User reviews

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.

Constance Reid meets Sir Clifford Chatterley, a wealthy Mining Colliery owner, and the two quickly marry. After a short passionate renaissance Clifford who is serving in the Army is caught by a bomb blast and suffers massive injuries, which leave him wheelchair bound. Oliver Mellors, a fellow survivor from the front line turns up at the Chatterley's estate seeking the role of Gamekeeper. Mellors is employed due to the fact that he served in Clifford' regiment. Constance is seemingly quite a passionate woman, and when she first sees the sultry looking Mellors there's a definite attraction, and a love affair between the two soon begins. Clifford becomes desperate for an heir, hugely frustrated because he can't produce one he tries to initiate proceedings.

The scene of Clifford getting caught up in the bomb blast was fantastic, it looked very realistic. I would question how Constance hadn't heard of his accident though.

I applaud James Norton for his performance as Clifford, he's a truly versatile actor, he has the ability to make you love him and hate him, and in this he made me pity him, he is fantastic, and is the one giving the others the masterclass in acting.

It's a very well behaved version of such a well known story, it's well acted, it looks good. I just felt it was missing a bit of spark, maybe Lady C herself, possibly she should have been a bit more intense, a bit more passionate. I felt Holliday Grainger got better as it went on, there was an innocence to her character, just missing a little bit of allure, but on the whole it was pretty good. 6/10

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.

... this one's not bad ... but there are others quite-better ... not fault of the actors ... story here is just too-empty ... especially very uninteresting manner which they choose to end it

The cast drew me in... and although I didn't suffer through it because of positive performances from Jodie Comer & James Norton. More was left desired from Richard Madden, but mostly Holliday Garainger. From my perspective she didn't match the level from the rest of the cast. Especially the dialogue and facial expressions that got me, cause I just didn't buy it (and yes, I know what sort of movie I was getting into but I usually feel okey by the somewhat awkwardness, but unfortunately not here.)

I knew very little of what Lady Chatterley's Lover was about before watching this adaptation of the 1928 novel of the same name, due to the fact that I don't really read classics, until I saw the trailer for it one day on BBC One. After I saw the trailer a few times, I knew that I wanted to watch it and then, after viewing it, possibly get around to reading the novel. Now that I have seen the TV Film, I know that I am definitely going to finish the novel at some point in the near future.

The on-screen chemistry between Lady Chatterley & Mellors, portrayed by Holliday Grainger and Richard Madden respectively, had me hooked from their very first meeting. I found myself willing them to be together and was almost brought to tears on numerous occasions in the last 40 or so minutes of the show.

Having already seen Madden as the self-proclaimed "King of the North" Robb Stark in the current HBO adaptation of George R. R. Martin's Game of Thrones I had an idea of how I felt regarding his acting and let me say, he does not disappoint. His portrayal of gamekeeper Oliver Mellors was, to me, simply astounding.

I am relatively new to the acting of both Grainger and Norton, having only fleetingly seen them as small roles in other TV shows. But boy did they impress me. While Norton was given the task of playing the wheelchair-bound Sir Clifford Chatterley which, in my eyes, could not have been the easiest of roles for an actor to play, Grainger was given the role of Lady Constance "Connie" Chatterley. Grainger plays Lady Chatterley so very well. She is a character that you'll just love to hate.

I understand how film critics may be a little disappointed with this adaptation, if they have previously read the novel, as I quite often compare a film adaptation with its book counterpart but, as someone who went into watching this adaptation completely blind from knowing any previous history of it, I thoroughly enjoyed it and would definitely watch it again.

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.

Couldn't bear how this film absolutely slaughters the beautiful work by D.H. Lawrence. No mention of Michaelis, neither a trip to Venice, nor the beautiful letter Mellors writes signing off with "John Thomas says goodnight to Lady Jane, rather droopily, but with a hopeful heart" that he wrote on the farm, hanging the suspense in the air of whether the lovers will be reunited considering the problems they have run into due to Mellor's wife and Cliffords refusal to marry.

Agh, I'm ranting here. Long story short, if I could I would never have watched this film knowing how it brutally kills the works of Lawrence with little regard. Some scenes, however few, were accurately depicted as described in the book.

I am convinced than the novel of D. H. Lawrence deserved be not adaptated for cinema. Because, more than an adultery or the scenes of sex, it represents a provocative source of reflection for each of its readers.

But, sure, it is tempting to remind/ reinterprete the story of a sentimental trio , to show nice landscapes and clothes and to offer to new actors, the roles of characters.

And, yes, Richard Madden offeres a not bad oliver Mellers , not real faithfull to the novel, but interesting one.

A serious fist of cliches and a nice try to reflect a world . And the only real sin remains the too forced end.

But, sure, good intentions, familiar scenes, forced introduction of characters, gestures, attitudes, reactions, impression to be more an adaptation of Anna Karenina, a profound unrealistic and fake Mr. Chatterley and the useful kick to read, again, the novel.

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.

James Norton who portrayed Sir Clifford is absolutely beautiful in this film.