Lady Chatterley's Lover

First let me say that it's been 45-50 years since I read Lady Chatterley's Lover in college.....and other than the title and a few names, I don't remember anything about it. Thus, I can't say if this film has anything in common with the book. As I watched the film unfold, I struggled for any "recognition" of scenes and situations, without success. But that said, I fail to understand the "hate" that some reviewers are giving this film. Perhaps it's NOT like the classic D. H. Lawrence book, but taken on its own, it has some real appeal. I can't recall if the book had such "modern" woman aspects, and the film is occasionally a bit tedious in its "blame the Patriarchy" for everything......but that's simply to be expected in film making today. With its copious nudity, it certainly meets today's "Netflix" standards of having women-centric stories, and enough female flesh to hold the men's interest. The quality of acting and photography are actually outstanding. (although the extreme use of the color purple in lighting and clothing became very jarring at times) So, regardless as to how it compares to the source book, this film is very enjoyable and entertaining, both for male and female viewers. Please don't believe the critics who say otherwise, and give it a view......I think you will appreciate it.

This is just another one of the many films that gets remade over and over again. The remakes never get any better, in fact often the reverse. And this film fulfills that formula perfectly. It's dumbed down, unsexy and uninteresting.

There is no chemistry between the two titular characters whatsoever and the acting is no very good. I didn't particularly hate the performances but I also didn't find them in the least believable.

The writing was pretty terrible. It seemed as though they wanted to have somebody be the "bad guy" but they just weren't sure about who to make it. Direction was poor. Too concerned with the surface appearances and ignoring the substance. The set and costuming were basically BBC average.

Like man Netflix "originals" they are scared of offending anyone and spend so much time and effort on avoiding that offense that the end product is as bland and tasteless as cafeteria food.

Sometimes a movie is more than the sum of its parts. Not this latest LCL. Here the parts stubbornly refuse to come together (pun intended).

In a culture ruled by intellect and divided by class, Lawrence advocated for connection and the body. But sex, for Lawrence, is not solely about climax; it is also a vehicle of self-discovery, a way to transcend class.

Unfortunately, the film demonstrates little of Lawrence's penetration. Instead, Lady Chatterley and her story languish under a frigid ideological lens.

Thus Corrin's Lady Chatterley can best be described as 'disembodied.' The director is more interested in her as an idea than a flesh-and-blood person. Her face registers, but what is missing is the experience of her awkward, boyish body. Honestly, if she manifested a new consciousness in the way she moved and held herself, I sure didn't notice it.

Similarly, she arouses no physical chemistry in a fine-looking O'Connell, who in turn does capture the accent, but not the ecstasy. Their nude scenes together, devitalized by the wan colors of the photography, are the reverse of joyously sensuous.

Speaking of which, has Venice ever been less sensuous?

In the end, the film makes the viewer an intellectual observer, not a partaker. The film's elements, though in ever such good taste, lack that lush, unashamed appeal to the senses that would have immersed us in Connie's and Mellor's awakening to what it is to be woman and man.

Qualified recommendation: despite its shortcomings, a springboard into a more personal, transgressive, and passionate imaginative experience.

While not completely awful, this latest adaptation feels a bit like the suburban woman's book club version of Lady Chatterley's Lover. Connie is given a light feminist makeover, which is not necessarily a bad thing, but in most respects the writing and the direction loses the muscularity and the rawness of the novel. The scene with Connie and Oliver frolicking naked in the rain is emblematic of this director's approach. It's cute and maybe a tad naughty, rather than erotically charged or daring or liberating. And poor Mellors, while beautifully played by Jack O'Connell, feels somewhat emasculated by both the script and the tepid direction. It's also telling that they chose a boyish, svelte, hairless, almost twinkish type like O'Connell, who doesn't exactly embody Mellors as written by Laurence. So it's fair to say this movie is more Connie's story than it is Mellor's. The actors are fine though - particularly Joely Richardson as Mrs Bolton. And the cinematography is some compensation for the lack of literary cred.

In the aftermath of WW1 the wife of a British aristocrat embarks on an affair across the class divide.

There have been quite a few versions of DH Lawrence's famous and controversial book so we might wonder, why another? Well, most have not managed to pick up properly on the books main themes, about the damaging effects of the 'Great War', the consequent changes in society at that time, and the stifling British class system and it's continuing divides, expressed especially through the passionate affair between Lady Chatterly and her game keeper. This film does a very good job at including those themes, though it also plays with the original plot too, which might be a negative for some. I though it made a better film without sacrificing too much.

Jack O'Connell and Emma Corrin make a great couple with a real chemistry and all credit to them for superb performances. The sex scenes really are erotically charged and powerful, and I didn't think they were overdone. As we know, sex, liberation, release and openness are what Lawrence intended thematically and essentially symbolically through the central relationship. It's a good film, and perhaps the best version I've seen of the book.