Unironically. Instant favourite. All the acting felt so real, Humbert's dissent into paranoia felt so real. His wife's love for him and how sad she was felt so real. Maybe I'm paranoid too but I felt such a connection with Humbert as Lolita cheated on him again and again. It's not really a film about pedophilia, it's a film about paranoia. How that guy who says he's at an officer's convention is actually trying to take your lover away from you, how the school psychologist is trying to take your lover from you, how the car that trails you is trying to take your lover from you, and it's all true for Humbert. It also struck a chord with me when it turned out Lolita didn't really love him to begin with. That's one of my fears, that someone might pretend to love me but actually doesn't really care.
Ok why the FUCK didn't you tell me how good this was?
we just like lolis
you're right, this board doesn't talk about wanting to have sex with underaged girls nearly enough
Read the book. It's kino.
reminder
90s version>kubricks meme trash
90's movie>book>this
on second thought:
90's movie>audiobook>book>this
The book is so superior to the adaptations that it's laughable to even suggest otherwise. And I think the adaptations are very good.
>dissent into paranoia
>dissent
This movie pretty popular in East asia as well. Although I can't understand why
it's a fine comedy
is it? mid-twenties whore as lolita is an instant turn off for me
the nineties movie is absolute trash and so far off the mark it's ridiculous. one of the worst films of all time
has the audio book a cute young female voice?
chick's hot, tho
no, it has something even better
I heard Nabokov wrote the screenplay and hated it.
as a non native speaker, should i read the book?
i can understand a technical manual in english just fine, but i can't get english poetry as i do in my language
>I heard Nabokov wrote the screenplay
he did, but it was too nabokov in every sense of the word and the shooting script was subsequently trimmed down to something more hollywood friendly
>and hated it.
that he did not; in fact his opinion was that kubrick did a great job with what the studio allowed him and the movie turned out just fine
i'd really like to know what nabokov thought of the 1969 laughter in the dark adaptation, directed by tony richardson and starring nicol williamson and anna karina. it has been completely forgotten over the years, perhaps rightly so
Read it anyway. There are some words you won't understand, but you can still enjoy the book. I imagine Lolita is a good book to read if you want to get better at English.
Nabokov himself was not a native English speaker, but he was fluent in it. You don't have to have a poetic sense to understand this text, just an openness to read it with curiosity and fascination. It is a compelling tale of a situation almost none of us could ever think to be in.
yes go order it right now or get it from your library
don't worry about the language. nabokov writes with near-unparalleled virtuosity but it's never inhibiting; on the contrary it's very very readable (it is, after all, one of the most popular books of the 20th century, and up there amongst the most enduring novels of all time). also, if you like it there's lots of clues to be discovered on rereads, and beyond that – in which the annotated edition will come in handy, if you really wanna go digging – the overall structure of the book, which is just astonishing
dude was a master