SpuffyWeb Sadly Over-hyped

SnoReptilePlenty Memorable, crazy movie

Mjeteconer Just perfect...

Infamousta brilliant actors, brilliant editing

David Traversa An excellent work of art in a long and expertly made movie. Being almost totally visual, I must admit I'm carried away by visually beautiful movies, and this one is tops. The English countryside, so green, the gardens of these upper class people, practically loaded with incredible flowers (whole paths protected by walls of flowers, a superb and exquisite view) the house, something out of this world, its furniture and very valuable paintings, Connie's period costumes (Constance Chaterly, the actress Joely Richardson), I think on one scene she is wearing an authentic white pleated silk Fortuny gown; the open top cars, impeccable antiques used in several scenes..., briefly, a feast for the eyes.Joely Richardson is a very pretty actress with a fantastic body and next to Sean Bean (another very sexy beauty) they make a perfect couple for the protagonists antics, which are several and most passionate (explosive?) showing us quite clearly the very difficult circumstances a socially mismatched couple could find in those 1920s, when this story is taking place, in the heart of England, a country populated by a lower class exploited to death by a handful of aristocrats (aristocrats according to the genealogical tree they fabricated for themselves, conveniently forgetting the dark and dubious origins they all came from just a few previous generations).It's almost painful to watch those scenes where these super rich talk openly about their inferiors (servants present) making any possible hurtful remark as if they weren't standing next to them, silently waiting to satisfy any requirement. I hope that the English people ended once and for all that kind of abysmal social differences because nowadays that seems barbarian and so terribly unjust. The visual contrast between those excessively manicured green gardens and the blackish, depressing mining town without any trace of greenery anyplace, is shown breathtakingly when Connie goes to the completely black environment of the mine, fully dressed in impeccably radiant white clothes.The music accompanying most scenes is quite annoying, very loud and repetitive, invading many times, quite disruptively, what is going on. Could it be that Ken Russell, the director, was very gifted with the visuals of a movie but didn't have a sound musical education?It must be remarked that Russell was very unique, very personal with the look and the choreography of his actors in his films, since in many scenes one realizes that only him could have made it that way, very much what we feel when watching an Almodovar film. And of course, this excessively odd personalities backfire sometimes, but when they hit the mark... the results are glorious.The story is fascinating although very dated, nowadays we have seen so many examples of royalty marrying their chauffeurs, gardeners, street sweepers, delivery boys, etc, that all that fuss seems completely out of date. But placing ourselves in those dark 1920s (at least dark for the poor), we are perfectly able to follow our protagonists and feel the pain and anguish they went through.The book by D. H. Lawrence is out of this world, a ravishing lecture, even after all these many years since he wrote it.A very-very enjoyable film.

andrewbanks It is interesting to compare this British television mini-series based on D.H. Lawrence's novel with the 2006 French film version. Both are quite faithful to the book, the main differences are that this version replaces the books indeterminate ending, which is retained in the French film, with a happy ending, and in the French version, Sir Clifford Chatterley is snobbish and condescending, whereas in this British version he is downright arrogant and nasty.The main plus points for this production are the performances of the leading players and the excellent production design. Joely Richardson is very good as Constance Chatterley and Sean Bean is excellent as Oliver Mellors, and James Merifield's production design is a great asset to this mini-series. Merifield is a very talented production designer. His other credits include the 2008 BBC1 'Sense and Sensibility', one of my favourite Jane Austen dramatisations.Ken Russell has also directed film versions of 'Women in Love' and 'The Rainbow', so he is clearly a great admirer of D.H. Lawrence. I think D.H. Lawrence was well served by this dramatisation of his most famous novel.

rchalloner I agree that this is a very good adaptation indeed of the novel and the closest in spirit to what Lawrence was writing about in my view. If there is one stereotype however, that Ken Russell (and Lawrence before him) perpetuates beyond reason, it is that a woman can only be sexually stimulated and fulfilled by penetration. It seems ludicrous even for that day and age (when the sexual hypocrisy of Victorian and Edwardian England was still in play), that a man so apparently sophisticated and sexually aware as Sir Clifford does not even consider cunnilingus or manual stimulation of his wife. Sex is therefore reduced to a raw gratification of mutual lust between Lady C and Mellors. Where is the beauty, the sensuality and the giving of true sexual love in all that?

Leon Terner Although this film wasn't thoroughly disappointing, I found it to be somewhat wanting. Before I begin, however, please observe that this mini isn't merely "based-" (a phrase often misused and given far greater emphasis than deserved) "-upon" one of D. H. Lawrence's versions of 'Lady Chatterley's Lover', but contains elements and references to - unless I'm mistaken - all three of them. This might account for the fact that the title of this miniseries has been slightly abbreviated and no longer fully resembles that of the one (version) most commonly known. Anyway, I feel I ought to warn lazy students out there thinking they might get away with just watching this instead of reading the novel - that by the way I find absolutely wonderful! So, about this series: The acting in many scenes seems 'made for TV' and the dialogue often appears less than natural. That is to say, the actors really wait for their counterparts to finish their lines before uttering their own, something which may be befitting for a stage play, but certainly not for a moving picture, unless adapted especially for senior citizens who'd rather take their time than experience something more or less normal.Also, Clifford's sudden outbursts and high-school-drama-club type acting gave me the impression he had suffered head trauma or perhaps an aneurysm in addition to his damaged lower half. Watch out especially for his embarrassingly poor and exaggeratedly theatrical (and "un-French") recital of Racine. Oh, and let's not forget Connie's ridiculous tango with her sister, or the ridiculous sister for that matter.However, I don't want to advise anyone to avoid this adaptation. Richardson and Bean do a good job and are a very convincing couple. The scenes depicting sexual congress, as well as the 'innocent' nude scenes, are few and tastefully arranged. Also, much of Bean's dialogue has been cut down to avoid contrasting too severely with what is essentially well-made (TV-)erotica.All in all, though not a masterpiece, this is a presentable homage to Lawrence.