Comments | film_stills: Lolita (1962) Stanley Kubrick

ciervo in film_stills

Lolita (1962) Stanley Kubrick

Jan 07, 2007 21:41

( Read more... )

title l, 1962, director k

Comments 18

ectypes January 7 2007, 20:59:57 UTC

just beautiful, especially the ones around the middle.
and the one with the man in the tub.

chicletmachine January 7 2007, 21:38:19 UTC

what is this movie about?

stripling January 7 2007, 21:42:37 UTC

Um, the classic novel Lolita by Vladimir Nabokov... you may have heard of it?

http://www.amazon.com/Everymans-Library-Classics-Vladimir-Nabokov/dp/185715133X/sr=8-1/qid=1168206121/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/102-4474044-2454508?ie=UTF8&s=books

;)

chicletmachine January 7 2007, 23:42:41 UTC

thanks,
yeah I have definitely HEARD of it, but never read it nor watched it, etc.
it is referenced in a lot of things and I always wondered.

whatzeshit January 8 2007, 04:32:03 UTC

great book, definitely worth reading.

(The comment has been removed)

blackmoth January 7 2007, 21:55:00 UTC

There was another version in 97

kisstheass January 7 2007, 22:06:33 UTC

although Kubrick's is obviously genius, as is all his work, I like the 1997 version of Lolita better!

hahawhat January 7 2007, 22:07:56 UTC

Worst.

Thread 7

bassfingers January 7 2007, 23:07:58 UTC

Community rule 2a: Do not post pictures with watermarks.

Somehow I don't really think Kubrick would have liked seeing his imagry with TCM stamped all over it.

moscowdisco January 8 2007, 00:16:54 UTC

i was going to post: so tiny! so watermarked! this film deserves those things to be amended.

demedulce January 8 2007, 00:23:17 UTC

Does anyone ever moderate the posts and delete ones that break the rules? Because I've seen a whole lot of really small stills and watermarked images.

(The comment has been removed)

don't understand napoleon_wilson January 10 2007, 01:02:14 UTC

i'm not sure what the difference is? i don't think irons was ever considered the leading man james mason was in his time. i think its a mistake trying to be too 'faithful' to source material. you have to take what the essence of it is and form something new - as it is, after all, a completely different medium. filmmaker's get too caught up in trying to "explain" everything. kubrick's version is amazing for how deftly it manuevres the barriers of the time and richly works in subtlety. plus the cast is unbelievable! sellers alone delivers an unparalleled tour de force (well, maybe paralleled by his work in 'strangelove')! i just don't understand the need to see every little detail in a book explained on screen when so much more can be done with the moving picture.