Women in Love

This film seems to get better the more I go back to it. Close to the source novel for the most part (the one big divergence being in the Water Party section but in the sense of the film the change is acceptable and gives a disturbing gloss to the story) and with sequence after sequence of powerful images, it has been much misunderstood and often dismissed but I would hope in time it is given the credit it deserves. 8/10

This film is a masterpiece.

DH Lawrence has provided a wonderful story world for Ken Russell

to explore modern notions of romance, monogamy -- sex and the beast. Only the recent Thai film "Tropical Malady" has managed to grapple with these themes with such playful and erotic sensitivity. The sort of film which confronts the very notion of a moral fabric -- dangerous -- yet vital if audiences are willing to challenge their own notions of fairytale love, expectations for companionship and ultimately happiness.

The mismatched performance style (Glenda J's unusual mix of naturalism and

Brechtian facade -- is delightful when juxtaposed with Oliver Reeds hammy

closetted representational queer). Like "cAT ON A HOT TIN roof" this

performance contrast only serves to strengthen the academic rigour of the film's politics -- and ultimately serves as an emotional beacon to enlighten an

audience with an elusive mind.

Like "The Day of the Locust" -- this film is breathtakingly modern -- and before it's time.

By it's mere cinemagraphic style and on screen personalities, this film introduced me to the idea of the avant-garde, existential and 'esoteric ritual' perspective of ordinary events. Their true mystery. For me, the style of the film went far beyond its content or dialogue. This film taught me the idea of an intelligent stylishness, and how erotic Glenda Jackson's character could be sheerly by virtue of her brilliant and cunning personal style. Pretty surprising, but then, seducing his audience in great new ways has been one of Russell's great talents. His films always seemed at the cutting edge, and I was seeing them 12 years later!

Film versions of great books are expected to be lesser beings than their inspirations, but Ken Russell's adaptation of D. H. Lawrence's masterpiece refuses to obey any rules. It's smaller than the book, of course, but compensates by working on multiple levels to create a striking density. The gaudy, almost baroque cinematography actually compliments the sincere and subtle performances (even Oliver Reed!) to create a web of cross-references; every moment connects with every other. Kudos especially to the fine cast, not least Eleanor Bron, who forever cemented her cult status here, and is no mean hand with a paperweight, either.

Adaptation of the D.H. Lawrence classic concening the loves of two 'modern' sisters in Yorkshire during the 1920s.

At first glance this film is rather hard to take in. The story is difficult to follow and at times, barely visible. Almost as if its asumed we are all so familiar with the book, that a strict narrative is unnecessary. You are likely to finish watching and ask yourself wtf? The acting is rather remarkable however and Ken Russell puts up the usual visual wonderland, so its easily rewatched. As I did, I realized the plot isn't whats important to this film at all. I'm sure the book too leaves that very same impression. You are meant more to study the characters, listen to their musings, and if possible relate to them, rather than follow a traditional storyline with a beginning middle and end. Art imititating life for a change. A different sort of experience, sensually cerebral, if thats possible, but well made and worth a look. Jackson, Bates and Reed, three would be hams, each giving understated and marvelous performances.