Lady Chatterley's Lover

While I liked the movie for it's romanticism, I must say that it was an overall sad movie in my opinion.

This movie is about a wealthy newlywed couple who, after the husband returns from war paralyzed from the waist down, begin to drift apart. The drifting in mostly on the part of the wife due to the husbands frustrations and longing for an heir he can not provide them with. This sets the wife's eye on the estate's newly hired gamekeeper. Slowly falling for one another leads the adulterous couple down a complicated road.

I say it was sad only because I had some feelings about the husband's life change and how hard that would've been to deal with. The movie wasn't bad. It has some nice costumes and some beautiful camera work but it doesn't make it very far past an average film for me.

... this one's not bad ... but there are others quite-better ... not fault of the actors ... story here is just too-empty ... especially very uninteresting manner which they choose to end it

Lady Chatterley's Lover has been adapted to film many times, which isn't surprising considering how controversial the subject matter was at the time the book was published. The present 2015 film has a strong cast but is decidedly modern and has freed itself of the nuance and delicacy of DH Lawrence's book. In the book, the chasm between Sir Clifford and the common people of the village is palpable, but it's practically never mentioned outright. It's the elephant in the room. In this film by contrast they never shut up about it. The characters are either bringing up how angry they are at the rich people or the rich are shown mistreating everyone. Even Lady Chatterley's ambiguous state as not precisely aristocrat but not lower class either is mostly tossed out the window.

The film does have its strong points, but it tends to melodrama. The unspoken feeling of the book's characters is gone, and I don't know if that's because the filmmakers believe the viewer is too thick to pick up on nuances or they just want to make sure we get it. The film isn't bad but it doesn't have the ring of truth because for me it feels too modern. Allegedly DH Lawrence originally entitled his book "Tenderness" and his narrative implies that the upper-middle-class Lady Chatterley feels the urge for tenderness that the common people feel, rather than people of Sir Clifford's ilk. This kind of narrative requires a sensitive handling of the subject and the present film takes a hammer and chisel approach with the characters frequently shouting their grievances at one another and fibrillating with anger.

There's a soap opera feel to the present film and it misses the class-conscious simmering feeling that the book speaks to. The 1981 version with Sylvia Krystel, though maligned, is perhaps more successful at accurately capturing the feeling and nuances of the book. The 1981 version also more adeptly showed the Chatterleys in their rural environment, which they are at once a part of and at odds with. And this is in keeping with DH Lawrence's thematic inclination both here and in his other works.

I really turned to this well cast film more as a distraction to fill time than a sought out choice. The fact that the chemistry of the actors left me with a sense of connection is the ultimate mark of success from actors and director.

The obstinance of the rich and powerful revealed in their disregard of the working class is highlighted frequently on this retelling of the 1928 classic novel.

Grainger's performance accurately reflects the wide variety of emotions that Constance's life experiences take her through. Madden as the infamous lover's performance grows stronger as the film moves forward.

The contrasts between joy and restrictive sadness and between hope and inheritance challenge us to wonder what life is supposed to offer.

I am convinced than the novel of D. H. Lawrence deserved be not adaptated for cinema. Because, more than an adultery or the scenes of sex, it represents a provocative source of reflection for each of its readers.

But, sure, it is tempting to remind/ reinterprete the story of a sentimental trio , to show nice landscapes and clothes and to offer to new actors, the roles of characters.

And, yes, Richard Madden offeres a not bad oliver Mellers , not real faithfull to the novel, but interesting one.

A serious fist of cliches and a nice try to reflect a world . And the only real sin remains the too forced end.

But, sure, good intentions, familiar scenes, forced introduction of characters, gestures, attitudes, reactions, impression to be more an adaptation of Anna Karenina, a profound unrealistic and fake Mr. Chatterley and the useful kick to read, again, the novel.