Incannerax What a waste of my time!!!

Harockerce What a beautiful movie!

Plustown A lot of perfectly good film show their cards early, establish a unique premise and let the audience explore a topic at a leisurely pace, without much in terms of surprise. this film is not one of those films.

Sanjeev Waters A movie that not only functions as a solid scarefest but a razor-sharp satire.

ReluctantFan Many passages felt too slow-paced especially in the 1st and 2nd episode. On the other hand, I found Connie, Hilda and most of the other cast lived up to the characters I had imagined as a reader. Many lines of Mellors and Connie were taken straight from the book which was good. The pheasant chick scene was well portrayed. The sex scenes were not as gratuitous as happens so often on screen. In this case they are part of the story and were tastefully done on the whole. Contrary to some of the above comments, I think the series went quite far enough so far as sexual explicitness was concerned. What is acceptable in literature can easily become voyeurism when depicted on screen. Sean Bean is a favourite actor of mine but I was disappointed with his impersonation of Mellors. I recall Mellors as a very proud man looking down at Sir Clifford in spite of his subservient position and I'm not sure Bean expressed this sufficiently. For instance he was good in his confrontation scenes with Connie or Hilda but played Mellors as too humble almost downtrodden before Sir Clifford and Mrs Bolton. Also in the book Mellors switches from dialect to standard English and back according to the situation and I felt this was not so much in evidence in the series.My main disappointment however is the new glossy happy ending which is far too easy and banal. It seems at odds with the questions raised by the novel notably about the feasibility of relationships between social classes.

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.

QueenofBean D. H. Lawerence wrote some of my favorite books of all time, including Lady Chatterley's Lover, so at first, I was afraid to watch these short little missives. I was not disappointed, however. It held true to quite a few aspects of the "Sir John Thomas and Lady Jane" version of the book than the original publication, but Lawerence never seemed to be quite satisfied and was always changing. Joely Richardson was a beautiful Lady Chatterley, and Sean Bean seemed the perfect Mellors. James Wilby was so convincing as Clifford that by the end of this movie, you just wanted that horrid wretch to be left alone, wallowing in his misery, because like everything else in his life, Constance was a possession, not a human being. This movie is a timeless treasure for anyone who loves the idea of being in love!

merynefret One might expect that a film (or telly production) based on any book with the word "lover" in the title would have a lot of - er - "human relations exploration". This one does, certainly, but the love scenes are done tastefully and don't come off as pornographic in the least.The well-crafted script draws upon the obvious "Lady Chatterley's Lover" but also incorporates material from two of Lawrence's lesser-known works. I found the drama unfolding on the screen interesting to watch, especially in the capable hands of Sean Bean and Joely Richardson.I gave the film an eight because it does have rather a lot of sex in it, including a few brief shots of full frontal nudity (though this particular part has nothing to do with sex), as well as some coarse language. Those familiar with Lawrence's masterpiece, though, should find it interesting, and it may even prove useful as an introduction to the book (as well as a basic human-anatomy course). ---Arwen Elizabeth KnightleyP.S. Not recommended for viewers under the age of sixteen.