Lolita 1962 vs Lolita 1997

A slideshow which shows the differences between the Lolita of Kubrick and the Lolita of Lyne
( I do not own any of these pictures, it is purely a fanvid. no copyright infringement intended)

Category:

Entertainment

Tags:

• lolita
• kubrick
• lyne
• irons
• jeremy
• james
• mason
• sue
• lyon
• dominique
• swain

[Lililo78]

Hi! I had to change the music : copyright infrengement (grrrr).

[Unsub45]

ya know i've seen the films but i've never read the book , for some reason i cant find it

[Lililo78]

The book is very good. It's a masterpiece. If you liked the movie, you'll like the book. Thanks for watching and for your comment.

[putabananainurear]

anyone know where i can find this song?

i can't find it on limewire

[Lililo78]

I can send you the song by email if you want! Give me your email ;)

[funfriend72]

in both movies she was 14. in the book, wasn't she like 12?

[Lililo78]

Yes, she was 12 in the beggining of their relationship. But i think They stayed 2years together.

[JenjaRose909]

Both films are conservative when compared to the book, in a way. After all, she isn't even a teenager in the book; she's only 12. In the movies, she's 14.

[begbie1986]

wanderful, i love lolita 1997,jeremy irons and dominique swain beautiful

[80s24x7]

"Lolita" in the movie "Broken Flowers (2005)" is perfect

Sharon Stone is "mom"

[Daphuhnuh]

I have recently seen the newer version of this, and Lolita is so different in both versions. In the other version she still looks like a kid, here she really is a young woman already. I wonder why they changed her like that in the newer version. Is this 1962 one better?

[TheEvilDucklings]

I haven't seen the old version of the movie, but I did see the 1997 one and I've read the book and I find the actress that portrays Lolita in de old version a bit too old to play the nymphet

[beelzibubbles]

I like different aspects of both films. In the first you can sort of see what attracts Humbert to Lolita, even though she is manipulative and selfish she has a certain seductive charm. Whereas in the second she comes across as an annoying brat and I suppose she's a mixture of the two. The second film, however, does show more of the carnal side of their relationship and Lolita's use of sex to get what she wants. But they are both excellent films in my opinion.

[AchrenDuaite]

I much prefer the 1997 version. 1962 was too early to do the novel justice, despite Nabokov's pen on the screenplay.

[CaptainHollyShort]

I haven't seen either, but just from the slideshow I lean towards the 1997 version. She looks younger, which is really more like a lolita. The 1960's version's girl is way too old looking for a lolita, and barely a jailbait, if not almost a woman. It kind of defeats the purpose of the film.

[CaptainHollyShort]

I honestly guessed people were less conservative back then and more open, compared to today's society where we try to sexualize people as much as possible and then bitch about it if we see even a little nudity on TV. I thought people were less stupid back then.