To me, this movie is perfection.

Memorable, crazy movie

Great Film overall

One of the worst ways to make a cult movie is to set out to make a cult movie.

I am pretty sure D. H. Lawrence's "Sons and Lovers" was considered a rather shocking book when it debuted in the early 20th century. The book had a male lead (Paul) who was sexual--sleeping with both his girlfriend as well as having an affair with a married woman. In the book and in this movie, this could have been a lot more explicit but due to conventions of the day it's somewhat muted--but still very much a groundbreaking sort of story (the same can be said for Lawrence's later book, "Lady Chatterly's Lover"). So in that sense, the film is interesting to any film student since it is rather frank and unusual when it comes to sex.The acting is quite nice. While Dean Stockwell was an American, he did a credible job playing a Brit in the lead. As for the rest of the cast, they are also quite good though two performances struck me. Trevor Howard usually played refined roles--upper or at least middle-class gentlemen. Here, he's a crude coal miner--and not the least bit likable through much of the film. The other performance, though not exactly a huge or important role, was that of Ernest Thesiger as Paul's benefactor. I loved seeing Thesinger, as this was a HUGE departure from his most famous role--an evil scientist in "The Bride of Frankenstein"! So, with a groundbreaking sort of story (that has MANY Freudian overtones) and very good acting, I loved the film, right? Well, no...not especially. This brings me to a major problem with the film--I just didn't particularly like anyone and felt very detached from them. Paul was rather selfish and cold and no one seemed particularly interesting or likable. You may not mind this--I did. Worth seeing--just not a must-see film.

I probably saw this film when I was in college and it made a big impression.It then seemed to vanish, at least for me, until, amazingly, the American Cinematheque in Los Angeles screened it on a Monday night some months ago. I was extremely impressed with it again, especially the BxW CinemaScope cinematography (and I agree, wide-screen is the way to see this rare film, if indeed you ever can).So many thanks to the Cinematheque for this unusual revival.RE the musical score (by Italian composer, Mario Nascimbene): actually the theme was so melodic Percy Faith recorded it as a follow-up to his hit single of Max Steiner's SUMMER PLACE theme, (complete with similar 1950s piano triplets in the accompaniment!) In spite of the nod to '50s pop the SONS AND LOVERS theme was not a hit, but it remains one of the more lyrical (and obscure) movie themes from this period.Remember when movies actually had original musical themes????Ultimately I feel SONS AND LOVERS ranks with Russell's WOMEN IN LOVE in the admittedly small canon of excellent cinematic Lawrence adaptations.It's also one of the adult Dean Stockwell's best roles, a long, long day's journey away from the almost too adorable, curly headed moppet in ANCHORS AWEIGH.

The limitations of space for comments make it impossible to detail this film's many virtues. The film is so good that I couldn't begin to do justice to its merits with my words. Don't miss the opportunity to see this film.There is an excellent script by Gavin Lambert aided by T.E.B. Clarke, which does a fine job of putting into 103 minutes a long, complex novel. Each scene in this film has a purpose to reveal character and make thematic points. There are no wasted scenes or aimless dialogue, yet the dialogue and action all seem natural. The characters are real and immediately involved me.There is a complexity to the characters. Paul's mother wants the best for him, yet at the same time she wants him for herself. Paul both wants to be free of his mother and is inextricably bound to her, so much that he refuses an all-paid education at a London art school to stay home with her, saying he doesn't want to see her alone with her abusive husband.Gertrude and Walter Morel's marriage is a complex one that befuddles Paul as he tries to understand the complex connection between the sensitive mother and the outwardly angry, rough father, who is, underneath, a very sensitive man, too. Walter fully understands the close relationship between his wife and Paul and knows he's locked out of that. He's both jealous of and angry at their closeness.Many excellent scenes here could stand alone. One such is the scene leading up to Paul and Clara having sex for the first time. There is good use of close-ups here in which Clara and Paul must convey much with their eyes.A certain restraint to the performances here give the characters an intensity they might not have were their performances more flamboyant, if they'd been given "big" scenes to play with shouting, tears, and so on.The cast in this film is perfect. I don't know of another film about which I could make that statement. I don't see a single poor performance. I can't imagine any other actors doing these roles. Each one fully inhabits the character that he/she is playing. It was a pleasure to see Heather Sears and Mary Ure again; both died far too young. And Dean Stockwell is at his youthful, handsome best. Wendy Hiller and Trevor Howard are both excellent. The excellence extends to the supporting players.The film is beautifully photographed in black and white. I'm sure this derives partly from director Jack Cardiff's background as a photographer, though Freddie Francis was the cinematographer here and won an Oscar for his work. Gavin Lambert and cast members Hiller and Howard didn't think much of Cardiff as director, whom 20th Century Fox forced upon producer Jerry Wald. Hiller and Howard both said they directed themselves throughout the film.The film was made in Cinemascope and should be seen in that form, for it doesn't scan well. (Another IMDb commentator has written well about this; see his comments.) Cardiff made good use of close-ups, but every part of this film is excellently framed, the positions of the characters in the frame, their relation to various items in the landscape. And the landscape adds a lot to the mood of the film.The film has an excellent score (It should be seen in a theatre with a fine sound system), but it is not overscored, and the theme song doesn't become intrusive. This theme never became a hit like the theme from "A Summer Place" did, though the theme did turn up on a number of instrumental albums back in the 60s. People often didn't know from what film it came.I'm glad to know this film and appreciate its virtues.The film will probably send viewers to the novel, where they can find complete details about the Morel family yet also realize how well the film conveys the novel.A PBS version of this novel, starring Eileen Atkins as Gertrude Morel, Tom Bell as Walter Morel, and Karl Johnson as Paul, was shown in 1981. It has never been shown subsequently on PBS or elsewhere to my knowledge nor was it ever issued on video. Was it that bad?

How can there be so little attention and knowledge about this film? Nominated for SEVEN academy awards including Best Picture!I have always felt that CinemaScope was made for B&W films. Scope films look really good B&W. And to my mind the best B&W photographed movie of All Time is SONS & LOVERS. This was a prestige picture for distributor 20th Century-Fox, as indicated by the rare lack of drum roll over the Fox Logo - instead the beginning of the outstanding music score is heard. In the Chicagoland area in 1960 and again at a theatre in Okland, CA in 1976 I had the pleasure to view the film with Mag Stereo Sound. I also saw a new print in NYC sometime in the early 80's. So why has Fox let this picture set in obscurity? My only knowlege of any TV exposure was on American Movie Classics Channel (scanned only) about ten years ago. This one NEEDS to be on DVD!!!!!!!!One last comment. if you've ever read the book, you will really appreciate the great job that was done in "adapting" the novel. The screenplay, which is SO well done, is I'd say a good 80% original material.