Ok so i loved this book and i'm thinking of watching the stanley kubrick version (bored @ work today and i wiki'd him...

ok so i loved this book and i'm thinking of watching the stanley kubrick version (bored @ work today and i wiki'd him and saw he was the same guy who did FMJ so i'm convinced this gon be good)


is it as good as the book?

No.

pale fire ia better

...

Jeremy Irons version is better, but, of fuckin course... none as good as the book

No one will ever be able to capture the character of Lolita. She's both a cute and horrible little girl which makes her seem so real in the book.

>he doesn't know who fucking Stanley Kubrick is
What the fuck? Also, the movie is pretty good but obviously they go around all the more steamy moments from the novel. The book, as is always with literary masterpieces, is better than the film.
The only thing that the movie does that Inthink is better is the character of Quilty as played by Peter Sellers. I think the his and Mason's performance make the movie worthwhile, and Lolita is good eye candy too.

You've never heard of Stanley Kubrick?

I think one of the best chapters in the book is one of the last, when he humanizes Lolita and realizes how he ruined her life and how he never understood (or really cared to) Lolita.

>i wiki'd him and saw he was the same guy who did FMJ so i'm convinced this gon be good
Ironic shitposting is still shitposting

I dropped it like 10 minutes in. It's hardly the same story as the book, I felt insulted. You can't do Lolita without the nympholepsy, there's no point.

You're going to be dissapointed

No. The 90s version is vastly superior.

>He broke my heart. You merely broke my life.

That hit me hard.

>I googled Stanley Kubrick to find out who he was

The problem with it is he couldn't make the movie the way he really wanted to because of the censors. He wasn't allowed to really explore the relationship between Lo and Humbert like the book did. The 90's one is a little closer to the source, but I don't think we'll ever see a true adaption though.

someone remind me - is this the movie where the guy kills the girl, then tries to kill himself, but theres no bullets in the gun? and you can hear cop sirens approaching.

Color Climax made a true to life version in the mid 70's.

Even had real sex seances

The tragedy of it really comes off in the book, the version with Jeremy Irons is a little better at capturing that tragedy I think, he actually orates the audio version of the book nicely.

the Kubrick version was pretty good for what it could do with the themes of the book, under the restrictions of 1950s-1960s culture.
I am shying away from the Irons version because I just know it is totally killed by the pall all over it of "le evil pedophile".
also don't dismiss Shelly Winter's two dimensional but spot on portrayal of Lolita's mom, and what HH had to endure to get close to Lola.

I got to about page 200 and gave up on the book. Seen the Kubrick version of the film. I wouldn't really bother watching it.

> I stood listening to that musical vibration from my lofty slope, to those flashes of separate cries with a kind of demure murmur for background, and then I knew that the hopelessly poignant thing was not Lolita’s absence from my side, but the absence of her voice from that concord.

Made me sob like a bitch

>is it as good as the book?
Of course not. Be realistic. But it's a decent movie.

90's version was phenomenal.

Just watch, next time they remake Lolita it'll be a beaner girl.

>90's version was phenomenal.
'no'