses a point is that it tried way too hard to make Lolita childlike. Yes, children are immature, but c'mon...the way the movie made her act, Lolita wasn't just immature for her age; she was practically mentally disabled. Not even the girl she hung out with was that immature. I don't know what the point was but it was really over the top and made it seem as if Lyne was overcompensating for the fact that the actress was older than the character she was playing. In any event, it was really annoying, especially the scene when she gives Humbert breakfast in bed with only one shoe. (What kid would be so stupid and lazy as to not look for another pair of shoes?)With that, here's what I loved about the film. I absolutely hate the cult status surrounding Lolita. I read the book and saw the Kubrick film and saw nothing more than what it was, an average story about a pedophile's obsession with a young girl, nothing more, nothing less. But for some reason, people have elevated an average story to "classic literary" status, I guess because they equate taboo with "intellectual" and "high caliber." And so they've imbued this average story with a level of depth, intellectualism and sophistication that it never had. In other words, they've romanticized the story and the character itself.It's gotten to the point where people have made Humbert Humbert some kind of sympathetic Greek tragedy-type figure and painted his "love" for Lolita as "tragic" because, poor guy, he only fell for her because his childhood sweetheart died. Gimme a break. There was nothing ever more to this character than the fact that he was a creepy sociopath and pedophile. Hence why I love this adaptation. A lot of people hated it, and the reason why is that Lyne pulled no punches of stripping this "literary classic" of all the romanticizing heaped upon it by fans. Fans wanted a a sympathetic tragic hero that they could feel comfortable with and embrace, the guy we see in the first half of the movie, who always has this befuddled, dopey, deer-caught-in-the- headlights look about him that plays him up as an innocent victim swept by his desires. They wanted that Humbert, not the one who starts physically abusing Lolita when he can no longer control her, or the guy who breaks into another man's house and pumps him full of lead while he's sleeping in bed. (That whole sequence of Quilty running around in a bathrobe never happened; Humbert, in his delusion, dreamed that up.)Lyne exposed the character for what he was--a crazy, paranoid psychopath and a pathetic pedophile piece of crap who kept clinging to this unrealistic sexual fantasy of the nymphet (a docile, submissive, willing child-woman who can be screwed at his leisure and convenience without any problems), even as Lolita kept acting out with the mental and emotional capacity of a child (complete with temper tantrums, obnoxious pranks, crying jags, bratty behavior and neediness). The fact that everyone keeps complaining about the gruesome murder scene involving Quilty pretty much confirms that this is the opposite of what fans wanted in an adaptation, which was a romanticized version of a pedophile and cold-blooded murderer. Kudos for Adrian Lyne for attempting to finally strip away all the romanticizing that fans of Lolita have been doing with this character and book.As for other aspects of the film, the cinematography and art design is second to none. It really does look like its of its time and they did a bang up job getting all the details right, right down to the vintage "Camay Brides" ads that were plastered on Lolita's bedroom wall.So, an 8/10 for me, and only because of the poor casting of Melanie Griffith and the over the top childishness of Lolita.

"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."

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.

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.