It's no definitive masterpiece but it's damn close.

A great movie, one of the best of this year. There was a bit of confusion at one point in the plot, but nothing serious.

A terrific literary drama and character piece that shows how the process of creating art can be seen differently by those doing it and those looking at it from the outside.

Great story, amazing characters, superb action, enthralling cinematography. Yes, this is something I am glad I spent money on.

The other versions were the 1981 film with Nicholas Clay and the 1993 Ken Russell-directed mini-series. The mini-series was very good, the music was inconsistent and the ending was too open-and-shut and tacky but it looked gorgeous, was very well-written with great acting and it was surprisingly restrained for a director notorious for divulging into excess. The Nicholas Clay film was not so good, in fact aside from the beautiful visuals and score as well as a decent performance from Clay it was very dull and underwritten with a lead who shows little acting talent. This by a mile is the best version of the three. As an adaptation, it is a good one and apart from some cutting things out, the odd name change it is quite close to the book, the essence in fact beautifully realised. And unlike the Clay film, not in a way that takes the sexual nature of the narrative to trashed-up extremes. The sex scenes and nudity are very steamy but also sensual and incredibly passionate, not resorting to gratuity. The film's writing doesn't feel underwritten or banal, the characterisations are believable and consistent at least and the dialogue flows well. The storytelling here maintains the steaminess and passion of the book without overdoing it, most of all even with the cuts it is also coherent. It also contrasts the natural word and aristocratic stuffiness beautifully, and while the ending is rather ambiguous(more so than the book) it is incredibly moving too. Lady Chatterley looks stunning too with evocative period detail and some of the most colourful yet moody scenery of any French film I've seen. Some of the shots are lengthy but not to self-indulgent levels, but each frame flows effortlessly into the next. The score is charming and sympathetic to the mood(s) of the story. Pascale Ferran directs remarkably and the acting is without an obvious problem. Marina Hands has natural beauty and has heartfelt acting skills to match while Jean-Louis Coulloc'h makes for an authoritative yet sensitive lover, the chemistry between the two tender and passionate. And Sir Clifford thankfully is a complex character rather than a caricature. Overall, a wonderful film, one of the finer French films personally seen, and easily the best version of an interesting but understandably controversial(a must read for anybody who is studying the subject of love in literature in English). 10/10 Bethany Cox

I agree with everyone who thought this was a masterful film. Marina Hands is the most beautiful woman I've seen in some time. Her portrayal of Constance was remarkable. Her loving kindness was more authentic than any performance I can remember. Jean-Louis Coullo'ch and Hippolyte Girardot are perfectly cast as lover and husband. The only false note in the film was the home movies of her trip abroad. They were filmed in color (as was the rest of the film) and I don't believe that color film was available just after World War I. On the other hand, the fact that everyone is English and they are all speaking French was not a distraction. The photography of Julien Hirsch and Pascale Ferran's direction are superb. My favorite line is when Constance says to Parkin, "Just keep your heart gentle". At 2 hours and 40 minutes, with little action other then a "whole lotta love", watching this film requires a gentle heart.

Cynics might be inclined to dub this 'the hippie version' of "Lady Chatterley's Lover", (though, in fact, it is based on an earlier draft called, appropriately enough, 'John Thomas and Lady Jane'). Certainly there is some serious flower-power going on between her ladyship and the game-keeper after one nude romp in the forest. Indeed that nude romp may be seen as a metaphor for the whole movie as Lady Chatterley starts to commune with nature in every sense. Even her affair with Parkin, (as he is called here), might be seen as just another way for her to find her 'natural' self since Parkin is portrayed as the persona of man in his most natural state.Pascale Ferran's film is long and leisurely, perhaps too long, but it is also passionate, erotic and ultimately quite moving despite Marina Hands' wan performance in the title role. Hands simpers her way through the film seemingly unsure of her feelings. It's a non-performance. A more polished actress might have been able to lift the movie into a different realm altogether. Jean-Louis Coullo'ch, on the other hand, catches the earthiness of Parkin perfectly. Like Hands it is a totally unpolished performance but it's the performance that the movie needs. It's he who raises the picture and he keeps you watching to the end. The film may be called "Lady Chatterley" but it is Parkin's (and consequently), Coullo'ch's picture.

One of the worst movies I have ever seen. We kept on thinking that it must get better due to it's good score of over 7 points on IMDb. But no. I just wonder what made the actors choose to be in the film after reading the script " two sentences. She walks in the forest. sex scene. Two lines and She looks through the window and Sex scene." Really boring and slow. The sex scenes are particularly disturbing. It starts of very stiff, no kissing, he just takes off his trousers and "does it", then stands up an puts them back on. Not the best performance by the actors and it just does not flow. Nothing ever happens. And it just goes on and on and on. a true waste of time I would say.