Recensioni degli utenti

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 ****

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

Pretty typical Golan & Globus production with better than average art direction and cinematography. The estate is beautiful--as is Sylvia Kristel--but the adaptation is flat and whole thing feels flabby.

A bit of sex goes with the story, of course, and it's done well enough; but it's nothing like Kristel's soft core films. The acting is competent thruout, and the filmmakers take pains to maintain the essence of the English class struggle. But some of the jealousy and social indignation feels contrived.

I loved Lord Chatterly's gas-powered wheelchair for zipping around the grounds, altho why he didn't install an elevator in the mansion is a mystery.

The plot of D.H. Lawrence's famous novel of passion and mores is lifted mostly intact, but everything has a dumbed-down and trashed-up quality that makes the resulting adaptation anything but faithful. Sylvia Kristel once again proves inadequate to the task of carrying a movie, and what's more looks much older than her real age (28), as well as that of the even younger character Lady Chatterley. Instead of smoldering with forbidden passion, she seems listless and uninterested in the affair that is central to the story's power. Nicholas Clay also seems unconvincing as the virile but coarse Mellors. Why he would be the object of romantic fascination for any woman of class seems a mystery not worth investigating. The pastoral look of the film is pretty nice, plus it also features good period detail and costumes, but the script is extremely weak and the dramatics - especially among the supporting performances - are just not sharp enough to properly drive a story of class betrayal and social scandal.

Approach with extreme caution.

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 haven't read the book in over 50 years but I remember it as boring and pretentious. This movie appears to be a very accurate adaptation, which is its main flaw. It is boring and pretentious. There are some very romantic scenes, especially the scene where Oliver decorates Constance's naked body with flowers. This film could never have a high rating but I feel it has been underrated by most of the reviewers.

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.

I admit D.H. Lawrence was a highly controversial figure of his time and it was inevitable his stories would ultimately be made into flicks after the strict censorship laws of the day wore off. I would've thought that a strong erotic story of this caliber would be better suited for a more respectable film company than "Golan & Globus".

It happened though and the results are good, but not spectacular or riveting in any way. There's the exception though of Lady Chatterley spying on Mellors standing naked in front of his brick gamekeeper's house and washing himself. That was major erotic potency right there.

There was also a sensuous and highly pleasing chemistry between the two, but then Shane Briant's character, a British aristocrat, Sir Clifford Chatterley, gets in the way of the scheme of things. He got downright annoying at times as well as Ivy Bolton, Clifford's caregiver, who suspected the cheating of Lady Chatterley right from the beginning.

The romance blossoms full throttle between Lady Chatterley and the gamekeeper. There's a major stab here at the discrimination of "class" and how Sir Chatterley would allow his wife to seek pleasure elsewhere, but as long as it was someone of "his bearing".

She obviously doesn't follow that rule and goes with who she truly wants, no matter what social standing they may be in. This flick played out like just another one of those cheap Harlequin romance movies with corny dialogue and over passionate love scenes, but the chemistry between Lady Chatterley and the gamekeeper, Mellors, is the major strength to this otherwise mediocre historical drama. There's beautiful scenery and a genuine feel of the era its depicted in though. Overall, a good effort even though it was dragged down by the cheap quality of the notorious Cannon Group Inc. film company. Their reputation for exploitation wasn't evident here though. They allowed things to be toned down for this film and managed to make it into a pleasing love story no matter how shallow the whole thing was. It did manage to have a classy and respectable quality to it. A good effort.

Though D.H. Lawrence's scandal-fueling 1928 novel, which was not legally available in its country of origin until 1960, has been adapted for the screen on many occasions since respectable stick in the mud Marc Allégret made a first attempt as long ago as 1955 with less fire than ice Danielle Darrieux, it wasn't until the equally non-British Pascale Ferran shot a highly literate version with the magnificent Marina Hands critics consensually agreed the book had been done cinematic justice. While a considerable commercial success when theatrically released in the early '80s, Just Jaeckin's much-maligned rendition has rarely been deemed worthy of comment since. Large part of the problem for high-minded reviewers remains the fact that so many involved on both sides of the camera are just so…disreputable ! Rather fitting for a film based on literary material so long slandered as pornographic and since that took three decades to rehabilitate, perhaps the movie might expect a similar fate by now ?

Produced by the Cannon Group, effectively Israeli-born schlock-meisters Menahem Golan and Yoram Globus, and directed by the guy who drew huge crowds yet public disdain with such up-market porn as EMMANUELLE and HISTOIRE D'O, it had some major hurdles to overcome if it wanted to become a critic's darling. While the Go-Go Twins, a nickname coined by Michael Winner, probably couldn't care less about such fate, this was clearly more of a concern for Just Jaeckin, craving respect in the wake of top-grossing titillation. Alas, it was not meant to be. Casting Dutch actress Sylvia Kristel, who – like Jaeckin – could not escape the curse of EMMANUELLE, in the lead role didn't help. Though dubbed in plummy British dulcet tones, she's actually quite good playing constricted Constance Chatterley, deeply in love with war-paralyzed husband Clifford (a rather unctuous Shane Briant, who had made an impact in Hammer's DEMONS OF THE MIND and CAPTAIN KRONOS, VAMPIRE HUNTER) but physically yearning for the satisfaction only hunky grounds keeper Oliver Mellors (the late lamented Nicholas Clay) can supply.

Movie's actually a lot closer to the book, a "hot property" if ever there was, than those who have never read it assume. An intimately detailed account of romance as product of overwhelming sexual attraction, it didn't exactly need "juicing up" to qualify as source for an overtly erotic film. Initially intended to be made by the outrageous Ken Russell (who wound up doing a disappointingly bland TV version with Joely Richardson and Sean Bean a decade later) with Sarah Miles and Oliver Reed slated to portray the single-minded protagonists, the eventual outcome was quickly written up as a sell-out to crass commercialism by the kind of ivory tower print journalists who are now receiving their just desserts courtesy of the Internet. They did not pay attention to the faithful screenplay provided by Jaeckin, regular Hammer scribe Christopher Wicking and American author Marc Behm, who wrote "The Eye of the Beholder", filmed by Claude Miller (as MORTELLE RANDONNEE) and Stephan Elliott under the original title. They casually overlooked Shirley Russell's sumptuous costumes, dating back to when it was still her husband's project no doubt, and the splendid sets by a then fledgling designer named Anton Furst, who had the last laugh garnering well-deserved kudos for his outstanding work on Neil Jordan's COMPANY OF WOLVES and Tim Burton's BATMAN. Pressed for praise, they were willing to concede that the efforts of cinematographer Robert Fraisse (Oscar-nominated for Jean-Jacques Annaud's THE LOVER) and composer Stanley Myers worthy of minor consideration, though both were thought of as "slumming" it.

Okay, this is where I discard all pretense of professionalism and possibly, where part of my respected readership's concerned, take leave of my senses. Having made a convincing case for the defense, I feel, I must admit that I profoundly love this movie for reasons that are entirely personal. Picture if you will, an anxious 14-year old boy struggling with his sexual identity – I have since come out to myself and the world, thank you – being taken by his beloved and now sadly departed mother to see this film at the sort of humongous picture palace pre-dating the multiplex culture we know today. The extremely physical romance unspooling before my gazing eyes filled me with joy and longing as few films have managed since. Stuck in a loveless marriage, for which I don't blame my late father as they proved a poor match from the start by all accounts, my mom relished the vicarious thrill the flicks provided her with. Needless to say, we both adored this one, so much in fact, and I can't believe I'm making this public but you will soon find out I have no shame, that we would call each other "Connie" and "Ollie" ever since until her untimely passing in February 2003.

I developed a major crush on Nicholas Clay. He had caused a stirring in my loins playing Lancelot in John Boorman's magnificently overblown Excalibur but now the lid was off entirely. As a starry-eyed gay teen, I vowed to keep myself chaste until we could be together. Oh, my resolve weakened – or was weakened for me – within a couple of weeks or so and I grew into the slut beloved by many to this very day ! So, this movie's all about coming to terms with my growing attraction to members (ha !) of the same sex. It's also about my mother, invariably the most important woman in most gay men's lives. Six and a half years since her death and still not a day goes by that she's not in my thoughts. I love and miss her very much and watching this film – praise the Lord for DVD – makes me feel that little bit closer to her whenever I need to, just like this particularly odd review is my perhaps wrong-headed attempt at a tribute. Go softly into the night, my Queen, and God bless

Sylvia Kristel made part of my teenage years, she was an intellectual woman, but somehow just allowed his skills to made these sexploitation pictures unfortunately, she turned down several roles in a respectable pictures, his beauty however lift up dead bodies from the graves, in this famous novel, she plays a faithful wife of the Sir Clifford Chatterley, then war explodes, he will serve on Army, sadly was wounded on battle and became paraplegic for good, he advises her that could arrange a lover, she refuses, although his youth age and his sexual feelings arouse, she has a sexual attraction on the lower and rough servant Mellows, finally she was involved by him, sexuality and love, his bitter husband found it simply outrageous to him, aristocracy doesn't mix with lowers class, conceived as soft erotic movie, Kristel delivery all she can without be derogatory, the sexual relationship is usual between two people who love each other normally, a true love affair, nevertheless the movie has a clash point, how accept a lower class man overcame the strong barrier of a social strata as aristocracy, the ending spoke for itself, very underrated picture!!

Resume:

First watch: 2020 / How many: 1 / Source: DVD / Rating: 7.25

Not good, not bad, just ok.. Ive always enjoyed watching Sylvia Kristel. I keep waiting for her to do a slow sensual strip, twerk and really get it on but I guess that'll never happen. The worst actor in the movie was the nurse. She was pretty wooden all the way through. Otherwise it was just an ok way to spend a Thursday pandemic night.

I was expecting to see torrid love scenes but instead it was crude poking and then i discovered it was all about class snobbery and jealously ... i finally capitulated and turned it off .... if you really think a woman wants to be treated like this then it won't be your cup of tea either

If the acting in this version was any more wooden, the actors could be sold as wooden statues. How can such a passionate storyline induce such boredom and sleepiness? Ugh. The husband is just plain awful. No empathy for you, sir. You are a creep. Even the nudity is uninteresting and devoid of fire. Pass on this version. There are many others more worthy of our time.

If you like nudity, and watching couples f..k, there's a lot of it here. I've seen the same scenarios, with films like the great art house film, Breaking The Waves or the Roadshow's Vibrant Video's Erotic Sex Games. I admit I do like it, but to me, this was just another skin flick, dressed up in a serious, and moving drama, which it isn't. It's no surprise that 70's sex symbol, the late Sylvia Kristel, a good capable actress, would be linked with this, as I really didn't see anything impressive with this. It just comes down to everything she does. I really found her performance, mature and very sexy, here, where she really held her own, and never lacked. Clay, Lady Chatterly's husband is a paraplegic, and IMPOTENT, so our delicious Ms Chatterly must seek sexual fulfillment somewhere else, so why not the estate's fit stud lumberjack. This really brings out his angry and enraged side, something I see in these scenarios from other films, one I previously mentioned. Another example but out of this scenario, where I was drawing on the very erotically charged. Cage pic, Zandalee. But before seeing it, I knew what to expect and I was right, a Kristel, skin film, in the facade of something more, or respectable too. But I do respect the nude and sex bits.

I love this film. I own it on DVD. The reason I give it ten points out of ten is that it has the incredibly sexy and talented Nicholas Clay in it. He plays Oliver Mellors, the gamekeeper of an estate, that is having an affair with the lady of the house. She is married but her husband cannot do his husbandly duties because he came back from World War 1 in a wheelchair. She is an upper class rich woman while he is considered low class and poor. She doesn't work and in the beginning tends to her husband until he decides to get a caretaker for himself. This leaves her with time on her hands to wander the grounds of her estate where she comes upon Mellors nude and bathing himself by the chicken coop. She lusts after him and they strike up a relationship although rocky at first. The have a passionate affair. I won't reveal the ending. I truly believe this is Nicholas Clay's finest work although he is probably known best as his role of Sir Lancelot in Excalibur (he is naked in that movie too). I think this version is best. Lady Chatterley was made into another film in 1993 starring Joely Richardson and Sean Bean but no one compares to British hottie Nicholas Clay.

Better than expected version of the old smutty D.H. Lawrence story of a posh bit having an affair with a rough games-keeper.

To be honest, I'd probably say the BBC version with Sean Bean around 1995 was a lot more sleazier. Most of the sex here is done in a jokey style, if that makes sense. Kristel is dubbed I bet you. I've not looked at IMDb.com yet, but I'm betting she was. Nicholas Clay is hilarious in his role as Mellors. It's like a porn star version of Gazza when he talks. You wouldn't think that accent comes from his mouth.

Bloody excellent soundtrack too. Current searching to see if it available anywhere.

Mildly recommended.

This movie is a good starter for heating up the romance in your life, especially if your female mate is a bit conservative as is my wife. We found the plot acceptable enough to keep our attention, while providing beautiful scenery and cinematography. The acting of the husband was a bit stiff and he occasionally seemed to be reading his lines. The twists along the way kept my wife intrigued and the love scenes did not offend her, as they were done in good taste. The plot is not terribly difficult to predict, but interesting to watch unfold just the same. A good movie to get the romantic fires ignited for a good evening of love making.

I read one of D. H. Lawrence's novel in university as part of an English course I was taking, and I found it utterly boring and not making me want to seek out his other works. The only reason why I rented this Lawrence adaptation was that it was produced by famed schlockmeisters Menahem Golan and Yorman Globus, who made some really entertaining trashy movies. This was one of the few times they tried for "respectability", though they chose a story that could also be mined for exploitation material.

But the movie fails both at its serious attempts and with its attempts at exploitation. The script has too many faults that distance the audience. The setup of the situation at the beginning of the movie goes so fast that there's no time to set up characters and make us see what they are feeling. This flaw with the characters continues as the movie goes on, and I was not sure why many times characters did what they did. Oddly, there are also a number of scenes that serve no purpose - if they had eliminated those scenes, and used the extra few minutes to pump up the characters, I'm pretty sure the movie would be a lot better.

As for the erotic element of the movie, it's not there. Even for 1981, the idea of taking a lover must have seem old hat to audiences. The nudity and sex in the movie is not the least bit erotic despite full frontal nudity and explicit sex scenes. Some of this might be blamed on the below average production values - the movie has a murky look throughout, and there's not much effort to beef up the backgrounds with extras or anything that might have taken time and expense to make.

Even if you are a Golan/Globus fanatic like I am, odds are you'll find this as dreary as I did.

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.