The use of double entendre, sly visual, and performance is a testament to the language of the novel. Is it an exact copy of Nabokov’s book, no. Adrinne Lyne’s version was and it is vastly inferior to Kubrick. Kubrick’s version captures the spirit of the novel in it’s views of lust, desperation, and the alien like landscape of the U.S.
Plus Peter Sellars is amazing as Quilty. “How about we settle this with a game of Roman ping pong like a couple of civilized senators”
I think its Kubrick’s best movie. Certainly one of the best book-to-film translations ever, with perfectly cast actors who understand the original text well enough to improvise within Nabokov’s fairly strict blueprint.
It’s also structured like the book, beginning with joyfully jaw-dropping black-humor and ending in the most heartbreaking scenes imaginable, in particular Mason’s extraordinary breakdown in the hospital.
It’s this final, tragic section that begins with that devestating “I hate you.”
The bookend sequences of this movie always bothered me. Why did we need to see the ending at the get-go? What does it add? At the beginning it seems like one thing and then at the end…it seems like the exact same thing.
I just watched this a month ago after finishing the book. I don’t really know how I felt about it. I liked the humor but at the same time didn’t really think it captured the book very well at all. Sellers, in particular, seemed at odds with his portrayal in the book especially considering Quilty is actually only in about 10 pages of it), though part of that was the Dr. Strangelove-ian multiple roles thing.
The tagline “how did they ever make a movie of Lolita?” is referring to the sex, of course (and though I understand why it was done, Sue & Dominique in the later version are too old and really probably too conventionally pretty to capture the book), but it fits just as well in terms of translating a novel told in extremely subjective first person. Hearing the story in HH’s words is sort of the essential point of Lolita, particularly in the second half, as he loses focus in his writing even as his mental state declines as he relives his tragedy.
Great book. The movie was watchable. And yeah, the ending was the best part.
Ironically, I hate this movie.
Kubrick’s worst, and an insult to the source material.
Ironically, I love this movie.
And the source material.
The use of double entendre, sly visual, and performance is a testament to the language of the novel. Is it an exact copy of Nabokov’s book, no. Adrinne Lyne’s version was and it is vastly inferior to Kubrick. Kubrick’s version captures the spirit of the novel in it’s views of lust, desperation, and the alien like landscape of the U.S.
Plus Peter Sellars is amazing as Quilty. “How about we settle this with a game of Roman ping pong like a couple of civilized senators”
I think its Kubrick’s best movie. Certainly one of the best book-to-film translations ever, with perfectly cast actors who understand the original text well enough to improvise within Nabokov’s fairly strict blueprint.
It’s also structured like the book, beginning with joyfully jaw-dropping black-humor and ending in the most heartbreaking scenes imaginable, in particular Mason’s extraordinary breakdown in the hospital.
It’s this final, tragic section that begins with that devestating “I hate you.”
Where’s the blu ray?
The bookend sequences of this movie always bothered me. Why did we need to see the ending at the get-go? What does it add? At the beginning it seems like one thing and then at the end…it seems like the exact same thing.
Anyone have any insight into this?
I just watched this a month ago after finishing the book. I don’t really know how I felt about it. I liked the humor but at the same time didn’t really think it captured the book very well at all. Sellers, in particular, seemed at odds with his portrayal in the book especially considering Quilty is actually only in about 10 pages of it), though part of that was the Dr. Strangelove-ian multiple roles thing.
The tagline “how did they ever make a movie of Lolita?” is referring to the sex, of course (and though I understand why it was done, Sue & Dominique in the later version are too old and really probably too conventionally pretty to capture the book), but it fits just as well in terms of translating a novel told in extremely subjective first person. Hearing the story in HH’s words is sort of the essential point of Lolita, particularly in the second half, as he loses focus in his writing even as his mental state declines as he relives his tragedy.
Great book. The movie was watchable. And yeah, the ending was the best part.
I forgot to add that Lyon’s performance is really impressive at times, particularly in this scene.
Kubrick’s best movie? Gracious. Well, different strokes.
I certainly enjoy it more than Eyes Wide Shut. And I had a crush on Sue Lyon when I watched it in college.
really great share! thanks a lot
affiliate review
free pc games download
tory burch handbags christian louboutin store juicy couture outlet online