Lady Chatterley's Lover

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.

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.

This 2015 adaptation tries to bring D. H. Lawrence's classic forbidden love story to life but kinda misses the mark. What should be a bold, emotional journey about passion across class lines ends up feeling a bit flat and distant.

One thing this version has over the 2022 Netflix adaptation is that it has some scenes, which is missing in the Netflix version. Those scenes actually help build the story and explain the characters' choices better. Without them, the emotional progression in the Netflix version feels rushed or confusing, so this older version wins points there.

That said, even here, the romance doesn't quite land. The chemistry between the leads feels like it's almost there but never really clicks. You keep waiting for that spark, but it never fully lights up. And visually, the color grading doesn't help either, it's dull and washed out, not giving off the warm or passionate vibe you'd expect from a story about secret love.

In the end, it feels like the film gets caught up in the heaviness of war and class, and forgets to bring the forbidden romance to life. It had potential, but the emotion just doesn't hit the way it should.

Compared to earlier versions of the Lawrence novel on film and television - for example, Ken Russell's 1993 television version or Sylvia Kristel's porno-fest (1981) directed by her then-husband Just Jaeckin, Jed Mercurio's telefilm is relatively chaste in terms of sexual content. We see Mellors (Richard Madden) and Connie (Holliday Grainger) making love, but it is tastefully filmed by the fire in Mellors' shack, using lighting strongly reminiscent of Russell's WOMEN IN LOVE (1969).

Director Mercurio seems far more interested in exploring the consequences of class-difference in a highly stratified society. Clifford Chatterley (James Norton) views his mine-workers and servants as sub-humans, whose sole function consists of serving the rich. In one sequence he sits in his motor-cycle and sidecar and lets Mellors push him out of a rut, even though this proves injurious to Mellors' health. He treats Ivy Bolton (Jodie Comer) with equal disdain - that is, until the climactic moment when Bolton confronts her master with the news of Lady Chatterley's affair.

The contrast between rich and poor could not be more stark. The film opens with a mining accident in which Ivy's husband Ted (Chris Morrison) is crushed to death by an underground fall of coal. Left with little or nothing to survive on, Ivy can only eke out an existence serving the rich. By contrast Clifford lives a life of comfortable gentility, indulging in frequent parties whose guests dance to Scott Joplin rag-times played by a servile band.

It is these class-differences that inspire Mellors' resentment. The reason for his feelings is clearly explained towards the end; suffice to say that he believes that the landed gentry have little or no conception of what it is to live on the bread-line, at the beck and call of the upper classes. We might be persuaded to see his affair with Lady Chatterley as a means for him to take revenge on all the social slights he has experienced throughout his life.

Yet Grainger's performance proves that this is clearly not the case. As Lady Chatterley she spends much of her time caring for her husband, even though it is a thankless task. Frustrated by her husband's impotence, she looks for love and compassion; and finds both in Mellors. She resembles a ship without a rudder; constrained by the conventions of a restrictive upper class, she longs to express herself both emotionally and sexually. Grainger proves extremely good at suggesting this frustration through small facial gestures puncturing her veneer of social respectability.

To be honest, this version of LADY CHATTERLEY does not make any attempt to explore sexual feelings in any great depth, as in Lawrence's source-text. Director Mercurio sees the story as a tussle between duty and emotion, which reaches a climax at the end when the three protagonists at last confront one another.

This is a thoroughly satisfying production of the Lawrence classic, marred only by some syrupy music (by Csrly Paradis) that sometimes directs our attention away from the characters' emotions.

While I liked the movie for it's romanticism, I must say that it was an overall sad movie in my opinion.

This movie is about a wealthy newlywed couple who, after the husband returns from war paralyzed from the waist down, begin to drift apart. The drifting in mostly on the part of the wife due to the husbands frustrations and longing for an heir he can not provide them with. This sets the wife's eye on the estate's newly hired gamekeeper. Slowly falling for one another leads the adulterous couple down a complicated road.

I say it was sad only because I had some feelings about the husband's life change and how hard that would've been to deal with. The movie wasn't bad. It has some nice costumes and some beautiful camera work but it doesn't make it very far past an average film for me.