Featured Audience Ratings

• Veronique K

  
  "lady chatterley's lover" was once the most notorious novel by d h lawrence in british literature history and its title was once named after the genitals of two protagonists. now it's adapted by french the first time in cinematic history, and surprisingly how… More
  "lady chatterley's lover" was once the most notorious novel by d h lawrence in british literature history and its title was once named after the genitals of two protagonists. now it's adapted by french the first time in cinematic history, and surprisingly how soft-core the french presents the story despite the bold audacity french cinema often impresses the audience on the subject matter of erotica. certainly there's a purpose to re-modify the name "lady chatterley's lover" into concise "lady chatterley": to utilize it as a feministic vehicle to assert the notion of woman's sexual awakening and her determination to be her own master. lawrence's novel's is about lady chatterley's LOVER, the proteriat macho man who stands for the vigor of life, the laborous blue-collar stud who is the object of desire for the upper-class dame who cannot get satisfactory laids from the men in the same social level as her. the book even manifests a voyeuristic scene of the lady drooling over the luscious junitor's nude during bath. the movie only reveals the lady bumps into the topless janitor wiping his own sweat. besides the casting choice of male protagonist is quite unusual to select a middle-aged uncle with thinning hair as the supposedly younger man of rags who elopes with an attractive mature woman of better upbringing. briefly, the scenario of "lady chatterley's lover" is about a sexually ungratified bourgeois dame whose husband's been handicapped by the war from the waist beneath, so this loaded woman hooks with the janitor who guardes the backyard forest. the woman abandons the bondage of status gap and moral constraint to unite with this wild man who considers sex as the sacred primitive ritual within the nature. so they gallope toward their instinctual drives of life which, of course, includes sex. the novel majorly announces lawrence's revolt against puritanical sexual suppression by middle class. so how about the movie? what's the difference? as the popular french wave of feminism which has prospered since the 80s have two tendencies: the difference of gender attributes has been a subject matter rejoiced by helen cixious and julia kristieva, as well as the supreme esteem toward the uterus. so these two elements shall be the central spirit of the movie which is only about lady chatterley herself, her discovery of sexual pleasure and her assertative choice of individuality. firstly, the movie is made more puritanical than the novel could ever be. from the numerous sex scenes, lady chatterley appears like an adult virgin who never witnesses a male frontal before. (but in the novel, lady chatterley has cheated her husband with his friend before she meets the janitor, but experienced enough to recognize he ain't considerate partner who cares about her part of pleasure) more than half of the love scenes are fully clothed with only the genitals out to put the activity into function until later she requests to see how his "stock" looks like by curiosity. basically the french lady chatterley is more like a timid woman with electra complex, who never knows what sex is like rather than the sensual woman in full bloom as the novel describes. secondly, the male protagonist isn't exactly that virile as lawrence's depiction, more like a paternal figure with an apparent soft center, who declares himself has some sensitive feminine sides which prefers to be enclosed by the breeze of mother nature (a surrender to the grandeur form of uterus) instead of the volcanic phallic man who is a semi-misogynist repulsing over lesbianism and cursing feminine frigidity. the french LOVER seems even more frigid than lady chatterley who drags the palm of his hand over her one breast to encourage him into having sex with her. could i call the sex scenes lame? i suppose they're just NORMAL and highly conventional even they still preserve some crucial sequences of the novel like scurrying naked in the pouring rain within the forest and embellishing your sex organs with flowers that are the naughtiest and funniest parts in the story. but the movie expresses them with more childlikeness instead of frivolous humor. thirdly, the cinematic ending is lady chatterley finances her janitor lover to purchase a ranch of his own. he refuses it gently but she persuades him into it anyway so she could occasionally sneak into his ranch to date him behind her husband like a kept male mistress despite he still views himself big man of machismo. (while he confides her his "feminine" side of character)...so it's like, hail to the all-mighty woman who manages to stay in the marriage with an impotent puppet and still harbor a secretive love interest for her own private amusement as she suggests to him that she needs his "talent to live" to feel alive. does it make sense to you? (it's an open ending anyway) on the contrary, the novel ends with the couple's glorious triumph to shed off the confinement of classes and revolutionalize over the banal system of hypocritical civilization to have a baby and build a home of their own. the comparisons i've made above just bare the feministic resort this movie applies. whether you would be entertained or not depends on your preference and acceptance over the issue of matrix celebration. but un-deniably, the movie shoots the nature in such a pleasant scale to saturate you into an idyllic land of oblivion and temporal naivete, for that merit i deem it highly watchable. as for lawrence's novel, in the course of reading it, i do detect the preachy undertone filled with a sort of male-centered angst which catapults this novel into the classic niche of literature. the book has a message which is political and judgemental; the movie's reluctant to convey any message but indulge in constant haltings over the smell of morning dew and the scent of floral blossoms. which is better, it various from individuals. the book is more spunky and provocative; the movie is more lyrical and freewheeling. "lady chatterley" is NOT a faithful cinematic adaption of a mighty literature classic, but i certainly wouldn't dismiss it as a lackluster flop. (ps) marlon brando came into my mind as the blueprint of d h lawrence's original stud who enlightens the path of un-bridled sexualities for this desperate dame who just awaits him to conquer. don't you find brando fit, considering his perfomances in "last tango in paris"?

• Dean M

  
  Beautiful, believable and nothing short of a wonderful sexy surprise made in France and this runs for almost 3 hours. It's getting more interested than I last watched 1981's <i>Lady Chatterley's Lover</i>. All the support acting is measured and helps provide… More
  Beautiful, believable and nothing short of a wonderful sexy surprise made in France and this runs for almost 3 hours. It's getting more interested than I last watched 1981's <i>Lady Chatterley's Lover</i>. All the support acting is measured and helps provide a solid counterbalance for the central couple who gradually learn to let go their inhibitions and slide blissfully from lust to love. It is all very gradually done from Chatterley's first glimpse of the gamekeeper washing himself outside his hut and her consequent, and at the time seemingly over the top, need to sit to gather her senses, literally; to the powerful scene where she asks him to turn and display his erect penis and the wondrous scenes of the naked couple cavorting ecstatically in the pouring rain. All in all a fine mix of the wonders of nature, the manliness of the hand made, the power of sex and the need for love. Marina Hands is gorgeous as the title role and radiates happiness in love. For me she is really English.

• Gordon A

  
  Wonderfully earthy and naturalistic take on the tale of forbidden love. Marina Hands is breathtaking and the romance that blossoms is believable and touching. It shows a time when sexual discovery was innocent, pure and free from the hard sell media saturation we suffer today.

• Walter M

  
  [font=Century Gothic]"Lady Chatterley" starts shortly after the end of World War I when Sir Clifford Chatterley(Hippolyte Girardot), confined to a wheelchair because of injuries sustained during the war, is a wealthy mine owner. His wife, Constance(Marina Hands), pays… More
  [font=Century Gothic]"Lady Chatterley" starts shortly after the end of World War I when Sir Clifford Chatterley(Hippolyte Girardot), confined to a wheelchair because of injuries sustained during the war, is a wealthy mine owner. His wife, Constance(Marina Hands), pays greater attention to the household staff than he does, even helping out with duties on occasion, especially if it involves the gardening. When the valet is otherwise occupied, she goes to deliver a message to the gamekeeper, Parkin(Jean-Louis Coulloc'h), but is shocked to discover him washing without a shirt on. But she does return later...[/font] [font=Century Gothic]This resplendent and slightly too long production of "Lady Chatterley" rescues the reputation of D.H. Lawrence's novel from the lurid trash heap where it has lain for so long. The central theme is nature, and how important it is to be connected to it.(Constance is very interested in her surroundings whereas her husband is involved in that most unnatural of activities, mining, which can be considered a violation of the earth.) And is there anything more natural than sex? Not only is the movie sensual and erotic but also political, as the class conflict is key here.(And the one extended conversation between the Chatterleys is definitely politcal.) But Constance still has a long way to go before she is as liberated as her sister, Hilda, who owns a driver's license. [/font]

• Dimitris S

  
  Sublime foundation by Ferran,like a patient worker observing the everyday signs and wonders of Nature.The peasant's poetry could be an alternative title and despite a few interior frustrating paces,Hinds is more than enough.The overall achievement of this movie is to upgrade the… More
  Sublime foundation by Ferran,like a patient worker observing the everyday signs and wonders of Nature.The peasant's poetry could be an alternative title and despite a few interior frustrating paces,Hinds is more than enough.The overall achievement of this movie is to upgrade the classical novel adaptation and provide to Lawrence the best picture about Lady Chatterley.

• Daisy M

  
  Wonderful movie. I'd never read Lawrence's novel but I felt delighted after watching this. The director, Pascale Ferran, has created a work of art, putting this beautiful story into a movie and the leads, Marina Hands and Jean-Louis Coulloch, are perfect as Connie and… More
  Wonderful movie. I'd never read Lawrence's novel but I felt delighted after watching this. The director, Pascale Ferran, has created a work of art, putting this beautiful story into a movie and the leads, Marina Hands and Jean-Louis Coulloch, are perfect as Connie and Parkin. It was a slow moving movie and it last for more than two and a half hours, but it is fresh and has an adult innocence about it. Due that the movie was slow paced it shows here that sex is not obscene or vulgar. It's as natural as the beautiful fields where the two main characters spend most of their time together. Watching them in this setting, their sexual encounters feel natural and normal. ( I did not understood that in the beginning) Unfortunately, the ending just does not work. After drawing the viewer in with several long sensual scenes, the movie turns to a halt after a short 5 minute conversation. Why?

• David S

  
  It looks great and the idea of Lady Chatterley in French (the sexiest language in the world) works well. However there is something missing from making this a great film. The actor playing the gamekeeper is no Sean Bean but this works in the films favour as the slow moving… More
  It looks great and the idea of Lady Chatterley in French (the sexiest language in the world) works well. However there is something missing from making this a great film. The actor playing the gamekeeper is no Sean Bean but this works in the films favour as the slow moving relationship is much more believable. Yes there is lots of sex but it's not gratuitous and you believe these characters are falling in love. A lot of the story is told through looks rather than dialogue and although the film is quite slow you always know where it's going from the beginning so it's enjoyable seeing the development. Oddly the film seems to end before a final resolution but maybe that is the directors way of saying that in the modern cinema going world we won't accept a traditional happy ending.

Read all 7 featured audience ratings