User reviews

I truly do not understand why this movie is so reviled. I have read all D. H. Lawrence and most people fail (or do not wish to) understand that his main purpose was the study of social inequities and their devastating effect on British Society in the early 20th Century. All is work tends to illustrate that. Lady Chatterley's Lover is a prime example of that beyond the scandal around its publication. It is the first time that I truly see this aspect in an adaptation as well as the sex not being necessarily pretty and romantic. Their relationship is the closest one to the book I have ever seen. So haters pass your way, the cast, direction, cinematography everything rings true.

First let me say that it's been 45-50 years since I read Lady Chatterley's Lover in college.....and other than the title and a few names, I don't remember anything about it. Thus, I can't say if this film has anything in common with the book. As I watched the film unfold, I struggled for any "recognition" of scenes and situations, without success. But that said, I fail to understand the "hate" that some reviewers are giving this film. Perhaps it's NOT like the classic D. H. Lawrence book, but taken on its own, it has some real appeal. I can't recall if the book had such "modern" woman aspects, and the film is occasionally a bit tedious in its "blame the Patriarchy" for everything......but that's simply to be expected in film making today. With its copious nudity, it certainly meets today's "Netflix" standards of having women-centric stories, and enough female flesh to hold the men's interest. The quality of acting and photography are actually outstanding. (although the extreme use of the color purple in lighting and clothing became very jarring at times) So, regardless as to how it compares to the source book, this film is very enjoyable and entertaining, both for male and female viewers. Please don't believe the critics who say otherwise, and give it a view......I think you will appreciate it.

It looks good. The acting of the 2 leads is convincing and yet there is no heat, no chemistry and no peril in what they may loose.

As with so much of Lawrence's adaptations, they capture the text, the story, but not the spirit of the author.

It fails to capture some of the subplots that would make this a real telling of the book. Lord Chatterley is a caring thoughtful man one moment and ridiculous stereotype the next. Hilda, caring when Connie is ill and yet cold and shrill later. Mrs Bolton was not developed in this adaptation, possibly because of time.

It's worth a watch. Netflix are starting to do more highbrow movies with Rebecca coming last year. This is better than that. Let's hope it continues.

This production of LADY CHATTERLEY'S LOVER neatly summarizes the plot of the novel upon which it is based, and it retains a surprising amount of the naughty bits that earned the novel its notoriety. In the process of condensing the story, the filmmakers lost some of its emotional appeal. Emma Corrin in particular brings depth to an underwritten role, but the rest of the cast capably acquit themselves with similarly underdeveloped material. Unfortunately, the romance often feels more like something that hits the beats of the story rather than something genuine and romantic or erotic. Most of the production values are good.

Sometimes a movie is more than the sum of its parts. Not this latest LCL. Here the parts stubbornly refuse to come together (pun intended).

In a culture ruled by intellect and divided by class, Lawrence advocated for connection and the body. But sex, for Lawrence, is not solely about climax; it is also a vehicle of self-discovery, a way to transcend class.

Unfortunately, the film demonstrates little of Lawrence's penetration. Instead, Lady Chatterley and her story languish under a frigid ideological lens.

Thus Corrin's Lady Chatterley can best be described as 'disembodied.' The director is more interested in her as an idea than a flesh-and-blood person. Her face registers, but what is missing is the experience of her awkward, boyish body. Honestly, if she manifested a new consciousness in the way she moved and held herself, I sure didn't notice it.

Similarly, she arouses no physical chemistry in a fine-looking O'Connell, who in turn does capture the accent, but not the ecstasy. Their nude scenes together, devitalized by the wan colors of the photography, are the reverse of joyously sensuous.

Speaking of which, has Venice ever been less sensuous?

In the end, the film makes the viewer an intellectual observer, not a partaker. The film's elements, though in ever such good taste, lack that lush, unashamed appeal to the senses that would have immersed us in Connie's and Mellor's awakening to what it is to be woman and man.

Qualified recommendation: despite its shortcomings, a springboard into a more personal, transgressive, and passionate imaginative experience.

While not completely awful, this latest adaptation feels a bit like the suburban woman's book club version of Lady Chatterley's Lover. Connie is given a light feminist makeover, which is not necessarily a bad thing, but in most respects the writing and the direction loses the muscularity and the rawness of the novel. The scene with Connie and Oliver frolicking naked in the rain is emblematic of this director's approach. It's cute and maybe a tad naughty, rather than erotically charged or daring or liberating. And poor Mellors, while beautifully played by Jack O'Connell, feels somewhat emasculated by both the script and the tepid direction. It's also telling that they chose a boyish, svelte, hairless, almost twinkish type like O'Connell, who doesn't exactly embody Mellors as written by Laurence. So it's fair to say this movie is more Connie's story than it is Mellor's. The actors are fine though - particularly Joely Richardson as Mrs Bolton. And the cinematography is some compensation for the lack of literary cred.

So sweet! I don't think I have seen anything that looks this gorgeous and beautiful and amazing in a long long long long long time! I have listened to the audio-book and it seems to have changed the ending and yeah some of the narrative which I find to be a lil' too invasive in the novel is removed here, but the ending here is so sweet! I loved it so much! I have to say! The two very different mediums and similar stories but I think the endings is what sets this apart, the journey experience are both really wonderful this is really neat and tight while the book is thorough and you learn a lot from the wise narrative but to look at! Wow! This is extra-ordinary! Really stunning! The director here did a fine fine fine very fine job! Exquisite! Thank-you Netflix!

This Netflix dud ruined my favorite novel. First of all, I hated the camera work. Cold hues of blues throughout, in a story about sensual love? Then it was wildly miscast and mis-directed. Corrin was too skinny, neither she nor Mellors exuded any sensuality, and had no chemistry. A young anorexic filmed in hues of blue in a story of sexual passion? Very misguided. No buildup of tension between Connie and Mellors at the onset of their relationship. Then, when they go at it, Connie looks like she is 14 and Mellors like he is 16. Clifford is a cardboard character.

The wit of the novel was put in the grinder. The costumes were too modern and 'on the nose' (see the red day dress). The dialogues mediocre, the sex scenes either cringing or just dull. So the directing was just terrible - and I am surprised at the high ratings offered by the supposed critics. Even more surprised with the fact that a team of Creative Execs at Netflix greenlit such a dud on the basis of the well-known actors.

And what is the matter with all the anorexic young British actresses? In the Crown season 5, the new Diana (played by Elisabeth Debicki is also anorexic and about 20 pounds skinnier than the rea Diana). When Corrin takes off her top and looks at herself and her naked breasts in the mirror she looks like freshly out of Auschwitz. I imagine the casting directors are pressuring young actresses to be so skinny, but someone should stop this fad.

So, no emotion for story and characters until like the last 15 mins.

Though there have been many screen versions of D. H. Lawrence's novel over the years, this is the first one I've ever seen. It's a handsome and faithful adaptation, and if it's never great, it's always respectable.

The film looks gorgeous, and Emma Corrin gives a terrific performance as Lady Chatterley. Predictably, the film jettisons a lot of the psychology of the novel and also a lot of the political and social commentary, but it doesn't eliminate it entirely. It doesn't come close to catching the erotic intensity of the book, but almost nothing short of hard core porn would. The two leads have a decent amount of chemistry, which is important. No version of "Lady Chatterley" could possibly work unless we believe the two main characters want to tear each other's clothes off.

Grade: B+

Based on the notorious last and often banned novel by D. H. Lawrence this film is it's most recent adaptation. Set during WWI Lord Clifford Chatterly marries Connie Reid. He almost immediately goes back to the front where he is injured in the war. When he comes home he is unable to father children or use his legs. He moves his wife to his family's country estate, taking her out of the bustling London that she loves. Isolated and alone, Lady Chatterly becomes more of a caretaker than lover to her husband. In this version her husband discusses with her the idea that she could discreetly choose a lover to impregnate her so that they could have an heir, sine he can not father one...it only they know that. He set boundaries, that he trusted her judgment, but never wanted to know who the true father is. At first she is upset by his suggestion, but starts taking long walks by herself where she eventually meets the estate's gamekeeper and former soldier himself Oliver Mellors. Eventually Oliver and Connie start a torrid affair that does end up with her being pregnant.

The novel touches on several themes involving the class system existing in England, infidelity, and the conditions of laborers like miners. The film also touches on these theme but only in the broadest of strokes.

The setting for the film is beautifully filmed and the costumes are wonderful and period appropriate. I really appreciated that they had both male and female full frontal nudity. The film r ally makes a pitch for this story being about a great love story and a woman willing to give up everything for this great love...only in the film I was watching I never saw that love built or nurtured. I would argue that there was a woman desperate to be touched physically and that there was lust...but I failed to see any love. I am afraid having good physical timing so you can satisfy each other's desires simultaneously is not love.

There were some decent performances by the actors and in particular by the actress who played my favorite character in this film, Mrs. Bolton (Joely Richardson).

I am not sure how I would rank this in a list of adaptations of this book, but I do know it is not my favorite. It is a beautiful film that I can recommend to fans of classics and those who are fans of historical dramas. I don't think I would recommend this to a true romantic however...and if lust is your thing, I think you would be better off watching 365 DNI in my opinion.

I didn't have any expectations, I haven't read the book (I think I will now though) but I know the story. So this isn't a comparison on the book and I love period pieces but I thought it was very well done. I would guess the bad reviews are people that object to this interpretation of the book. It reminds me a bit of Outlander.

It surprises me how relevant stories like this continue to be even nearly 100 years later. Both on the judgement of women and the treatment of workers...the railroad workers strike came to mind as I watch it. Either way, it's worth a watch if you like this find of film.

How do you treat "infidelity ?". Does it have some grey areas where the person cheating also may have arguments to present on their behalf? These are pretty interesting questions that lady chaterlee presents. In between it touches upon the pretty interesting questions of societal divide , inequality and the darker picture of the upper layers.

Set in England in the backdrop of war the chaterlee is the victim of the war and unable to satisfy his lady. But sex is not the overall loss he loses his soul and leaves the lady chaterlee "love dry." She becomes slowly merely a caretaker than partner but when gamekeeper comes she opens up . Their affair though immoral but becomes immortal.

A lovely presentation about the problem of monogamic society, the perception and how inhuman the life used to be for the poor.

Won't say this movie is without flaw but definitely worths watching. Specially the way it presents satirically the hypocrisy of progressives. Topics might be different but the condition is same now as well.

Almost 100 years since D H Lawrence published his superbly written expose of class inequality and hypocrisy, and 60 years since the book was cleared in the obscenity trial, you would have thought society would have progressed to the extent of being able to accept and value it for what it is: sexually honest and explicit. But if this Netflix adaptation is anything to go by, we have not progressed.

Clean, polite, and fightfully well spoken, this version is imbued with a romantic innocence that would be creditable if it were not for the fact that the whole spirit of Lawrence's writing and intent has been tossed aside in the process. And for the sake of what? A global audience with zero risk of any problems with sponsors or censors - because this adaptation comes oven-ready censored.

Gone is the earthiness. Gone is Lawrence's explicit dialogue. Gone is any sense of the sheer joy and worship of the body. Gone are both Lady Jane and John Thomas.

Watch it if you want a sanitised Reader's Digest/Hallmark adaptation. Alternatively, buy a second hand copy of the unexpurgated orginal, and enjoy.

This film is worth watching for the costume design by Emma Fryer.

I really love Jack O'Connell's work - he did his best with the script and comes across as a sensitive Mellors.

Emma Corrin is fine. Looks the part and we get a few Diana moments.

The sex scenes are well done - I'm guessing thanks to the intimacy director and sense of trust between the actors.

I think all of the cast are great - I just find the script thin. Also, Mrs Bolton's dialogue was meh.

I love the cinematic ending - we didn't need to see a follow on of the reunion?

Some historical aspects included in the script were interesting.

So, worth watching as its beautiful to look at but maybe read the book for the full Lawrence experience?

D. H Lawrence's novel Lady Chatterley's Lover is a classic that has been adapted multiple times on the screen, including a recent release on Netflix. The novel was first published in 1928 and 1929 in Italy and France, and in 1932 in England, but only in edited excerpts. After publication, the novel faced controversy and censorship due to obscenity, and was banned in several countries. In 1960, Penguin published the entire novel and was taken to court for obscenity, which led to a landmark trial where Lady Chatterley's Lover and D. H Lawrence were acquitted of charges. The latest release on Netflix, directed by Laure de Claremont -Tonnerrey is a celebration of women's bodies and the struggle for women's rights and autonomy. The plot follows the story of aristocratic Englishman Sir Clifford Chatterley, who is disabled from war, and his wife Connie, who rebels against the societal pressure to conform to traditional gender roles and instead finds emotional support with a watchman. The film, with its enthralling cinematography and captivating performances, presents a powerful narrative of class struggle and the question of whether being an aristocrat or an elite means sacrificing one's natural desires.

Some people are saying shallow things or ruins of this movie. Well, I digress. It's a little dragged out at first, it's true. But understand, we are facing a great production. The settings are beautiful, the costumes are stunningly beautiful, the colors... everything enraptures you, captivates you. Having not read the 1920s book the movie was based on, I didn't know what to expect. At the beginning of the interaction between Connie and Oliver, I thought it was going to be just sex. A repressed hard-on with a dose of melancholy from both of them. Didn't even get eaten. But what a surprise for me when, from that simple encounter, a deep connection developed between them (in representation of Connie's social relationships with friends, family, which are so "progressive" while hypocritical and elitist). Common literary tastes, passion for the simple and beautiful things in nature, political opinions that complement each other, as equals. The many sex scenes are the part where all of their previous suffering spills out. And they deserve it! They deserve to be happy in scenes like those, with pleasure, with freedom, as they say. And they never disrespect each other, they are always companions, that's the most important thing.

So don't watch with a moralistic head of someone who can't stand the sight of pubic hair or a woman making fun of a man who really cares if she was satisfied with his performance. They watch with the open heart of someone who can endure moments of comfortable silence between those who love each other, without the obligation to say anything. Everything that needs to be said is in the hearts of both and above all, in the eyes.

To the (false) moralists on duty and to those who are looking for action movies like Fast and Furious, avoid watching this drama, as they will get bored and inevitably come here to write nonsense, because the level here is sinister.

It's a good movie and unfortunately not a memorable one. I feel like I watched an incomplete movie. What i mean is, in few moments of the film there were no triggers that led to the next scene. It feels like a bits of pieces stitched up together to make it whole. In more than few cases the camera work was bit off in narrating that particular scene, or, just completely off in framing actors within the frame. All in all there were too many missed opportunities from editing, filming, framing...as you go through the movie you notice these little things. It was off putting.

Going through the meat of it, the main actors did well with what they were provided...I guess. Their passion doesn't exactly feels raw and emotional, but, you root for them. For some reason, to show passion you need passionate sex scene(s), which is dumb, shallow, and almost naïve. Both the main characters didn't get a "the scene" scene. The scene where two people you root for, just talk. Spray out all of their vulnerabilities out in the open, in passionate manner. In fact all through the movie these both characters don't have that kind of scene. All of their talking scenes, feels trimmed and forced to make up the plot.

Coming to final 3rd, it didn't fit with the rest of the movie. It's like, yeah "we have to end this film, so, here it is". The final 3rd feels rushed and lacked whatever "passion" that was preceded up to that point. It just ended.

All in all, if felt like i watch a movie with big chunks of pieces missing. I watched an incomplete movie.

Acting was sublime; filled with emotion, passion, warmth and tension throughout.

I loved every second of this film. Jack O'Connell is brilliant as is the leading lady - they are so well casted together.

Plus all the other actors as well. Beautiful setting and clothes too.

A fantastic film with a happy ending. Well worth a watch and is up there in my list of all time favourites. I fail to understand any negative comment about this movie. Everyone needs to watch it and enjoy it - no need to compare or pull it apart. Accept it for what it is - a love story filled with passion.

Bloody brilliant!

No pun intended - I actually remember the title. And by that I mean the movie that was done many decades ago. I never watched that, never came around to, to be perfectly honest. But I know of it. I have not read any novel or source material either, but I reckon, the movies do them justice. Visualizing the erotic nature of it all.

I assume back in the day, the affair part of it all probably was the biggest scandal. I would like to believe that we are at a place where we can say that it does not bother us as society anymore. However you may feel about that - the movie really makes it as plausible as possible. Both have a lot to lose, but of course the woman has even more to lose ... well "of course" as they say.

A lot of nudity, Netflix does not mind that and a lot of sleeping around. Male and female nudity by the way, in case that is of any concern or plays a role in your decision making when it comes to watching a drama that emphasizes on the erotic nature of the human being(s) ... I reckon I have to watch the "classic" soon just to be able to compare the two movies. I assume this one is better ... it feels really well done and acted for sure. Great costumes, photography and sound design.

I had been looking forward to seeing the latest adaptation of Lady chatterleys lover as I have always been a fan of the story but it seems that it was a huge disappointment.

There is no real chemistry between Connie and Oliver. Their relationship mainly consists of lust and not love. It's more abit physical desires than emotional connection as they feel like strangers who barely know one another. The dancing in the rain scene whilst naked just felt awkward and out of place for the characters.

In Jed Mercurio's version he managed to make you feel sympathy toward Clifford at times whereas with this Clifford there is nothing likeable about him. James Norton did a much better job.

It's a shame as this movie has a truly amazing cast especially Jack O'Connell but I found it so dull. There is nothing to really pull you into the story.

Luminous, sexy, audacious!! Emma Corrin and Jack O'Connell are sumptuous. They capture all the passion and are thrilling to watch. So intoxicating a watch. I have never read the novel but will definitely seek out more D H Lawrence. There was nothing that made me think tawdry. It made me think the anger and outrage of its day was mainly that a woman empowered her sexuality and chose the man she loved and did not conform to the society role made for her. Rebellion and audacity... very sexy indeed. The stately home was gorgeous as well as the Welsh countryside. Well done, Netflix! More please of this calibre.

This is just another one of the many films that gets remade over and over again. The remakes never get any better, in fact often the reverse. And this film fulfills that formula perfectly. It's dumbed down, unsexy and uninteresting.

There is no chemistry between the two titular characters whatsoever and the acting is no very good. I didn't particularly hate the performances but I also didn't find them in the least believable.

The writing was pretty terrible. It seemed as though they wanted to have somebody be the "bad guy" but they just weren't sure about who to make it. Direction was poor. Too concerned with the surface appearances and ignoring the substance. The set and costuming were basically BBC average.

Like man Netflix "originals" they are scared of offending anyone and spend so much time and effort on avoiding that offense that the end product is as bland and tasteless as cafeteria food.