Scanialara You won't be disappointed!

Brendon Jones It’s fine. It's literally the definition of a fine movie. You’ve seen it before, you know every beat and outcome before the characters even do. Only question is how much escapism you’re looking for.

Derry Herrera Not sure how, but this is easily one of the best movies all summer. Multiple levels of funny, never takes itself seriously, super colorful, and creative.

Nayan Gough A great movie, one of the best of this year. There was a bit of confusion at one point in the plot, but nothing serious.

calvinnme After the production code ended and before political correctness started there was an era of almost complete cinematic freedom. This film is of that time. Glenda Jackson and Jennie Linden play Gudrun and Ursula, a pair of sisters in 1920s England with unconventional views on love. One day while rubbernecking at a wedding, the see the brother of the bride (Oliver Reed) and his best friend (Alan Bates) and after another meeting or two begin torrid relationships. The two couples fornicate their way through life, spouting philosophical nonsense, until another man shows up on a ski trip in Switzerland. I think the scene that summed it all up for me was when Gudrun and Ursula wandered off at a garden party. Ursula is singing, and a herd of cattle show up, frightening her. Gudrun confronts that cattle -- with interpretive dance. The cattle, suitably baffled, wander off, realizing that the film already has enough BS and doesn't need theirs.. Oh, and the couple that got married at the beginning drown themselves at the garden party to get out of this turkey. Jackson won an Oscar in a weak year for actresses. I can't blame her; she does the best she can with the leaden material. I give this one a 5/10 for cinematography and for the historical value of being what passed for sexual shock value in 1969.

SnoopyStyle Sisters Gudrun Brangwen (Glenda Jackson) and school teacher Ursula Brangwen (Jennie Linden) belong to the upper crust society of England's industrial Midlands during the 20's. Ursula falls for the philosophical Rupert Birkin (Alan Bates). Gudrun is taken with his best friend Gerald Crich (Oliver Reed) who ruthlessly runs his father's coal mine. This is high art erotic romanticism based on D. H. Lawrence's novel. There are some great work from director Ken Russell. I especially love the one cut from the post-coital Ursula-Rupert to the dead lovers. There is the homoerotic wrestling scene pushing the envelop. The performances of Glenda Jackson and Oliver Reed are superior. It does run a bit long which is not unusual among the films of that era. Overall, it is a superior work of high art erotica of the British upper class.

moonspinner55 Lunatic director Ken Russell and screenwriter Larry Kramer, adapting D. H. Lawrence's battle-of-the-sexes novel, give us two portraits of passion in "Women in Love", delineating how some desires can destroy lives while others come to be expected (usually by those who take love--or the romantic act of love--for granted). Glenda Jackson and Jennie Linden play close sisters in 1920s England who are curious about sex, though one may be searching for a semblance of true love while her sibling isn't so old-fashioned--she sees sex as a conquest. Russell isn't interested in character content as much as he is in creating a gorgeous-looking picture...and, indeed, this is a marvelous-looking piece of work. However, there isn't very much emotion in the narrative (not even under the surface), rendering the final tragic events cold, maybe even indifferent. The performances from the ladies are good, if not convincing; Jackson did win a Best Actress Oscar, but Alan Bates and Oliver Reed are more compelling as the men in their lives. The scenario is sexually-charged, but not with passion--the lust is always undercut with anger. The nudity and caressing images aren't even that erotic because the film is so aloof, with conflicts that aren't investigated and dialogue that doesn't reveal personality. **1/2 from ****

bandw This story takes place in England in the 1920s and follows two young sisters, Gudrun and Ursula, and their relationships with Gerald and Rupert, respectively. As might be expected from a Lawrence novel, sexuality plays a significant role, shading the complexity of the relationships. It's not just the two main relationships that take center stage, but the relationship between Gerald and Rupert adds a captivating dimension to the proceedings. No matter how satisfying the relationship with a woman, Rupert feels that a male friendship is necessary for fulfillment. It does not seem that what Rupert seeks is a homosexual relationship, but some relationship that goes "beyond love," as he says.The cast is uniformly good. Glenda Jackson makes a great Gudrun--a woman with an artistic temperament whose feral nature is hinted at throughout, and explodes toward the end. Oliver Reed is a good Gerald--masculine, with an underlying passion that must fail to be satisfied due to his inability to understand the emotional depths of a woman like Gudrun. Alan Bates breaths life into the sensitive, emotional Rupert who is continually searching for some ultimate Eden while having a love/hate relationship with death. I would have to guess that Rupert is a stand-in for Lawrence.The filming is lush with a surprising eye for period details.I came away from this less than optimistic about human relationships. The discrepancy between what the people are thinking and how they are behaving is exemplified, and their emotions are so volatile that they can move from one extreme to another in a split second. Lying at the heart of all the relationships is a battle of wills where expectations are not met. Class distinctions add to the discord--Gerald's being a wealthy businessman, whose main concern has been maximizing the bottom line, ill suits him for establishing intimate contact with the more artistically and philosophically inclined schoolteachers. I usually go to movies that have been adapted from famous novels with much trepidation, fearing that the novel will be butchered and people will be discouraged from reading the original source. However, the two movies I have seen based on D.H. Lawrence novels (this one and "Sons and Lovers") have been sincere attempts to capture the essence of the novels and have by and large succeeded. This movie encourages reading the novel.The movie follows the book pretty well; most of the dialog comes directly from the novel. Much of Rupert's mystical, philosophical musings have been omitted, which is not all that bad in my opinion. The fig scene was added, but it is in keeping with the spirit of the film; however, Loerke's jumping around near the end pretending that he is Tchaikovski is a bit of an odd addition. And Gerald's mother is portrayed as being totally off her nut in the movie, whereas in the book she was just bitter and uncaring.If you want to get into the weeds of trying to understand the exceedingly complicated emotions that this movie only touches on, read the book.