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.

As my mother used to say, "The man can read the phone book and I would be satisfied." A truly masterful performance for all involved. I did not even know this existed until recently and I sat to watch it in one sitting. Joely Richardson and Bean exuded the passion which was present, even more than in the books. And I loved Shirley Anne Field's Mrs. Bolton. It appeared as though she truly wanted Connie's happiness, or perhaps she just wished to have the master under her thumb, but either way, it was a stellar performance.And Sean Bean...Oh, my. I have followed his career since seeing the Sharpe's episodes and in everything he is in, he takes the part and makes it his own. A simply wonderful effort and a beautifully touching love story.

I found it too long and very different from the shorter Ken Russel works I know. His theatrical films have a gift of visionary concision which is utterly incompatible with a 3 1/2 hrs TV production. Connie's dream says much more about her than her visit to Clifford with only her face covered. I kept feeling that Russel was conveying all that was significant in a few short scenes and that most of the remaining screen time was simply decorative, exemplified by Connie and Hilda's tango: pure exercise in style. Some moments can even be enjoyed, but a film lover smells too many rats. Then the ending is so "B-movie", I start to suppose Russell was sneering at his TV audience. There is a feeling of tiredness throughout the film and you are constantly reminded that the plot is so well known, there isn't much to expect in the way of surprises. So you start to make amends... which is what you happens when you are trying to make the best out of something not really satisfactory. This is pleasant but not outstanding TV fiction. A pity that I had been expecting a typical Ken Russel work.

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.