Le nips

the 1998 or the 1962?

the 1998 was just uninspired trash. the 1962 was not very good as an adaptation and probably one of the lower quality kubricks. the thing about kubrick is that he was not interested in the original material, but used them as jumping off points to explore what he wanted to instead of what the author did. sometimes this overlapped, but for the most part it did not. kubrick's lolita wanted to be all about the comedy, but the whole thing falls short without the pathos and the conspicuousness of form in the original, which really has no equivalent in film. what i mean is well-written prose is pronounced and in Lolita's it's meant to be even more so, well-crafted film technique is invisible, even if you try hard to innovate.

>>8232664
>the 1998 was just uninspired trash.
nah. much better than the '62 at least. fundamentally it was lolita still. the pathos was there. the eroticism too. the humour never made it through.
jeremy irons was a good humbert humbert.
it was like a review [long].

>>8232634
short version: there isw only one LOLITA and that's the book

kubrick version is god damn awful as 85% of his movies

>>8232670
>nah. much better than the '62 at least.

hardly- shit kubrick is better than mediocre no-name. 1997 is dead on arrival, stilted and plodding. i will grant the casting was much much better, both humbert and dolores.

>fundamentally it was lolita still

lolita is not 'fundamentally' its plot. the loss of humour extirpates half of what lolita is.

>>8232685
Also the loss of prose. Lolita is, by the most part, about prose.

>>8232685
I DONT REALLY CARE ABOUT ARGUING ABOUT KUBRICK'S MERITS (sorry for caps), he's shit and that's that for me.

i agree with you totally otherwise. my point was that the latest movie was at least Lolita superficially, it can be said to be derived from the work of nabokov on the level of substance and theme.
but of coasre like you said half of lolita is humour (i'd say more even) so it (the movie) can be Lolita at best half of it.
kubrick's version misses the point entirely [of nabokov].

lolita without the prose can never be lo-lee-ta, perhaps lola but not much more.
without the theme all you get is Dolores.

The films aren't worth watching at all. The book on the other hand is.

wouldn't even bother with the book personally. the movies are good enough if you watch both

The movies are book enough if you good see. See them on the page and take it in.