Better than this version? or?
-
scndform — 12 years ago(June 23, 2013 08:32 AM)
Yes, quite a bit. Both films leave out Humbert's marriage, his immigration to the States and his long-term affair with a woman named Rita after Lo leaves him. Both films portray Humbert as a man who has the mischance to fall desperately in love with a young girl instead of the sexual predator that he was. In the novel Humbert is quite open about his primary attraction to girls in their early teens and he tells about how he used to watch them from park benches or walking home from school. In one part of the novel when he and Lo were traveling around the country he states that he used to love going into a town, parking by the school, and then have Lo fondle him as he watched the girls walk home. He complains that Lo wasn't cooperative about doing this and how unfair he thought she was due to the fact that he always tried to accommodate her interests but she cared nothing about accommodating his.
-
Mrpinkeye — 12 years ago(June 23, 2013 04:09 PM)
oh, creepy
i did kind of get the sexual predator vibe when we see all the girls at the camp (both movies) but overall he didnt come across that way in the movies. prob similar reason to changing the age of lolita, itd be hard watching creepy old pedo. thanks for detailed reply -
scndform — 12 years ago(June 24, 2013 06:42 AM)
You are welcome. Lo was 12 when the relationship began but most of the events in the novel occur when she was 14 which is one reason I believe that both films make her 14. Also, remember that the story covers a five year period with Lo progressing from the age of 12-18. There's a big physical difference between someone 12 and someone 18 and it would be pretty hard for a young actress to pass for all of these ages.
-
knoxfan2008 — 12 years ago(February 10, 2014 07:15 PM)
The book should never matter on whether a film is good or not. I have only seen Kubrick's Lolita and it was definitely held back by it's time. Though it implies the sexual relationship, it fails to do it convincingly. The acting is amazing, especially Sellers in the first scene. It is in no way a masterpiece but it is very good. I do not see why the 1997 version could not be better, it certainly has the potential to be much more ambitious and challenging. Kubrick himself said he would not have made it if he realised how strict the censor boards would be.
As for the people saying the older films are better What? Just because a film-viewer is older in no-way means they are more mature when it comes to subject matter. I could watch horror films at 12 that my parents could not stand.
Kubrick's film is good (7/10) but i do hope the 1997 is better, just because I want to see this concept done without so many limits. It would also be fine to see this film remade in maybe 10 years again, as it relies heavily on the viewpints of it's day. -
Lester_Burnham_Risen — 12 years ago(February 11, 2014 05:46 PM)
Kubrick himself said he would not have made it if he realised how strict the censor boards would be.
and that was the totally amazing thing that the Hays Code was dismantled IN 1970 at the same time as the small f feminist movement dismantled the so called nuclear family and took over the schools.
one of the "doctrines" of the new education system WAS to redefine pedophile from an abuser of kids to a Humbert type and that worked SO well that the "new code" which was simply "leave it up to J Doe" was totally strict in Lolita 1997 to the extent it was never shown in a theatre and was a $100 million disaster, the greatest ever Hollywood flop
http://www.kindleflippages.com/ablog/ -
sarizonana — 11 years ago(January 28, 2015 09:54 PM)
Kubrick's film is good (7/10) but i do hope the 1997 is better, just because I want to see this concept done without so many limits. It would also be fine to see this film remade in maybe 10 years again, as it relies heavily on the viewpints of it's day.
I've seen both versions and I thought Lolita is precisely the only film which worked perfectly fine in both versions and with and without the Haze code.
But most of the times I'd agree with you films which touches the theme of sex are better the remakes since the limits are gone and the director had more freedom of Expression.
I've seen both versions of The End of the Affair the 50 with Deborah Kerr and the 90s version with Julianne Moore and Ralph Fiennes and even though I did like the 50s version I have to say the one with Ralph and Julianne is the far superior because it doesn't hold back with sex scenes and the passionate sex side is what makes Sarah have the Affair with Bendrix. The 50s film suggests that the affair came from love when it truly started because of lust.
So really films where sex is a major aspect most of the times The remake is better than the original, I haven't Niether of The Posyman always rings twice versions but I can bet I'll like 80s version much more than the 40s version and the 80s version it's actually the one that people talk more about and how hot were the scenes betwen Lange and Nicholson.
So with Lolita there is the posibility that you will love both equally in a different way since both have a fair share of advantages and flaws but yes most of the times films with themes like presented in Lolita the remake always surpasses the original.
Do you think films like Titanic, The English Patient, 9 1/2 weeks or Basic Instinct would have been as effective as they were with the haze code ? , no right ?
Would have been good films but not the phenomenons they were at their respective times. -
miser_cz — 12 years ago(July 23, 2013 08:10 AM)
First off, Nabokov himself has written the screenplay for the original Kubricks version, thus that version is the closest adaptation of the novel there ever will be.
Thats 1:0 for Kubricks version.
Morricones music however good, is just a remake of his earlier work for "Once upon a time in America", thus really nothing he gave much thought into. Its nice music, but not particularly complementing or amplyfing the movie themes. In other words, it would work in any random sad-romantic movie. Now compare it to notorious theme song "Ya Ya" which is popular even 50 years later (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vos7DQ5zeb0) - thats how history is written.
2:0 for Kubricks.
Lynes direction is heavyhanded, overly pathetic, without satiric midtones, missing one whole dimension of Nabokov novel, making it forgettable piece of romantic cinema, and as far from being called "masterpiece" as any film can get. Average creator Lyne clumsily tries to clutch on the original, duplicating scene after scene, only to leave all the magic behind in 1962.
3:0 for Kubricks.
History seals my words. The quality of the original is perceived better by older amd more experienced moviegoers, since 20 years old are much more easily immpressible by superficial things, like color, slowmotion, fast editing, and cheesy romance. -
-
zatoeechii — 10 years ago(February 05, 2016 08:07 PM)
The 1997 version has a much more realistic tone and feel to it.
And that isa good thing?
Jesus Christ, reading some of the replies here. Why not go straight for a petite pr0n?
Pseudo-romantic garbage vs multi-layered experience. There is no comparison. -
chibada — 11 years ago(April 25, 2014 09:36 AM)
Thanks miser_cz for your post. Reading the previous ones, I was beginning to wonder whether I had seen the same movies and/or whether I live in the same world In a nutshell, I think the Kubrick's version is a masterpiece [10/10 in my ratings] (like most Kubrick's movies) it's intelligent, it's deep and it's subtle , whereas Lyne's version [3/10] is mediocre at best, even grotesque at times.
And by the way, I'm 43.