Lady Chatterley's Lover

The cast drew me in... and although I didn't suffer through it because of positive performances from Jodie Comer & James Norton. More was left desired from Richard Madden, but mostly Holliday Garainger. From my perspective she didn't match the level from the rest of the cast. Especially the dialogue and facial expressions that got me, cause I just didn't buy it (and yes, I know what sort of movie I was getting into but I usually feel okey by the somewhat awkwardness, but unfortunately not here.)

There have been at least five or six screen adaptations of Lady Chatterly's Lover, and this one adds nothing new or noteworthy. It is mediocre at best, and despite the ludicrous warning on Netflix that this version contains "strong sex", be assured it is decidedly tame. There is not so much as a nipple to be seen in this TV quality offering, which is so careful and safe that it feels like something aimed at schoolchildren studying the book.

Since costume dramas are ten-a-penny these days, yet another version of Chatterly is surely surplus to requirements, unless, of course, it is willing to offer up a bit more flesh than, say, "The Tudors".

Since graphic (at the time) sex was the main selling-point of the original book, causing much controversy and litigation, it would not be inappropriate for a modern screen adaptation to similarly push the boundaries. Otherwise, what's the point?

And lack of sex aside, there is little else to recommend this film either. The script, acting, direction, and cinematography are every bit as flaccid as Lord Chatterly, and there is minimal visual splendour in terms of countryside or stately homes upon which to feast the eye.

There is, however, one pretty good music cue, during the main "sex" scene. It's just a shame that the music was so good because it was making up for so much else that was missing.

Having said all that, it passed the time pleasantly (if blandly) enough. I won't be re-watching it, however.

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.

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.

Constance Reid meets Sir Clifford Chatterley, a wealthy Mining Colliery owner, and the two quickly marry. After a short passionate renaissance Clifford who is serving in the Army is caught by a bomb blast and suffers massive injuries, which leave him wheelchair bound. Oliver Mellors, a fellow survivor from the front line turns up at the Chatterley's estate seeking the role of Gamekeeper. Mellors is employed due to the fact that he served in Clifford' regiment. Constance is seemingly quite a passionate woman, and when she first sees the sultry looking Mellors there's a definite attraction, and a love affair between the two soon begins. Clifford becomes desperate for an heir, hugely frustrated because he can't produce one he tries to initiate proceedings.

The scene of Clifford getting caught up in the bomb blast was fantastic, it looked very realistic. I would question how Constance hadn't heard of his accident though.

I applaud James Norton for his performance as Clifford, he's a truly versatile actor, he has the ability to make you love him and hate him, and in this he made me pity him, he is fantastic, and is the one giving the others the masterclass in acting.

It's a very well behaved version of such a well known story, it's well acted, it looks good. I just felt it was missing a bit of spark, maybe Lady C herself, possibly she should have been a bit more intense, a bit more passionate. I felt Holliday Grainger got better as it went on, there was an innocence to her character, just missing a little bit of allure, but on the whole it was pretty good. 6/10