How true to the novel is the 1997 movie "Lolita"?

The first screen adaptation of Lolita (1962) was written by Nabokov and directed by Stanley Kubrick.

The screenplay for the 1997 version, more faithful to the text of the novel than the author's adaptation, is credited to Stephen Schiff, a writer for the New Yorker, Vanity Fair, and other magazines. He was hired to write it as his first movie script, after the film's producers had rejected screenplays commissioned from more experienced screenwriters and directors James Dearden (Fatal Attraction), Harold Pinter, and David Mamet.

According to Schiff, "Right from the beginning, it was clear to all of us that this movie was not a 'remake' of Kubrick's film. Rather, we were out to make a new adaptation of a very great novel." Schiff stated that "Some of the filmmakers involved actually looked upon the Kubrick version as a kind of 'what not to do'" and quipped that Kubrick's film should have been called Quilty, due to the prominent role of that character.............................................................

.....................................

.......................

.............

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lolita_(1997_film)

A book that's "good" enough to be made into a movie is popular and well-known. I don't think they would make a movie on a book that isn't New York Times Bestseller. They could be classics like Jane Eyre or just fads like Twilight. Either way, they very rarely make good adaptations of the novels. When you write a novel, it's written in blood, sweat and tears. With writing you create, with filming you're just changing the story to a different media. I'm sure it's hard work, but it's just not the same as writing a novel. Then again it's all pretty subjective. I mean, Pan's Labyrinth was awesome and that has blood, sweat and tears written all over it.