I read one of D. H. Lawrence's novel in university as part of an English course I was taking, and I found it utterly boring and not making me want to seek out his other works. The only reason why I rented this Lawrence adaptation was that it was produced by famed schlockmeisters Menahem Golan and Yorman Globus, who made some really entertaining trashy movies. This was one of the few times they tried for "respectability", though they chose a story that could also be mined for exploitation material.But the movie fails both at its serious attempts and with its attempts at exploitation. The script has too many faults that distance the audience. The setup of the situation at the beginning of the movie goes so fast that there's no time to set up characters and make us see what they are feeling. This flaw with the characters continues as the movie goes on, and I was not sure why many times characters did what they did. Oddly, there are also a number of scenes that serve no purpose - if they had eliminated those scenes, and used the extra few minutes to pump up the characters, I'm pretty sure the movie would be a lot better.As for the erotic element of the movie, it's not there. Even for 1981, the idea of taking a lover must have seem old hat to audiences. The nudity and sex in the movie is not the least bit erotic despite full frontal nudity and explicit sex scenes. Some of this might be blamed on the below average production values - the movie has a murky look throughout, and there's not much effort to beef up the backgrounds with extras or anything that might have taken time and expense to make.Even if you are a Golan/Globus fanatic like I am, odds are you'll find this as dreary as I did.

Class consciousness is the thematic excuse for this very Victorian-era story of the wife of a debilitated English aristocrat. The wife has certain "needs" that cannot be met by her husband, who is paralyzed from the waist down. So, she finds what she needs in the grounds-keeper, a ruggedly handsome man. Visual eroticism is the real theme, of course.There's not a lot to the story. The whole thing could have been neatly told in thirty minutes. Here, it's terribly drawn out, with scenes that are way too lengthy. What's really annoying is the vanity that characters exhibit. Lady Chatterley (Sylvia Kristel), in particular, is obsessed with her own body. Partially nude, she stares vainly at herself in a mirror. For his part the grounds-keeper (Nicholas Clay) likes to do outdoor chores with his shirt off, convenient for any sensual woman who just happens to be strolling by. It's all rather obvious and superficial. Only toward the end does the story actually get interesting.I do like the majestic musical score. And the cinematography isn't bad at all, with some good outdoor scenes in the fog. There are lots of close-up camera shots, and quite a few extreme close-ups. This film is obviously a Sylvia Kristel vehicle. But her acting is stilted and self-conscious.Maybe the film was sexually daring in its time. By today's standards, "Lady Chatterley's Lover" is quite tame. I would mostly describe it as slow, drawn-out, and dull, with characters who are annoyingly self-centered and vain.

I love this film. I own it on DVD. The reason I give it ten points out of ten is that it has the incredibly sexy and talented Nicholas Clay in it. He plays Oliver Mellors, the gamekeeper of an estate, that is having an affair with the lady of the house. She is married but her husband cannot do his husbandly duties because he came back from World War 1 in a wheelchair. She is an upper class rich woman while he is considered low class and poor. She doesn't work and in the beginning tends to her husband until he decides to get a caretaker for himself. This leaves her with time on her hands to wander the grounds of her estate where she comes upon Mellors nude and bathing himself by the chicken coop. She lusts after him and they strike up a relationship although rocky at first. The have a passionate affair. I won't reveal the ending. I truly believe this is Nicholas Clay's finest work although he is probably known best as his role of Sir Lancelot in Excalibur (he is naked in that movie too). I think this version is best. Lady Chatterley was made into another film in 1993 starring Joely Richardson and Sean Bean but no one compares to British hottie Nicholas Clay.

From the makers of "Emmanuelle: The Joys Of A Woman"...not exactly D. H. Lawrence territory, is it? Still in all, this low-budget sexcapade has decent locales and very steamy leads (Sylvia Kristel and Nicholas Clay), neither of whom are shy about appearing in the buff. It is noteworthy that this is one of the few R-rated movies from this period to show the man undressed as well as the woman, and their sex in the forest has animal heat to it. But those looking for an adept cinematic translation of the famous novel will be embarrassed...and perhaps even slightly amused. The weakest link is the editing, which darts around leaving scenes unfinished, such as the finale (which is really just a bushel of footage posing as an ending). However, on a soft-core/harlequin level, "Lady Chatterly's Lover" isn't too bad. **1/2 from ****