MovieChat Forums > punkrockgirl > Replies
punkrockgirl's Replies
It's a question that pops up in my mind on and off sometimes when I rewatch, but not super important. I was just curious as to what other people thought of it
Speak for yourself
Probably several lifetime TV movies and old period pieces
"The fool says in his heart, 'there is no God.' They are corrupt." Psalm 14:1
What I meant was that Nabokov's screenplay was almost entirely cut but he wrote the screenplay to be quite different from his own original source material, which I find strange.
Yeah, I think it's implied that she's around 14 in the film. I think Lolita is supposed to actually be skinny and pretty much the average body shape for her age. At least that's the way she's portrayed in other films. This version takes a lot of liberties due to the time it was made
I read that Kubrick largely didn't film most of what the author wrote but he is of course still credited. The weird thing is that his screenplay supposedly differed greatly from the novel, which makes one wonder how and why
Just because I haven't read it doesn't mean I've never researched or don't know anything. Case in point, Lolita is not meant to be painted as a villain by the author but rather in Humbert's point of view, he incorrectly views her that way
Yeah she didn't even pursue Billy when she thought she was pregnant. But she did flirt a lot
I haven't read the book, so if we're only talking about the movie version, then maybe I can see that. But that's definitely not the case in the book
Doesn't menopause usually start late 40s?
Yes
I never said he made the movie for me. And I never actually claimed to like/dislike the otp stuff, just that it's supposed to be that way and on good on a technical level, and people will either like or not like it
If it doesn't matter then why defend it so much? I didn't like that movie anyways. You do have a point in that whiteface was actually historically used to mock Irish people. I don't know why people weren't offended by white chicks. Maybe some people were, but I'm personally not. I guess it's because In American media black people have been mocked much more often, and perhaps the most in the past, not white people. There's also a huge difference in offensive content given context. This movie vs the old footage of Judy Garland are entirely different. Her scenario, poor thing, was meant to be mocking
Actually, I've followed his social media for a while now, and find that he's really weird. I don't think he's a bad person and I believe he's a Christian but I unfollowed him because he just posts too many strange conspiracy theories
I read reviews, ratings, I'm immersed in pop culture media. I know a lot of people haven't considered the Oscars relevant for decades.
My proof is from the source material. It's gothic, and gothic literature is often melodramatic
You seriously base quality on Oscars? The Oscars have made a lot of mistakes in their decisions. Saying you think something is bad implies you don't like it. Whether or not I like it is irrelevant, my point is that's how the novel is written so it's acted that way. If the screenplay matches the source material loyally, you can't say that it isn't well made. You're assuming the way the story should've been done for a movie you didn't make. The style of filmmaking for the time is another thing to consider. I don't have a problem with your differing opinion, but rather your reasoning behind it. All your reasons are minor and nitpicky. Why do you automatically believe melodramatic acting is bad? Are you saying you don't believe it was intentional?
I never said if I liked it or not. Whether or not I like it is irrelevant if it's generally considered good on a technical scale
Have you ever watched interviews? TV interviewers ask the worst questions just to get a reaction and views, it's very true to life
I must've missed Sanders acting camp. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it's bad
Not caring about what the director wants for his own film doesn't seem logical