frankiehudson At the beginning of the film, the point of view is from that of Clifford Chatterley (James Wilby), with lots of low camera angles showing how he sees other people. But, of course, he is hopelessly emasculated and useless to his wife, Lady Chatterley. He's also bitter, so nasty that he even tries to run over young poor boys in his Rolls Royce on his vast estate.Contains the usual Ken Russell weirdo stuff, like with Lady Chatterley on her symbolic black horse surrounded by loads of fit young men, in this case hopelessly camped up and a bit like an O Level Film Studies/English effort. Sometimes Russell gets it right – like in the excellent Whore – but this time he seems a bit desperate. It's got all of the clichéd stuff, like Connie (Richardson) walking through a different kind of setting according to what mood she's in – violents and loads of flowers for a good mood, frosty, autumn scenes for when she's depressed. The usual stuff.Sean Bean is adequate, really just playing himself, as usual. I prefer him in Essex Boys.If you want a film with loads of stuff on the British class system then this is the one for you. However, even the sex scenes are not much good and not really convincing

pdianek ** Spoilers**The other reviews have hit all the important high points. This is, indeed, a lovingly filmed story, with lots to reflect on in the difference that social class made -- just after WWI -- in England. (And still does; see Michael Apted's Up films: 7Up, 14Up, 21Up, and so on.) The acting is superb, the relations between characters believable (catch Mellors's mother criticizing him as she hangs his clean laundry to dry), and although the ending is not as the book's, it's much more satisfying.A reviewer below wonders why Mellors's face isn't shown during lovemaking. The whole point of the book, and the movie, is to show how this relationship, and her infidelity, is affecting Connie. It's not just that she's unfaithful -- she's unfaithful with a man `not our class, dear', which was a social sin greater than any dalliance. And as to their doing it `Greek' -- I perceive what's portrayed is simply rear-entry, like most mammals, what Lawrence referred to as `à l'italien'.It's fascinating to recognize that Sean Bean a few years after this series worked in Lord of the Rings -- because both Tolkien and Lawrence wrote, in very different ways, of the contrast between the natural world and the mechanical world. Wragby Hall, where the Chatterleys live (because his older brother was killed in WWI, Sir Clifford has inherited the title and the place, though he has been paralyzed -- but not, we're led to believe by Mrs. Bolton, who cares for him, quite so paralyzed as to make some kind of intercourse with Connie impossible...if only he would want it) -- Wragby Hall is beautiful, but stony and cold. Mellors's cottage is small, dark, intimate. When Connie visits him there for the first time, flowers he's picked wait for her on the table. The gorgeous woods, where most of the Connie/Mellors relationship lies, are green, leafy, full of life -- and the contrast to the mining town Mellors came from and returns to, black and grim, is cruel. At one point Sir Clifford, trying to break a miners' strike, threatens to go down into the mine -- presaging the flight down into Tolkien's vision of Saruman's pit, where weapons of war are crafted and birthed.Hilda, Connie's sister, totally disapproves of the illicit relationship and is taken aback when Mellors calls himself her brother-in-law. `Far from it, I assure you!' she retorts, scandalized. Yet Mellors means that he is married to Connie by nature -- and that is far more powerful than the dead, though legal, marriage of Clifford to Connie.The themes of care, and of flight, run through the films. Connie, seeing a nest, says she'd like to be a bird, perhaps to escape her husband, who is irritable and cold. Mellors, as gamekeeper, patrols for poachers, but also raises pheasants for Sir Clifford by taking most of their eggs and putting them under sitting hens. One of the first things he says to Connie, when he indicates a bench she can rest on, is, `You've not been well, I know'. Soon the eggs have hatched, and a tender scene has Mellors and Connie watching the tiny chicks -- which she describes as `so unafraid'. Not long after, Mellors is doing the same thing for Connie -- she runs, flies, to the woods to be under him, with whom she feels warm and safe. At the end she persuades Hilda to race to Southampton, hoping to catch Mellors in his own flight to Canada.Note about the music: It's so awfully florid, I wish Ken Russell would re-score the whole thing using public domain classical pieces. Other than that, though, this 2-DVD set is a fine piece of work, and was hugely popular in the UK when it first aired -- even referred to in `The Vicar of Dibley'. Ken Russell handled the story with great love as well as passion, and the thump you feel in the pit of your stomach may not be entirely due to the eroticism of this film.

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.