O Amante de Lady Chatterley

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.

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.

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 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.

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 ****