Both versions bring out different aspects of the novel that the other film doesn't. The Kubric version tried to deal with the comedy aspect along with the puns for which the novel is famous while Lyne dwelt more with the tragedy of the story.
My personal preference is for Lyne's version as I think it stuck closer to the novel but both versions have merit and there are some things in the Kubric version I like better than in Lyne's.
I don't think I could say one is better then the other, they are different, reflecting the different times they were film in, and the way the different actors work. I'd say the 1997 version is done almost completely seriously, while the 1962 version, maybe because Sellers is in it, is done with some comedy, albeit mostly dark comedy.
If you saw one version and thought it worthwhile, then seeing the other would be worthwhile too. But reading the book also adds to both of them, to better understand all the motivations at work here.
TxMike
Make a choice, to take a chance, to make a difference.
I wanted to read the book first but I couldn´t. Anyways thanks :)
shareThe book is extremely boring. It was a waste of time. I like the James Mason version better than this new one.
share[deleted]
I doubt it. I gave it a try and read 100 pages, but still was not compelled. I'm just stating my opinion. You are entitled to your opinion.
share"Lolita" is one of the most brilliant novels ever written in English, an extraordinary accomplishment considering Russian was Nabokov's first language. Boring? Waste of time? Go back to your Harlequin collection.
shareto anyone whos read the book, is there anything both films leave out or get wrong?
shareYes, 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.
shareoh, 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
shareYou 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.
shareYou really should read the book!
a picture tells a thousand words - every movie a fraction of life.
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.
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/
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.
"didn't hold back with the sex scenes"
We don't need to actually watch them having sex in order to know that they did. In fact, it's pointless. The older movies were more sophisticated about it, but they could be because the audience was more sophisticated.
I like the dramatic side of this version better. It feels more realistic too.
shareFirst off, Nabokov himself has written the screenplay for the original Kubrick´s version, thus that version is the closest adaptation of the novel there ever will be.
That´s 1:0 for Kubrick´s version.
Morricone´s 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. It´s 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) - that´s how history is written.
2:0 for Kubrick´s.
Lyne´s 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 Kubrick´s.
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.
I'm over 40 and completely unimpressed by your comparison. You got owned by a 21 year old in another thread when you posted your drivel.
The 1997 version has a much more realistic tone and feel to it.
The 1997 version has a much more realistic tone and feel to it.
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. :-)
The real test is time. Now (2023) it's been twenty-six years since the second movie version of "Lolita". It wasn't bad, it had its merits, but it is forgotten, while the 1962 Kubrick version is still remembered as a classic.
share[deleted]