I think it was truly unfair for Lady Constance Chatterley to cheat on Sir Clifford just because he was so physically not able to give her a child. I suppose it really did hit her hard as she always was dying to have kids. At the same time, it was really wrong. It was too bad that there was no support back then on relation to having kids with a disability or even consider adoption. By god, there is so much better changes now, it's really amazing to get the support now with therapy, counseling, etc.

I felt really sorry actually for poor Clifford since he truly had lost confidence and he just was always so teary, god help him! You wouldn't blame him!

I honestly think this is a sad sad story that would make you sigh a lot after watching it....

The only other version of Lady Chatterley I have seen was the 1993 version directed by Ken Russell, the Infant Terrible of British Cinema returning to BBC television. The series was a critical and ratings success and of course whipped up controversial headlines but this was Russell being respectful for the television medium although he still added a bit of his flair in which I believe was his last substantial directing project.

This cut down version directed and adapted by Jed Mercurio once again shows that the good doctor tends to struggle outside the confines of a hospital ward.

Constance Reid marries the upper class Sir Clifford Chatterley a wealthy mine owner who is paralysed in the Great War. Her sexual frustrations drives him to a passionate affair with the gamekeeper Mellors who also served in the trenches with her husband.

Although DH Lawrence novel becomes infamous for its sex the book also examined the class relationships between the wealthy and the working classes.

Holliday Grainger plays the sultry Lady but she looks more innocent and vulnerable, rejected by her wheelchair bound husband who she loves but he can no longer can get physical with her.

James Norton plays Sir Chatterley and Richard Madden is Mellors but I felt both actors were interchangeable for each other's parts not something you can say about Sean Bean in the Russell version.

The sexual content here was toned down. Mercurio did not want the sex scenes to overpower the drama but he also subdued the class war aspects of the novel as he made everyone too nice.

Sir Chatterley is shown as the decent sort of landowner despite his snobbishness, injured doing his duty for King and Country, wanting an heir and its only towards the latter part of the film that the class divide is raised more explicitly.

The tenderly short sex scenes robs Mellors of the animal passion that attracts both he and Lady Chatterley. In short the drama leaves him impotent because without the sex he really is not that interesting a character.

The ending based on a draft of the novel does not entirely work for me. Both Lady Chatterley and her lover leaving together to an uncertain future seems far fetched for the time period. She has given up her title, wealth to a man who seemingly has no prospects now he has lost his job.

While I liked the movie for it's romanticism, I must say that it was an overall sad movie in my opinion.

This movie is about a wealthy newlywed couple who, after the husband returns from war paralyzed from the waist down, begin to drift apart. The drifting in mostly on the part of the wife due to the husbands frustrations and longing for an heir he can not provide them with. This sets the wife's eye on the estate's newly hired gamekeeper. Slowly falling for one another leads the adulterous couple down a complicated road.

I say it was sad only because I had some feelings about the husband's life change and how hard that would've been to deal with. The movie wasn't bad. It has some nice costumes and some beautiful camera work but it doesn't make it very far past an average film for me.