Hellen I like the storyline of this show,it attract me so much

Jeanskynebu the audience applauded

AniInterview Sorry, this movie sucks

Cleveronix A different way of telling a story

Peter Hayes Those who write scripts based on "classic novels" often complain that huge amounts of the text/scenes has to be junked in order to make it fit within the standard two hour movie window. This, I suppose, is why a television series can often be more satisfactory. Think Brideshead Revisited. However with D.H. Lawrence there is so many idle, superfluous and repeating scenes that a major trim usually does his work a power of good. No more so than here, where a pretty draggy and average novel is turned into a really excellent film, mainly thanks to the quality of the acting.The introduction gives way to the belief that this is will be a standard boy-meets-girl-behind-the-slag-heap soap opera, but we quickly enter the world of madness, ambiguity (sexual and otherwise) and passion. This is cinema aimed at adults and makes no compromises to popcorn fashion. Only Ursula Brangwen (Jennie Linden) seems truly satisfied by the conventional male-female relationship.In most reviews this is the point where we talk about the naked wrestling scene and Glenda Jackson's Oscar. While both are noteworthy, Jackson (playing Ursula's sister Gudrun) seems simply a selfish thrill-seeker who many actresses could play. In many ways the late Oliver Reed (Gerald Critch) is more outstanding in appearing, in turns, both intimidating and tender. A far better actor than many give him credit for, this may be his best ever role.The equally late Alan Bates (Rupert Birkin) has slightly the easier role. Someone with wants to explore the boundaries of love, probably beyond the pale of heterosexuality. Quite how and why are not spelled out and the audience can read him in many ways. A bored thrill seeker or a pioneer to world without standard sexual and emotional boundaries? Whatever the case, clearly a man living before his natural time.Director Ken Russell does very well here. While getting bit overheated at times, he keeps the show on the road and moving forwards towards its sad and unsatisfactory (for the characters) ending.

fung0 DH Lawrence's novel Women in Love is possibly the most sensual work of literature ever. It drips with color. And gushes with often unsettling emotion.Ken Russell was born to film this book. His adaptation condenses a lot, as it must. But it captures the sensory, hallucinatory feeling of the book, in a way that I think will never be surpassed.The casting is equally fortuitous. Glenda Jackson and Oliver Reed are the perfect match, the perfect flamboyant stars to play Gerald Crich and Gudrun Brangwen: two people whose passion can only annihilate itself. The ostensible leads, Alan Bates and Jennie Linden, take a back seat, but are equally appropriate to their roles: the man who must understand, and the woman who is content to simply be part of the process of life. (A most unfair summary, of course.)Like the novel, the film isn't entirely pleasant. Both expose too many things we'd rather not dwell upon. But both are masterpieces in their respective media. They'll take you places, emotionally, that you've either never been aware of, or have been vaguely trying to avoid. It's a worthwhile journey, but you will not be the same afterward.

MrOllie I do not usually like Ken Russell films but this one is excellent.There are many good scenes but the one I always recall is when Gerald Crich (Oliver Reed)is stood in the graveyard just after his father's funeral and digs his hand into the soil squeezing the earth into his fist and then making his way to see Gudrun (Glenda Jackson). This part of the film creates an eerily strange atmosphere helped by an excellent soundtrack. I was very impressed with all the actors but particularly by Oliver Reed who in the early part of the film is very Oliver Reed like, but later becomes a very vulnerable character. Well done Ken Russell you made a great picture to be proud of.

T Y Remember when films were complicated and littered with extra moments that you had to figure out why they were included? Half the meaning in movies comes from these scenes which are now omitted due to expediency. Women in Love is that kind of old-school movie that has about ten ambiguous scenes in either hour.Having met a very charming man recently, in a part of the country known for it's manners, I could finally glimpse the old idea: that the getting of a woman forces men to adopt 'culture,' grow and receive some finish. The man in question is never at a loss for words and extremely pleasant to be around. It's clear that the gaining of a woman (or perhaps just very directed self-actualization) has brought him into the condition he finds himself.Having been rather hard on women of late (after years of naively thinking women were saintly and blameless in the big picture) it was interesting to watch this movie, in which women, tired of social restraints, cast them off with no clear destination; which immediately provides new dangers traps and dilemmas; Jackson is an undesirable shrew!If men could talk to each other like Oliver Reed and Allan Bates, the confusion that society creates as men search for a woman to put out (both before and after he finds her), would be reduced. Oh well, dream on. I had no idea that Larry Kramer had been involved in films or could provide such intelligent commentary.