Afouotos Although it has its amusing moments, in eneral the plot does not convince.

SparkMore n my opinion it was a great movie with some interesting elements, even though having some plot holes and the ending probably was just too messy and crammed together, but still fun to watch and not your casual movie that is similar to all other ones.

Edwin The storyline feels a little thin and moth-eaten in parts but this sequel is plenty of fun.

Phillipa Strong acting helps the film overcome an uncertain premise and create characters that hold our attention absolutely.

elinorw2002 This movie was very enjoyable as well as instructive. It was enjoyable because it was so faithful to the most popular version of the story and instructive about how people conducted their lives after WW1 in England. Joely Richardson is a new actress for me and I find her convincing as Connie. Sean Bean is a familiar handsome actor who has a long career I've followed. I feel these actors portrayed Mellors and Connie as reluctant lovers. They were strangers at first and only knew they needed what everyone needs, tenderness in their lives. It felt like I was watching two people desperate in their search, almost helplessly drawn to find happiness against all odds. I personally don't care if Sean Bean did not appear completely naked, and if the lovemaking was wooden at first, it felt right given the circumstances. These actors are bringing characters to life for us and it should not be forgotten this is not a view into an affair between the actors, it is the portrayal of characters brought to life by good acting and believable direction.

QueenofBean D. H. Lawerence wrote some of my favorite books of all time, including Lady Chatterley's Lover, so at first, I was afraid to watch these short little missives. I was not disappointed, however. It held true to quite a few aspects of the "Sir John Thomas and Lady Jane" version of the book than the original publication, but Lawerence never seemed to be quite satisfied and was always changing. Joely Richardson was a beautiful Lady Chatterley, and Sean Bean seemed the perfect Mellors. James Wilby was so convincing as Clifford that by the end of this movie, you just wanted that horrid wretch to be left alone, wallowing in his misery, because like everything else in his life, Constance was a possession, not a human being. This movie is a timeless treasure for anyone who loves the idea of being in love!

alicecbr Yes, this is a fascinating movie. But it raises questions of yesterday's class differences, and today's male prudery. Here's the question: as they have it all ways, including Greek, why does Ms. Richardson have to portray her everything over and over, but M'sieu Bean, that hunk, is carefully covered so his 'dangly bits' don't show. Read the biography and you'll see how hard they had to work to make sure he DIDN'T portray full male nudery. How come, I ask? Is it because male directors are so afraid of their size problems, that they don't dare breech that frontier? If one shows, then the others will have to. And please!!! I'm not promiscuous or a nympho, but Richardson was obviously contemplating a dental appointment in the 'throes of her passion'. And Bean was obviously pushing a sack of potatoes up a hill. Why won't those directors make some shots from behind the woman's viewpoint, and let us see the male faces during intercourse? That is not obscene, and when there is both love and lust, there IS a difference as most human beings know. OK, and why aren't we shown the most telling and lasting scene from the book: where Connie wreathes Mellor's willy in flowers. I read this as a teen=ager and I still remember that mental image 40 years later. So why not, Mr. Russell? You're so 'outrageous', yeah. Not so. The gorgeous ENglish country house, oh, it's to swoon over with all the paintings. Yes, Russell can indeed photograph beautifully England. The lines about the colliers and the serving class right in front of them, and the photo switch to the maids' tight faces was genius, pure genius. Even if the paralyzed husband was a wee bit cartoonery in his outrageous insensitivity. D.E. Lawrence is known as a misogynist and this ditzy Connie was no exception. She was so flighty it's amazing and I'm wondering what Canada would have done to the REAL spoiled darling, beset with the turmoil and strains of pregnancy and a primitive culture. Of course, we have a class conscious culture here in the U.S., but I don't think it's quite as ludicrous as the English was. (I know Northern English salesmen with their wierd accents who are so cute. And the line where the sister asks Mellors to speak English 'properly' without the dialect is precious. can it be from the movie? So, OK, Sean. Now let's give them a movie where love-making is really shown as love on the face. Not as simply an animal maneuver.

merynefret 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.