What makes it different from others?

an ambitious but ultimately ineffective debut endeavor.

It's the kind of movie you'll want to see a second time with someone who hasn't seen it yet, to remember what it was like to watch it for the first time.

One of the best movies of the year! Incredible from the beginning to the end.

The actual filming of the people, interiors and landscapes in this film is wonderful. There is hardly a frame that could not be taken out of context and seen as a "picture".The numerous sex scenes are very expressive of the relationship of the characters at that moment in their lives and also, I think, of the times. The story is by D.H. Lawrence and as such should be criticized in the context of his writing; the characters are making wrong and bad choices and some are flawed to the point of caricature. The film itself does its best to bring this sprawling tale together and to give life to the rather unbelievable mother who seems to ruin the lives of her two sons and her feckless husband.Anyone who enjoys what used to be called costume drama should find this a very satisfying watch.

The credits say the film is based on an uncensored version of the novel, and that has resulted in a film with far too much nudity and too many sex scenes.The film starts weak because it tries to show something of Gertrude and Walter Morel's meeting and early life. To do this correctly, this part should have been much longer to make us better acquainted with these characters.The film doesn't settle into a coherent narrative until the two sons, William and Paul, have grown up. The first part gives full attention to William, his going off to London, his involvement with Lucy, a frivolous London woman, and his death.The connection between Paul and Clara Dawes (in part 2) is almost comical--plenty of hard staring and then dates at the movies where the piano player's music not only accompanies the silent movie but the increasing passion of Paul and Clara, making it comic.Paul and Clara decamp in hot lust from the movie theater for her place where she tells him to wait in the living room while she gets naked and then prances in for a full frontally nude shot. Part 2 has significant nudity, and none of it works. In another instance, Paul and Clara have a stand-up f*** at work. In another instance, Paul and Clara are kissing in a movie theater, so overcome with their lust that all of the other patrons are staring at them. This also is unrealistic for the time. In yet another modern bit, both Paul and Clara are totally naked and f***ing on a hay truck in an open field. This film is a perfect illustration that nudity and scenes of f***ing don't create a sexy or passionate atmosphere, but in this film are actually annoying and intrusive.Paul's relationship with Miriam involves nudity on both actors' parts. Here Paul comes across as a clod who obviously doesn't understand much about how to satisfy a woman sexually. He just mounts the poor girl and pounds away. No wonder Miriam is horrified by sex, and Paul isn't satisfied. Miriam doesn't know how lucky she is that she never married Paul. The point is that Paul isn't meant to be shown this way, but that's how he comes across because of the nature of the sex scenes. In this version of the film, Miriam is Paul's victim, yet sadly blames herself.One of few effective scenes in this overly long drama occurs between Paul and Miriam when he meets her for the last time and tells her that they must end their relationship--despite the sex they've had together, despite his having asked her to marry him, despite her understanding they were engaged. In tears, Miriam asks Paul to tell her parents that he can't marry her, but he doesn't. It's one of the few scenes where the actors are given some decent lines and some intense emotion to act, and they do it well enough.After Mrs. Morel's death, there is a sudden cut, and we see Paul in some seedy hotel room surrounded by his paints, an easel, and plenty of liquor bottles; Paul is drunk. No explanation for this scene. Mrs. Morel's funeral is skipped over. I presume Paul quit his job at Jordan's and came here, but where is here? Nottingham? London? Clara comes to him here and--you guessed it, another nude sex scene--and sets him straight. He stops his drinking, checks out of the squalid hotel, and goes back home--or so I assume from the direction of the train. World War 1 has just begun. And we leave Paul at that point.Repeatedly the script has the actors talk rather than show. Paul talks to his mother about Clara rather than our seeing what we need to of their relationship. Clara talks to Paul to explain Paul's relationship to Miriam.Lyndsey Marshal as Miriam Leivers is the most interesting actor here, but she wasn't given much chance to show her talents. Sarah Lancashire constantly distracted me because she looked like Vanessa Redgrave. The male leads are just boy toys.In the superior 1960 version, Wendy Hiller and Trevor Howard are able to convey with dialogue and some excellent facial expressions and fine acting the entire early history of Mr. and Mrs. Morel. In the 1960 version, both Gertrude and Walter are very real characters. Here both are flat, especially Walter, who is simply a bore that falls right out of the narrative, which focuses on Gertrude and her two sons. Walter is out of the narrative for so long at various points that I thought perhaps he'd died. And no one here is in the same league as Dean Stockwell, Mary Ure, and Heather Sears.The settings are false throughout. The Morel's home in the mining village looks like something right out of "Better Homes and Gardens" or "Traditional Homes"--as if a miner's row house had been gentrified. And these miners' homes are in close proximity to rolling green hills with beautiful views of valleys beneath. Right behind each home, there are perfectly tended vegetable gardens and plenty of room for the laundry to be hung out and blow dry in crisp, fresh air. Nonsense! The costumes the characters wear are, likewise, neat and clean as if put on for a fashion shoot in "Vogue" or some other magazine.And then there is the score; the 1960 film has the better score, one that works throughout to complement the melancholy mood and atmosphere of the film.A waste of time. See the 1960 version if you can find it.

Now I know what you're thinking, but don't worry I'm not some kind of pervert, just a guy who is trying to find a redeeming feature in this mess. The made-for-TV adaptation of D.H Lawrence's classic(?) novel was broadcast over 2 nights on the ITV channel here in the UK and is a long winded thing indeed with scene after scene of boring talk which didn't seem to move the plot forward one iota and a performance from ITV drama stalwart Sarah Lancashire (ex-Coronation Street) which seemed to consist of her staring at the camera with those puppy-dog eyes of hers trying to elicit a reaction from the audience along the lines of "Poor her" as her character experienced humilation upon humiliation. The only good part of this long slog through the early part of the 20th century was that one of her sons had some pretty hot looking girlfriends who kept removing their corsets for pointless yet entertaining nude scenes, this at least kept me awake during the second installment.If you think I'm being unfair, take a look at some other D.H Lawrence films that originated from his books e.g Women in Love and The Rainbow then come back and tell me which scenes were most memorable in them for you. Was it the brilliant acting? The great period detail? The romantic storylines? No? Well then, you can see my point!!