is this good?
>>67110833
>directed by Stanley Kubrick
You've got your answer: no.
>>67110833
Shit compared to the book and
>>67110849
yes 10/10 beautiful feet would kiss
Yes but the Lynne version is better
It's okay. Really shows Kubrick's lack of maturity. He had no idea how to handle such a controversial topic, so he took the easy way out and chose humor as his tool of personal evocation. The problem with this method is that Kubrick is quite awful in balancing, or rather, shifting from comedy to drama. By viewing them as two separate entities, he fails. The only time in his filmic career in which he was successful in mixing the two was Full Metal Jacket. He succeeding by switching on and off very frequently, but this caused a sense of incoherence in the eyes of many untrained viewers.
>>67110833
probably his worst film
The remake was better.
>>67110833
The opening scene with Peter Sellers is fucking GOAT
No, the recent one is though.
>>67110833
Yeah it was good, don't listen to all these shitters in here trying to pretend Kubrick is bad.
I haven't seen the 90s one yet though.
Peter Sellers and Shelley Winters saved the movie
>>67110833
Stanley Kubrick
Stan knew
>>67110833
it did not really age well
>>67110833
Holy shit he literally compress whole film in that one shot.
>You can tell that feet are one of a child
>You can tell that it is a girl because he is painting her nails
>You can tell that hands are male and that he is older guy
>You can tell that he is not her father because no father would do that
>You can tell just by looking at this one shot that Kubrick was a genius
>>67110833
What's going on here?
>>67112334
>You can tell that he is not her father because no father would do that
I paint my little girl's toenails all the time
Both Nabokov and Kubrick knew that the original work was almost impossible to adapt directly, so he just got the irony and subtle sense of humor right, aside from the perfect casting. Outside of that, it's worthless, maybe Kubrick's worst film discounting his firsts.
>>67112652
we are just looking at feet sir
Little girl feet are the best. Adult feet are ugly.
>>67112799
Keking hard, you fuck
>>67112914
You have obviously never had a little girl's feet up your mouth mister.
>>67112799
pics?
>>67111205
Yea this is a solid post. Honestly Lolita was a really AWFUL choice of subject matters for Kubrick considering the story is pretty much on the complete opposite end of the emotional spectrum as the rest of his output.
It's one of Kubrick's biggest misfires but one of Kubrick's biggest misfires is still a 9/10.
>>67110833
If you want to watch it because of lolita, watch the lynne version.
If you're watching it for Kubrick just watch when you have seen all his other movies, this by far his worst movie (not saying the movie is bad but all his other movies are better)
>>67112172
films don't age
the intense censorship at the time didn't help so it really feels like kubrick went a different route with sellers and all that than he originally intended
>>67112054
This. The newer version is good also
Does anyone else really want to suck on those toes?
>>67111205
>"untrained viewers"
Fake patrician detected.
>>67110833
the book made me realize Im a hebe/pedo whatever, popped so many boners around the mid part. Well, Im not exclusively a hebephile though, but I think its rather natural to lust after 12-14 old girls who just start to get their first hairs.
>>67110833
It's an okay-ish movie. It shit on Nabokov's proposed screenplay though (not entirely Kubrick's fault – it was mainly the MPAA that fucked shit up). Fuck adaptations anyway. Just read the novel instead.
>>67117260
The book made me feel uncomfortable for that very reason. Had to get a new copy midway through because the first one was all sticky.
>>67111805
whats the point of casting teenage looking girls to play an 11 year old?
yeah fucking a teenager is creepy and pathetic but it doesnt ring as dark and serious as destroying a childs youth.
Kubrick's worst film
>>67119507
nice b8 m8
>>67119507
Because 11 year olds can't act and aren't as sexy.
>>67120572
>aren't as sexy
>>67120892
Sorry, girls don't become sexy until they turn 13.
>>67120943
>>67120892
>>67120572
its not that 11 year olds can't be sexy, its that most don't know how, and training an 11 year old to be sexy is usually a one way ticket to prison.
>>67120572
>>67119507
Lolita is not 11 but almost 13. She's also supposed to be a "nymphet" i.e. a young girl who emanates an aura of maturity (as opposed to "girlishness")
>>67121256
Some don't need to be "trained"...
>>67115669
I wanna take a few big licks up her sole
