Lady Chatterley
Lady Chatterley
| 06 June 1993 (USA)
Lady Chatterley Trailers

Lady Constance Chatterley is married to the handicapped Sir Clifford Chatterley, who was wounded in the First World War. When they move to his family's estate, Constance meets their tough-yet-quiet groundskeeper, Oliver Mellors. Soon, she discovers that the source of her unhappiness is from not being fulfilled in love, and in turning to the arms of Mellors, she has a sexual awakening that will change her thoughts forever.

Reviews
TrueJoshNight

Truly Dreadful Film

... View More
Breakinger

A Brilliant Conflict

... View More
Nayan Gough

A great movie, one of the best of this year. There was a bit of confusion at one point in the plot, but nothing serious.

... View More
Ezmae Chang

This is a small, humorous movie in some ways, but it has a huge heart. What a nice experience.

... View More
rchalloner

I agree that this is a very good adaptation indeed of the novel and the closest in spirit to what Lawrence was writing about in my view. If there is one stereotype however, that Ken Russell (and Lawrence before him) perpetuates beyond reason, it is that a woman can only be sexually stimulated and fulfilled by penetration. It seems ludicrous even for that day and age (when the sexual hypocrisy of Victorian and Edwardian England was still in play), that a man so apparently sophisticated and sexually aware as Sir Clifford does not even consider cunnilingus or manual stimulation of his wife. Sex is therefore reduced to a raw gratification of mutual lust between Lady C and Mellors. Where is the beauty, the sensuality and the giving of true sexual love in all that?

... View More
Leon Terner

Although this film wasn't thoroughly disappointing, I found it to be somewhat wanting. Before I begin, however, please observe that this mini isn't merely "based-" (a phrase often misused and given far greater emphasis than deserved) "-upon" one of D. H. Lawrence's versions of 'Lady Chatterley's Lover', but contains elements and references to - unless I'm mistaken - all three of them. This might account for the fact that the title of this miniseries has been slightly abbreviated and no longer fully resembles that of the one (version) most commonly known. Anyway, I feel I ought to warn lazy students out there thinking they might get away with just watching this instead of reading the novel - that by the way I find absolutely wonderful! So, about this series: The acting in many scenes seems 'made for TV' and the dialogue often appears less than natural. That is to say, the actors really wait for their counterparts to finish their lines before uttering their own, something which may be befitting for a stage play, but certainly not for a moving picture, unless adapted especially for senior citizens who'd rather take their time than experience something more or less normal.Also, Clifford's sudden outbursts and high-school-drama-club type acting gave me the impression he had suffered head trauma or perhaps an aneurysm in addition to his damaged lower half. Watch out especially for his embarrassingly poor and exaggeratedly theatrical (and "un-French") recital of Racine. Oh, and let's not forget Connie's ridiculous tango with her sister, or the ridiculous sister for that matter.However, I don't want to advise anyone to avoid this adaptation. Richardson and Bean do a good job and are a very convincing couple. The scenes depicting sexual congress, as well as the 'innocent' nude scenes, are few and tastefully arranged. Also, much of Bean's dialogue has been cut down to avoid contrasting too severely with what is essentially well-made (TV-)erotica.All in all, though not a masterpiece, this is a presentable homage to Lawrence.

... View More
elinorw2002

This movie was very enjoyable as well as instructive. It was enjoyable because it was so faithful to the most popular version of the story and instructive about how people conducted their lives after WW1 in England. Joely Richardson is a new actress for me and I find her convincing as Connie. Sean Bean is a familiar handsome actor who has a long career I've followed. I feel these actors portrayed Mellors and Connie as reluctant lovers. They were strangers at first and only knew they needed what everyone needs, tenderness in their lives. It felt like I was watching two people desperate in their search, almost helplessly drawn to find happiness against all odds. I personally don't care if Sean Bean did not appear completely naked, and if the lovemaking was wooden at first, it felt right given the circumstances. These actors are bringing characters to life for us and it should not be forgotten this is not a view into an affair between the actors, it is the portrayal of characters brought to life by good acting and believable direction.

... View More
alicecbr

Yes, this is a fascinating movie. But it raises questions of yesterday's class differences, and today's male prudery. Here's the question: as they have it all ways, including Greek, why does Ms. Richardson have to portray her everything over and over, but M'sieu Bean, that hunk, is carefully covered so his 'dangly bits' don't show. Read the biography and you'll see how hard they had to work to make sure he DIDN'T portray full male nudery. How come, I ask? Is it because male directors are so afraid of their size problems, that they don't dare breech that frontier? If one shows, then the others will have to. And please!!! I'm not promiscuous or a nympho, but Richardson was obviously contemplating a dental appointment in the 'throes of her passion'. And Bean was obviously pushing a sack of potatoes up a hill. Why won't those directors make some shots from behind the woman's viewpoint, and let us see the male faces during intercourse? That is not obscene, and when there is both love and lust, there IS a difference as most human beings know. OK, and why aren't we shown the most telling and lasting scene from the book: where Connie wreathes Mellor's willy in flowers. I read this as a teen=ager and I still remember that mental image 40 years later. So why not, Mr. Russell? You're so 'outrageous', yeah. Not so. The gorgeous ENglish country house, oh, it's to swoon over with all the paintings. Yes, Russell can indeed photograph beautifully England. The lines about the colliers and the serving class right in front of them, and the photo switch to the maids' tight faces was genius, pure genius. Even if the paralyzed husband was a wee bit cartoonery in his outrageous insensitivity. D.E. Lawrence is known as a misogynist and this ditzy Connie was no exception. She was so flighty it's amazing and I'm wondering what Canada would have done to the REAL spoiled darling, beset with the turmoil and strains of pregnancy and a primitive culture. Of course, we have a class conscious culture here in the U.S., but I don't think it's quite as ludicrous as the English was. (I know Northern English salesmen with their wierd accents who are so cute. And the line where the sister asks Mellors to speak English 'properly' without the dialect is precious. can it be from the movie? So, OK, Sean. Now let's give them a movie where love-making is really shown as love on the face. Not as simply an animal maneuver.

... View More