Lolita 1962?

[fgadmin]

whoiamnow — 12 years ago(August 18, 2013 09:03 AM)

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.

[fgadmin]

zatoeechii — 10 years ago(February 05, 2016 08:07 PM)

The 1997 version has a much more realistic tone and feel to it.
And that isa good thing?
Jesus Christ, reading some of the replies here. Why not go straight for a petite pr0n?
Pseudo-romantic garbage vs multi-layered experience. There is no comparison.

[fgadmin]

chibada — 11 years ago(April 25, 2014 09:36 AM)

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.

[fgadmin]

j1stoner — 11 years ago(June 28, 2014 03:28 PM)

Thank you. Only a fooland an arrogant one at thatwould try to remake a Kubrick masterpiece, and this one got what he deserveda flop.

[fgadmin]

MadamaButterfly91 — 11 years ago(July 17, 2014 03:16 PM)

Thank you. Only a fooland an arrogant one at thatwould try to remake a Kubrick masterpiece, and this one got what he deserveda flop.

[fgadmin]

IMDb User

This message has been deleted.