Most Helpful Customer Reviews
41 of 45 people found the following review helpful:
3.0 out of 5 stars
This one was a long time coming..., May 20, 2005
A mainstay on HBO around 1982-83, "Lady Chatterly's Lover" is a soft-core romance, but not a sleazy one. It wasn't successful in theaters, maybe because nobody knew what audience it was targeted to (surely not literature addicts or art-house filmgoers; maybe Sylvia Kristel/"Emmanuelle" fans). Consequently, it was popular on cable and video, where viewing privacy can elicit whatever reactions necessary (mostly giggles). It isn't very well-made, but the acting is decent and the passion is convincing. The editing is sloppy, with some sequences, and the ending, cut short, but it does have a few steamy scenes, frisky nudity, and good location filming.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
32 of 36 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
Lady Chatterley's Lover, October 8, 2005
One of the most important elements of this film is the sense of real life sensibilities it captures. The qualities of longing and frustration are beautifully captured by Sylvia Crystal as Lady Chatterley, the wife of a dashing but complex husband played by Shane Briant with combinations of bravado and self centeredness beneath a handsome figure who is logged into his class background and behavior patterns allowing little room for natural love and responsiveness. While Lady Chatterley holds firmly at first to her devotion to her husband she cannot withstand the raw sensuality of Nicholas Clay as the gardner on the estate. Nicholas Clay likes to show his butt and I am reminded of another film, "Evil Under The Sun" where he tittilates the viewer with his rather voluptuous posterior while walking on the beach. This aside, he more than captures the "real world" personality of his class and attitudes juxtaposed with Lord Chatterley's strict upperclass ones. I felt the "eye brows" of Lord Chatterley were a bit "over stated" in make up and this had the effect giving him a drama queen demeanor and somehow a little "campy." But all in all I thoroughly enjoyed the film for its showing nudity where nudity seemed perfectly called for without teasing and overly gauzy effects which is sometimes such a bore . Maybe the film is not what one would call a "religious experience" but why should all films be that anyway. It is beautifully filmed and the production values are first rate and it makes a sometimes complicated story line believable without too much contempt for the viewer, especially with D. H. Lawrence's reputation. Above all I felt it captured the anguish and fear which contibute to decisions that drastically alter the people that make them.
And I like looking a Nicholas Clay's butt.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
19 of 22 people found the following review helpful:
4.0 out of 5 stars
THE "B" SIDE, August 8, 2005
This 1981 (not '82 as suggested) film adaptation of the D. H. Lawrence classic is an enjoyable B-ride if only for its panoramic scenery of foggy London and the sexually-charged engaging performances of its stars. Indeed, Sylvia Kristel (Emmanuelle) and the late Nicholas Clay (Excalibur) bring nothing but skin to their characters of an unlikely duo engaging in a torrid affair. Over an ultra-syrupy score (by Richard Harvey and Stanley Myers), and a fine use of camera work by Robert Fraisse, the two go at it with all their splendor, leaving nothing to the imagination except to wonder if the movie would have been better had a talented cast been involved. Since it isn't but remains enjoyable despite its flaws, this LADY CHATTERLEY'S LOVER is superficial enough to be camp classic material, which is, as we all know, an important factor for lovers of such films.-----Martin Boucher
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
|
![[Start the discussion]](http://g-ecx.images-amazon.com/images/G/01/x-locale/communities/discussion_boards/start-new-discussion-sec._V192250339_.gif){kind=small}
