Karry Best movie of this year hands down!

Clevercell Very disappointing...

Smartorhypo Highly Overrated But Still Good

Humaira Grant It’s not bad or unwatchable but despite the amplitude of the spectacle, the end result is underwhelming.

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.

ReluctantFan Many passages felt too slow-paced especially in the 1st and 2nd episode. On the other hand, I found Connie, Hilda and most of the other cast lived up to the characters I had imagined as a reader. Many lines of Mellors and Connie were taken straight from the book which was good. The pheasant chick scene was well portrayed. The sex scenes were not as gratuitous as happens so often on screen. In this case they are part of the story and were tastefully done on the whole. Contrary to some of the above comments, I think the series went quite far enough so far as sexual explicitness was concerned. What is acceptable in literature can easily become voyeurism when depicted on screen. Sean Bean is a favourite actor of mine but I was disappointed with his impersonation of Mellors. I recall Mellors as a very proud man looking down at Sir Clifford in spite of his subservient position and I'm not sure Bean expressed this sufficiently. For instance he was good in his confrontation scenes with Connie or Hilda but played Mellors as too humble almost downtrodden before Sir Clifford and Mrs Bolton. Also in the book Mellors switches from dialect to standard English and back according to the situation and I felt this was not so much in evidence in the series.My main disappointment however is the new glossy happy ending which is far too easy and banal. It seems at odds with the questions raised by the novel notably about the feasibility of relationships between social classes.

alicecbr Yes, this is a fascinating movie. But it raises questions of yesterday's class differences, and today's male prudery. Here's the question: as they have it all ways, including Greek, why does Ms. Richardson have to portray her everything over and over, but M'sieu Bean, that hunk, is carefully covered so his 'dangly bits' don't show. Read the biography and you'll see how hard they had to work to make sure he DIDN'T portray full male nudery. How come, I ask? Is it because male directors are so afraid of their size problems, that they don't dare breech that frontier? If one shows, then the others will have to. And please!!! I'm not promiscuous or a nympho, but Richardson was obviously contemplating a dental appointment in the 'throes of her passion'. And Bean was obviously pushing a sack of potatoes up a hill. Why won't those directors make some shots from behind the woman's viewpoint, and let us see the male faces during intercourse? That is not obscene, and when there is both love and lust, there IS a difference as most human beings know. OK, and why aren't we shown the most telling and lasting scene from the book: where Connie wreathes Mellor's willy in flowers. I read this as a teen=ager and I still remember that mental image 40 years later. So why not, Mr. Russell? You're so 'outrageous', yeah. Not so. The gorgeous ENglish country house, oh, it's to swoon over with all the paintings. Yes, Russell can indeed photograph beautifully England. The lines about the colliers and the serving class right in front of them, and the photo switch to the maids' tight faces was genius, pure genius. Even if the paralyzed husband was a wee bit cartoonery in his outrageous insensitivity. D.E. Lawrence is known as a misogynist and this ditzy Connie was no exception. She was so flighty it's amazing and I'm wondering what Canada would have done to the REAL spoiled darling, beset with the turmoil and strains of pregnancy and a primitive culture. Of course, we have a class conscious culture here in the U.S., but I don't think it's quite as ludicrous as the English was. (I know Northern English salesmen with their wierd accents who are so cute. And the line where the sister asks Mellors to speak English 'properly' without the dialect is precious. can it be from the movie? So, OK, Sean. Now let's give them a movie where love-making is really shown as love on the face. Not as simply an animal maneuver.

merynefret One might expect that a film (or telly production) based on any book with the word "lover" in the title would have a lot of - er - "human relations exploration". This one does, certainly, but the love scenes are done tastefully and don't come off as pornographic in the least.The well-crafted script draws upon the obvious "Lady Chatterley's Lover" but also incorporates material from two of Lawrence's lesser-known works. I found the drama unfolding on the screen interesting to watch, especially in the capable hands of Sean Bean and Joely Richardson.I gave the film an eight because it does have rather a lot of sex in it, including a few brief shots of full frontal nudity (though this particular part has nothing to do with sex), as well as some coarse language. Those familiar with Lawrence's masterpiece, though, should find it interesting, and it may even prove useful as an introduction to the book (as well as a basic human-anatomy course). ---Arwen Elizabeth KnightleyP.S. Not recommended for viewers under the age of sixteen.