User reviews

Having read the book in high school, I thought I knew pretty much what I was in for, especially with Ken Russell at the helm. Joely Richardson is a pretty thing, and manages some sympathy for Connie - who just wants to be a decent human being. I was too often aware I was watching her Act, especially when naked. It couldn't have been easy. James Wilby had pretty much perfected the upper class twit, though the vitriolic nastiness he brings to Chatterley is probably the acme of his career. Special mention should be made of Shirley Anne Field's performance as Mrs. Bolton - the nurse who understands Everything - and conveys so much to us without a word. It's a truly marvelous performance.

But the movie belongs to Sean Bean, who gets his teeth in and doesn't let go. Nobody does bitter passion like Bean. He's less affecting in the love scenes than when he's simply trying to defend himself - His lady has no idea what a spectacular risk he's taking. Imagine the conflict is not class but race, and you'll get an idea. "Tar and feathers" was not a joke. The class divisions are laid out, but there's nothing like the sight of him shoveling coal to bring it home. And it's either break his back or starve. On top of all that, he found himself genuinely in love, which was still more frightening. Bean gives it all to us...His fears, his courage, his joys and his humiliations...no actor could be more naked than that.

There's a reason the book was called "Lady Chatterley's Lover." Lady Chatterley had Lawrence's sympathy, but the lover was his hero. Shifting the emphasis to her doesn't quite work. It would be more damaging if Bean wasn't so forceful.

I didn't expect to be so moved by this film. They even got the flower scene right. Lawrence's Mellors was a bit of a bully, too, and that left poor Connie choosing between jerks. Russell gives Connie -- and us -- a much better choice. And I was pleased with the altered ending. Lawrence's vision was awfully bleak, and had no room for Connie to grow up. It makes all the difference.

The French version is yet to be seen by me but it does look as though it will be even better than this BBC adaptation. This adaptation of the controversial Lady Chatterley's Lover is very good if not entirely flawless, and it is far superior to the Nicholas Clay film from 1981, much more involving and this actually has a lead actress who can act and it doesn't take the sexual nature of the book to extremes. The music here is inconsistent, sometimes it is very beautiful and lyrical but at other times and actually too often it is too loud and with too much repetition, it could have been toned down more especially in the love scenes. The ending doesn't work either, far too convenient and open-and-shut, also played like a farce which juxtaposes too much with the gentle restrained feel that much of the rest of the adaptation had. Wasn't entirely sure about Ken Russell writing himself in as the father(it's certainly better than when he did it for Salome's Last Dance though), the character does come across as too much of a caricature and Russell's performance to some extent is the kind that seems out of kilter with everything else. The best asset though of Lady Chatterley is the visuals, which are truly spellbinding. The period detail is very colourful and evocative, the settings especially the gorgeous(inside and out, particularly inside) house make you wish you were there and the photography is fluid and not TV-bound at all. The dialogue is emotionally impactful and intelligently written, that it is true to D.H. Lawrence's writing is a plus too(same thing with Women in Love around 25 years previously). The story is gentle yet sexy and compelling, the love scenes are done surprisingly tastefully considering Russell's tendency to use of excess, of everything Russell's done actually Lady Chatterley is one of his most restrained and cohesive. The characters are not easy to care for- not the adaptation's fault, in a way it's the same in the book too- and are not the most well-developed but chemistry between them is convincing and they don't frustrate you. Russell directs with respect and with room to breathe and not to make things too overblown. The acting is very good, Joely Richardson is sensual and sympathetic in the title role and Sean Bean is a handsome and forthright Mellors. James Wilby is loathsome personified which is exactly what Sir Clifford should be like. You may argue that it was caricature-like at times, it wasn't that apparent to me and Sir Clifford is one of those characters where it is difficult to not overdo things because of the type of character he is, of all the Lady Chatterley's character the most dangerous to pull off is Sir Clifford for this reason. Shirley Anne Field is very telling as Mrs Bolton, a lot of the time in a refreshingly subtle way like in the body language alone. Overall, a very good adaptation of a good if understandably controversial book. 7.5/10 Bethany Cox

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 Knightley

P.S. Not recommended for viewers under the age of sixteen.

Lady Chatterley, whose husband was paralyzed in a war, is faced with the prospect of living the rest of life completely unfulfilled sexually, emotionally and maternally. She then meets Mellors, the family gameskeeper, with whom she begins an affair. D.H. Lawrence's novels, from which the movie was adapted, addressed some very touchy subjects of the 1920's English culture: sexuality and the dichotomy of the social classes. The movie, filmed for TV in four segments, does an excellent job of portraying the lives of Lawrence's characters and the lifestyles and fashion of that era. While the movie seems to get somewhat slow in places, the story would somehow be less complete without them. Part of the controversy surrounding Lawrence's was the great detail with which he described the sexual encounters between Lady Chatterley and Mellors. The books, though banned for many years in England, were nevertheless quite popular and became an instrument of social change. Many movies that attempt to depict sexual intimacy somehow fail to capture the atmosphere or feeling of the moment quite as well as director Ken Russell did in this movie. The scenes were quite convincing and should be required viewing for anyone who wishes to avoid movies where the sex scenes were added solely for the sake of the box office. The actors Joely Richardson and Sean Bean did a superb job at presenting to the audience the sexual intimacy and how they were affected by the social ramifications of their relationship. Despite the rather long playing time of the movie, they manage to maintain the quality of their roles as people in a complex social predicament. While the movie contains some nudity, it is important to note that the only scene that depicts full-frontal nudity is one that is void of any sexuality; the couple, overwhelmed at having found true joy in their lives, run and frolic naked through the woods. A good lesson for future moviemakers and censors: nudity in movies need not - nor should it always be - associated with sex. The bottom line: Lady Chatterley is a good quality love story that includes all the social politics, the old-world class distictinctions, and the many other elements that make up the relationship of the couple involved. If you liked the books, you will most likely enjoy this movie as well.

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?

As my mother used to say, "The man can read the phone book and I would be satisfied." A truly masterful performance for all involved. I did not even know this existed until recently and I sat to watch it in one sitting. Joely Richardson and Bean exuded the passion which was present, even more than in the books. And I loved Shirley Anne Field's Mrs. Bolton. It appeared as though she truly wanted Connie's happiness, or perhaps she just wished to have the master under her thumb, but either way, it was a stellar performance.

And Sean Bean...Oh, my. I have followed his career since seeing the Sharpe's episodes and in everything he is in, he takes the part and makes it his own. A simply wonderful effort and a beautifully touching love story.

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.

Most British people know two things about "Lady Chatterley's Lover". The first is that it concerns an adulterous affair between a titled lady and her husband's gamekeeper. I don't really need to say much more about the plot except that the three protagonists are the aristocratic Sir Clifford Chatterley who has been confined to a wheelchair after being wounded during the Great War, his attractive young wife Constance and the gamekeeper Oliver Mellors. Mellors is himself estranged, but not legally divorced, from his own wife Bertha.

The second thing most people know about the novel is that it was once banned for obscenity in the United Kingdom. The ban lasted from 1928 until 1960, when Penguin Books attempted to publish it after the passing the Obscene Publications Act 1959, which was significantly more liberal than the law it replaced. The comparative liberalism of the new law did not prevent the authorities from attempting to prosecute Penguin, but the company was acquitted following a sensational trial and the ban was lifted. (Under the pre-1959 law the prosecution would probably have succeeded). The book was also banned in several other countries, including the United States, Canada and Australia. Oddly enough, it had been first published privately in 1928 in Italy, making it a rare example of a novel which could be read under Mussolini's Fascist dictatorship but not in the English-speaking democracies.

I have often suspected (and I am not alone in this) that censorship of the book, at least in Britain, had as much to do with political considerations as with moral ones. Had Constance taken as her lover another aristocrat the book might have been less controversial, but in the twenties the theme of adultery across the class divide was not to the liking of the Establishment. This attitude had not entirely changed by the fifties; the most-quoted line from the Penguin case came when Counsel for the prosecution asked the jury whether this was "a book you would wish your wife or servants to read".

Despite the lifting of the ban, "Lady Chatterley's Lover" was still, in the minds of many people, a "dirty book" rather than a literary classic. It was, for example, banned from my school library in the seventies. Film-makers in the English-speaking world avoided it, although there were two French films based on it (the first as early as 1955), and, rather surprisingly, the first English-language adaptation of the book in any medium was this one from 1993. I say "surprisingly" because at one time the BBC's literary adaptations, traditionally shown at Sunday tea-time, were noted for decorum and restraint and contributed to the Corporation's well-mannered "Auntie Beeb" image.

By the nineties, however, the winds of change were beginning to blow even through Broadcasting House. To make its version of one of the century's most notorious novels, the BBC turned to one of Britain's most notorious directors, Ken Russell, a noted admirer of D. H. Lawrence who had already made feature films based on "Women in Love" and "The Rainbow". (Russell also cast himself in a minor role as Constance's father). Russell does not always follow the plot of the book faithfully, largely because he includes material from Lawrence's alternative version of the story, "John Thomas and Lady Jane").

And, certainly, Russell does include sex scenes here. Given that Lawrence had described the sexual encounters between Constance and Mellors in graphic detail, any adaptation which was not equally sexually explicit would probably have been denounced as a betrayal of the author's intentions.

Lawrence did not intend his book to be read merely as a sexy romance. He also intended it as a political novel and as a critique of the upper classes. The Chatterley stately home, Wragby, is situated in a coal-mining district of the Midlands, probably on the borders of Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire, and Clifford is a coal-owner whose wealth largely derives from the royalties he earns from the coal mined beneath his land. This is something that Russell brings out well, contrasting the beauty and freshness of the countryside around Wragby with the grime and squalor of the nearby mining town of Tevershall. There is a fine performance from James Wilby as Clifford, a monstrous snob who can barely bring himself to accept the working class, whether they be miners or his servants, as human. Wilby had begun his career as Britain's King of Period Drama in the eighties playing fresh-faced young heroes in films like "Maurice" and "A Summer Story", but by the nineties he was starting to tackle more unsympathetic roles. (Charles Wilcox in "Howard's End" is another).

Of the other leading actors, Sean Bean was fine as Mellors, but I found Joely Richardson as Constance a bit anonymous, too much the nineties actress rather than the twenties aristocrat. (Her hairstyle in particular contributed to this impression). My other main criticism would be that Russell rather neglected another major theme of the book. Lawrence's main criticism of Clifford, apart from his snobbery, is not that he cannot satisfy Constance sexually. Given that his injuries have left him impotent, this would have been unfair. It is that he cannot satisfy her emotionally. The book is about the threefold relationship between mind, body and the emotions. Both Clifford, too much the intellectual, and Bertha Mellors, too concerned with the physical side of sex, ignore the importance of the emotional side of relationships to heir respective spouses. This theme does not, however, emerge strongly from this serial.

Apart from the sex scenes, and a typically Russellian dream sequence, the serial is not as far removed from the typical BBC "heritage television" adaptation as one might expect. It is certainly closer to the Beeb's house style than to the style of most Ken Russell movies. It is a decent enough attempt, but it left me wondering what Russell might have come up with had he had the opportunity to make the first-even English-language feature film of the book. 7/10.

A really good adaption of the book and the original 1981 film. It is very erotic... quite a bit of nudity and sex. Not recommended for under 16.

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

This movie was very enjoyable as well as instructive. It was enjoyable because it was so faithful to the most popular version of the story and instructive about how people conducted their lives after WW1 in England. Joely Richardson is a new actress for me and I find her convincing as Connie. Sean Bean is a familiar handsome actor who has a long career I've followed. I feel these actors portrayed Mellors and Connie as reluctant lovers. They were strangers at first and only knew they needed what everyone needs, tenderness in their lives. It felt like I was watching two people desperate in their search, almost helplessly drawn to find happiness against all odds. I personally don't care if Sean Bean did not appear completely naked, and if the lovemaking was wooden at first, it felt right given the circumstances. These actors are bringing characters to life for us and it should not be forgotten this is not a view into an affair between the actors, it is the portrayal of characters brought to life by good acting and believable direction.

I'm a bit biased as Joely is a favourite of mine. Very faithfull adaptation, well scripted, some brilliant performances by Joely and Sean Bean (Boromir). I bought the DVD and its certainly a MUST own, as this is another trademark quality BBC production!

Must go and read the book again!

I cannot stop pointing out how gloriously this was filmed. Beautiful, beautiful. England truly is a jewel. And Joely Richardson, which I knew from NIP/TUCK (that most-of-the-time not so beautiful show) is every bit as much in her heyday as Britain was back then. I've come to realize that she is actually one of the prettiest actresses on film ever, yet I didn't even know about this mini- series until a bit more than five, six weeks ago when I googled Joely Richardson after a NIP/TUCK episode. Oooh, sounds kinky :)

And there's a lovely nude scene, even with a glimpse of the male full frontal. But this is Joely's show, and even though Sean Bean is dashingly handsome, it is Joely that carries the show. Anyway, let me put it this way: it features the kind of nude scene (in the woods) that might appeal even to people who normally cannot stand nude scenes. It is that charmingly, beautifully, romantically filmed, and everybody who had anything to do with it, should be commended for the sheer beauty of it.

Great performances by all. Very evocative. A must-see.

After having seen all the film adaptations of Lady Chatterley's Lover 1981 onwards, in my opinion none of them can hold a candle to (this) Ken Russell's version. It has beauty, poetry, squalor and vision. I write this in Oct 2019 and after viewing the previous versions. Joely Richard's radiant beauty and sensuality, Sean Bean's passion however roughly expressed and his earthiness are to be treasured. I just wish Ken Russell's version was available uncut in Blu Ray.

The 2015 adaptation is particularlyy bad and poorly cast, the characters look weak and project a superficial aura and do not make you care for either of the characters in the film. And have nothing of the feel of the period. Some of the stone faced house staff look like they were hired from some military regiment for their wooden expressions.

The 2015 version of LCL suffers from the same problem the 2015 version of Far From the Madding Crowd suffers. Poorly cast characters. Though of the two Far From the Madding Crowd is slightly better.

D. H. Lawerence wrote some of my favorite books of all time, including Lady Chatterley's Lover, so at first, I was afraid to watch these short little missives. I was not disappointed, however. It held true to quite a few aspects of the "Sir John Thomas and Lady Jane" version of the book than the original publication, but Lawerence never seemed to be quite satisfied and was always changing. Joely Richardson was a beautiful Lady Chatterley, and Sean Bean seemed the perfect Mellors. James Wilby was so convincing as Clifford that by the end of this movie, you just wanted that horrid wretch to be left alone, wallowing in his misery, because like everything else in his life, Constance was a possession, not a human being. This movie is a timeless treasure for anyone who loves the idea of being in love!

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.

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.