IMDb रेटिंग
5.1/10
3.6 हज़ार
आपकी रेटिंग
एक गंभीर चोट के बाद उसका पति नपुंसक हो जाता है, लेडी चैटरली अपने पति के लिए अपने प्यार और अपनी शारीरिक इच्छाओं के बीच जूझती है, वह अपने पति की सहमति से अपनी आवश्यकताओं को पूरा करने के लिए अन... सभी पढ़ेंएक गंभीर चोट के बाद उसका पति नपुंसक हो जाता है, लेडी चैटरली अपने पति के लिए अपने प्यार और अपनी शारीरिक इच्छाओं के बीच जूझती है, वह अपने पति की सहमति से अपनी आवश्यकताओं को पूरा करने के लिए अन्य साधनों की तलाश करती है.एक गंभीर चोट के बाद उसका पति नपुंसक हो जाता है, लेडी चैटरली अपने पति के लिए अपने प्यार और अपनी शारीरिक इच्छाओं के बीच जूझती है, वह अपने पति की सहमति से अपनी आवश्यकताओं को पूरा करने के लिए अन्य साधनों की तलाश करती है.
Michael Ryan
- Gigolo
- (as Ryan Michael)
Alicia Armstrong
- Ballroom Guest
- (बिना क्रेडिट के)
Jack Armstrong
- Ballroom Guest
- (बिना क्रेडिट के)
Russell Brook
- Ballroom Guest
- (बिना क्रेडिट के)
फ़ीचर्ड समीक्षाएं
Sir Clifford Chatterley and his wife Constance Chatterley (Sylvia Kristel) belong to the upper class of English society. War breaks out between England and Germany in WWI. Clifford is maimed in the trenches. He is a cripple in many ways. He permits Constance to take on a lover. She is taken with gamekeeper Oliver Mellors who works on the estate. As she starts an affair with him, Clifford becomes cruel.
This is trying to be a highbrow soft porn adaptation of the D. H. Lawrence novel. Sylvia Kristel is probably the obvious choice since becoming infamous for her Emmanuelle movies. She is not shy about showing her body but she is limited in her acting range. There isn't much in the story. Nothing is obviously bad. This could be an interesting psychological drama but this does not have the gravitas. There is no tension. It's rather flat.
This is trying to be a highbrow soft porn adaptation of the D. H. Lawrence novel. Sylvia Kristel is probably the obvious choice since becoming infamous for her Emmanuelle movies. She is not shy about showing her body but she is limited in her acting range. There isn't much in the story. Nothing is obviously bad. This could be an interesting psychological drama but this does not have the gravitas. There is no tension. It's rather flat.
From the makers of "Emmanuelle: The Joys Of A Woman"...not exactly D. H. Lawrence territory! Still in all, this low-budget sex-capade has decent locales and very steamy leads (Sylvia Kristel and Nicholas Clay), neither of whom are shy about appearing in the buff. It is noteworthy that this is one of the few R-rated movies from this period to show the man undressed as well as the woman, and their sex in the forest has animal heat to it. But those looking for an adept cinematic translation of the famous novel will be embarrassed...or perhaps shamefacedly tickled. The weakest link is the editing, which darts around leaving scenes unfinished, such as the finale (which is really just a bushel of footage posing as an ending). Pruriently amusing on a softcore, soft-headed harlequin level. ** from ****
Class consciousness is the thematic excuse for this very Victorian-era story of the wife of a debilitated English aristocrat. The wife has certain "needs" that cannot be met by her husband, who is paralyzed from the waist down. So, she finds what she needs in the grounds-keeper, a ruggedly handsome man. Visual eroticism is the real theme, of course.
There's not a lot to the story. The whole thing could have been neatly told in thirty minutes. Here, it's terribly drawn out, with scenes that are way too lengthy. What's really annoying is the vanity that characters exhibit. Lady Chatterley (Sylvia Kristel), in particular, is obsessed with her own body. Partially nude, she stares vainly at herself in a mirror. For his part the grounds-keeper (Nicholas Clay) likes to do outdoor chores with his shirt off, convenient for any sensual woman who just happens to be strolling by. It's all rather obvious and superficial. Only toward the end does the story actually get interesting.
I do like the majestic musical score. And the cinematography isn't bad at all, with some good outdoor scenes in the fog. There are lots of close-up camera shots, and quite a few extreme close-ups. This film is obviously a Sylvia Kristel vehicle. But her acting is stilted and self-conscious.
Maybe the film was sexually daring in its time. By today's standards, "Lady Chatterley's Lover" is quite tame. I would mostly describe it as slow, drawn-out, and dull, with characters who are annoyingly self-centered and vain.
There's not a lot to the story. The whole thing could have been neatly told in thirty minutes. Here, it's terribly drawn out, with scenes that are way too lengthy. What's really annoying is the vanity that characters exhibit. Lady Chatterley (Sylvia Kristel), in particular, is obsessed with her own body. Partially nude, she stares vainly at herself in a mirror. For his part the grounds-keeper (Nicholas Clay) likes to do outdoor chores with his shirt off, convenient for any sensual woman who just happens to be strolling by. It's all rather obvious and superficial. Only toward the end does the story actually get interesting.
I do like the majestic musical score. And the cinematography isn't bad at all, with some good outdoor scenes in the fog. There are lots of close-up camera shots, and quite a few extreme close-ups. This film is obviously a Sylvia Kristel vehicle. But her acting is stilted and self-conscious.
Maybe the film was sexually daring in its time. By today's standards, "Lady Chatterley's Lover" is quite tame. I would mostly describe it as slow, drawn-out, and dull, with characters who are annoyingly self-centered and vain.
I came across this movie on DVD recently at a boot sale and bought it for $1.00.
I first saw it on theatrical release but watched it again the other night.
The story is well known and I won't comment on the movie other than to say it was clearly an attempt at legitimate, low key porn.
But it did take me back to the original cinema viewing, which I saw with my new wife, who I think was particularly embarrassed. Sitting in front of us were an English couple and he was voluble right through the movie, as if it was a comedy.
As we were leaving the theatre he turned to me and said 'I don't know about you but I am going to plant my back lawn out in bluebells'. Broke me up, and I can't think of D.H. Lawrence, without thinking of bluebells.
I am surprised that no one has had a serious go at remaking LCL. It might be that DHL is to difficult for todays literally changed audiences.
I first saw it on theatrical release but watched it again the other night.
The story is well known and I won't comment on the movie other than to say it was clearly an attempt at legitimate, low key porn.
But it did take me back to the original cinema viewing, which I saw with my new wife, who I think was particularly embarrassed. Sitting in front of us were an English couple and he was voluble right through the movie, as if it was a comedy.
As we were leaving the theatre he turned to me and said 'I don't know about you but I am going to plant my back lawn out in bluebells'. Broke me up, and I can't think of D.H. Lawrence, without thinking of bluebells.
I am surprised that no one has had a serious go at remaking LCL. It might be that DHL is to difficult for todays literally changed audiences.
Lady Chatterley's Lover is understandably controversial but it is also a compelling read, though not a personal favourite. This film is not exactly terrible as there are some good things to see on display but the maligning it has gotten is as understandable as the book being controversial. The photography mostly has a nostalgic quality to it while the costumes and sets are exquisite in colour and detail. The score is seductive and hauntingly beautiful, Sylvia Kristel is a real beauty, the second half is an improvement over the first half with some appropriately steamy moments and Nicholas Clay as well as being astonishingly handsome and sexy is quite good as Oliver. Unfortunately Kristel's acting talents do not translate here, throughout she is very wooden and bland, while on the other side of the scale Shane Briant's hammy over-acting grates after a while. The supporting cast, and there are some talented actors here, are unable to do much with characters that are written to caricatures(blander than that in some cases). Some of the sexy moments are sensual but too many and most of them verge on lowbrow and too much like a porn film, the book is an explicit one but it's not that trashed up. The script is very underwritten and banal, it is difficult to take seriously anything that the actors say, while the storytelling is really dull with non-existent passion in the first half, the main reason being that while the basic story of the book is intact, the prose, characterisations and passion(mostly) are barely scarce. Some of the editing looks hastily-put together too. All in all, Lady Chatterley's Lover looks good but it is dull and underwritten, and takes the sexual nature of the book to extremes, well at least to me it did. 4/10 Bethany Cox
क्या आपको पता है
- ट्रिवियाThe character of Oliver Mellors was originally going to be played by Ian McShane who was a former boyfriend of lead star Sylvia Kristel. McShane pulled-out of the film when his wife objected to him partaking in sex scenes with his ex-girlfriend.
- गूफ़Hyacinth flowers are seen in the bedroom during mid autumn in Great Britain in the early 1920s. These plants bloom in the springtime.
- भाव
Sir Clifford Chatterley: If ever there's another man, who you absolutely want, to make love to you, take him.
- कनेक्शनFeatured in Electric Boogaloo: The Wild, Untold Story of Cannon Films (2014)
टॉप पसंद
रेटिंग देने के लिए साइन-इन करें और वैयक्तिकृत सुझावों के लिए वॉचलिस्ट करें
- How long is Lady Chatterley's Lover?Alexa द्वारा संचालित
विवरण
- रिलीज़ की तारीख़
- कंट्री ऑफ़ ओरिजिन
- भाषाएं
- इस रूप में भी जाना जाता है
- Lady Chatterley's Liebhaber
- फ़िल्माने की जगहें
- उत्पादन कंपनियां
- IMDbPro पर और कंपनी क्रेडिट देखें
इस पेज में योगदान दें
किसी बदलाव का सुझाव दें या अनुपलब्ध कॉन्टेंट जोड़ें