I watched this film before i read the movie or had seen Kubrick's film.<br /><br />When i read the book and compared it to this film, i realized that this film is a failure in representing the book of Nabokov.<br /><br />Sure, more of the story events take place in this film then Kubrick's, but it translated the scenes completely inaccurate as to how they were described in the book.<br /><br />All of the characters in the book were completely different as to how they are portrayed in this film.<br /><br />Humbert in the book was a mean manipulative snake type of character. A self-obsessed flamboyant character, with a taste for doing dirty deeds to reach his goals. Humbert in the book doesn't love Lolita. Not her character anyway. He is a man sexually obsessed with her looks and her age, not her personality, which he complaints time after time in the book. The Humbert character in the book was a lot closer to Clare Quilty then the 1997 movie makes it seem.<br /><br />This film makes Jeremy Irons's Humbert a tragic traumatized drama character full of guilt and despair. A tragic romantic lonesome man with a broken heart and basically a good person besides one little flaw.<br /><br />Then Lolita in the book. Lolita in the books 12, and basically not much different from your average girl in the early days of puberty. Experimenting with the power of sexuality? Yes. Slutty? No. Lolita in the book is just a girl who got into this situation by accident, and tries all that she can for her young age to stay alive.<br /><br />The Lolita in the book is not the sexualized naughty teenager we see in the media. That was the result of various forms of media exploitation.<br /><br />The Lolita in the book didn't have any blond or red braids or pigtails, and didn't wear sailor or any other stereotype outfits.<br /><br />The Lolita in the book was girl with dark brown bobbed hair, and a honey tanned skin, with a polka-dot bikini. <br /><br />However, the 1997 film portrayed Lolita the way she's been portrayed as a stereotype teenage hussy in the sex industry as well as the regular media. With her reddish blond braids and pigtails, stereotypical child-girl outfits and average ordinary sleazy teenage character, the Lolita played by Dominique Swain is NOTHING like the character in the book. Neither by look or by character. <br /><br />Then Clare Quilty in the book was described as a charismatic artist. Ultimately a dangerous wealthy pervert, but he was never described as a dirty old man. Clare Quilty in the book was a Humbert with a bigger house and more money.<br /><br />Clare Quilty in this movie is portrayed as the audience of today expects it. The "Marc Dutroux" type of sick dirty pig-like maniac.<br /><br />I thought this movie was good at the point when i hadn't read the book, but after i read the book, i thought is was a failure.<br /><br />I dislike it because when it came out, the production team and every newspaper and article claimed that this movie was made absolutely faithful to the book. When i read the book, i found out that is was all but faithful to Vladimir Nabokov's book.<br /><br />Kubrick's film may have been a bit shy and tame, but it was closer to the heart and soul of Nabokov's novel. It didn't hide important key elements of Humbert's twisted personality.<br /><br />Before you watch this movie, read the book. After you've seen this movie, read the book again.