L'Amant de lady Chatterley

This Netflix dud ruined my favorite novel. First of all, I hated the camera work. Cold hues of blues throughout, in a story about sensual love? Then it was wildly miscast and mis-directed. Corrin was too skinny, neither she nor Mellors exuded any sensuality, and had no chemistry. A young anorexic filmed in hues of blue in a story of sexual passion? Very misguided. No buildup of tension between Connie and Mellors at the onset of their relationship. Then, when they go at it, Connie looks like she is 14 and Mellors like he is 16. Clifford is a cardboard character.

The wit of the novel was put in the grinder. The costumes were too modern and 'on the nose' (see the red day dress). The dialogues mediocre, the sex scenes either cringing or just dull. So the directing was just terrible - and I am surprised at the high ratings offered by the supposed critics. Even more surprised with the fact that a team of Creative Execs at Netflix greenlit such a dud on the basis of the well-known actors.

And what is the matter with all the anorexic young British actresses? In the Crown season 5, the new Diana (played by Elisabeth Debicki is also anorexic and about 20 pounds skinnier than the rea Diana). When Corrin takes off her top and looks at herself and her naked breasts in the mirror she looks like freshly out of Auschwitz. I imagine the casting directors are pressuring young actresses to be so skinny, but someone should stop this fad.

So, no emotion for story and characters until like the last 15 mins.

Based on the notorious last and often banned novel by D. H. Lawrence this film is it's most recent adaptation. Set during WWI Lord Clifford Chatterly marries Connie Reid. He almost immediately goes back to the front where he is injured in the war. When he comes home he is unable to father children or use his legs. He moves his wife to his family's country estate, taking her out of the bustling London that she loves. Isolated and alone, Lady Chatterly becomes more of a caretaker than lover to her husband. In this version her husband discusses with her the idea that she could discreetly choose a lover to impregnate her so that they could have an heir, sine he can not father one...it only they know that. He set boundaries, that he trusted her judgment, but never wanted to know who the true father is. At first she is upset by his suggestion, but starts taking long walks by herself where she eventually meets the estate's gamekeeper and former soldier himself Oliver Mellors. Eventually Oliver and Connie start a torrid affair that does end up with her being pregnant.

The novel touches on several themes involving the class system existing in England, infidelity, and the conditions of laborers like miners. The film also touches on these theme but only in the broadest of strokes.

The setting for the film is beautifully filmed and the costumes are wonderful and period appropriate. I really appreciated that they had both male and female full frontal nudity. The film r ally makes a pitch for this story being about a great love story and a woman willing to give up everything for this great love...only in the film I was watching I never saw that love built or nurtured. I would argue that there was a woman desperate to be touched physically and that there was lust...but I failed to see any love. I am afraid having good physical timing so you can satisfy each other's desires simultaneously is not love.

There were some decent performances by the actors and in particular by the actress who played my favorite character in this film, Mrs. Bolton (Joely Richardson).

I am not sure how I would rank this in a list of adaptations of this book, but I do know it is not my favorite. It is a beautiful film that I can recommend to fans of classics and those who are fans of historical dramas. I don't think I would recommend this to a true romantic however...and if lust is your thing, I think you would be better off watching 365 DNI in my opinion.

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.

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.