Fantastic!

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.

I think this is a new genre that they're all sort of working their way through it and haven't got all the kinks worked out yet but it's a genre that works for me.

Ok... Let's be honest. It cannot be the best movie but is quite enjoyable. The movie has the potential to develop a great plot for future movies

There's a lot crammed into this 90-minute teleplay and that's its downfall. The factual account of a mesmerizing news story about the availability of a so-called 'obscene publication' is reduced to the highlights of the trial. The fictional romance that runs parallel to it isn't explored thoroughly enough to be satisfying.First the good... the acting, actors, and settings. Rafe Spall and Louise Delamere are riveting in their scenes. The miserable and contemptuous majesty of the British judicial system of 1960 is also magnificently reproduced. The jurors are fun to watch - even if they do tend to overplay their hands.Kenneth Cranham and Claire Bloom are wheeled in to tell the whole saga as a flashback... which isn't really needed and just chews up valuable time away from the two dramas going on. Also, neither are convincing in their attempts to display spontaneous interviews.You wouldn't have thought it from watching this film, but the obscenity trial was hugely important in 1960. Oh, sure... we're told that it is but still the whole magnificent battle between Penguin Paperbacks and a stuffy, cloistered ruling class is reduced to being a backdrop to the steamy affair of two of the jurors.Helena is a wealthy, older, sophisticated woman going through a divorce. She ropes young Keith into an extramarital affair and develops feelings for him in the few short days they are together. Keith, on the other hand, is an office clerk and finally has his mind opened by the book (Lady Chatterley's Lover) and his new mistress.Unfortunately, the stories overlap and interfere with each other in a distorted way. It's possible that the affair between the two jurors is a contemporary metaphor for the subject matter of the book... if so it's a rather hamfisted attempt to conflate what could have been two good TV movies. In other words - it's trying to be too clever.There's a lot of swearing and a good amount of both male and female nudity but this story needs it. (Spall's wobbly bottom offers up one of the few moments of relief!) The inclusion of the wobbly bottom and other bits, plus the harsh language are pertinent to the story. They help to convey the scandalous nature of the trial and the attitudes of a generation of Victorian thinking elitists who served to control what the British were and were not allowed to see. Although this review sounds negative, the movie is still a worthwhile drama to see... but you may come away feeling that the whole affair is rushed and doesn't do either of the two stories much justice.

Of all the British love stories written, perhaps none was more scandalous than 'Lady Chatterley's Lover,' which unfairly categorized D. H. Lawrence as a pornographic author. 'Chatterley' may appear tame by modern-day standards, but the complete novel was deemed graphic and 'destructive' enough to be banned in England until 1960, when a famous obscenity trial at the Old Bailey allowed for its publication.Lawrence wrote the original version of 'Chatterley' as an ill man in 1926. He rewrote the novel twice and its final version appeared in 1928, when Lawrence funded its printing in Italy. Ravaged by critics for its frank language and depictions of sex, 'Chatterley' was banned in 'unexpurgated' form by the British and American censors for three decades. In 1960, just after the complete novel was legalized in America, Penguin Books founder Sir Allen Lane tested England's newly-created Obscene Publications Act by printing 'Chatterley,' the only Lawrence novel absent from his catalogue. Lane was arrested on charges of 'publishing an obscene article,' tried, and found not guilty, which paved the way for greater literary freedoms in the United Kingdom.'The Chatterley Affair,' a 90-minute film produced for the BBC, is a combination of Lane's trial and a 'what if' romantic scenario. Using an imaginative script by Andrew Davies of 'Bridget Jones's Diary,' the film depicts actual courtroom proceedings with fictional jurors who decide Lady Chatterley's fate. And in ways similar to Chatterley's trysts, two jurors become smitten: Keith (Rafe Spall), a married, working-class man, with Helena (Louise Delamere), a wealthy divorcée who is living alone.It may seem bizarre to combine fact with fiction, but Davies uses considerable skill to make things work. He supplies equal attention to the trial and budding affair, which results in parallels with the literary material being covered. The plot alternates between hours at court and time spent at home: during the trial, we see opening and closing arguments, key testimonies, and moments in the jury deliberation room. On off-hours, Keith and Helena spend time in bed while his adoring, pregnant wife Sylvia (Alyson Coote) is unsuspecting. Kenneth Cranham and Claire Bloom intermittently appear as the modern-day Keith and Helena in mock interviews. As we already know, 'Lady Chatterley's Lover' was not found by the jury to 'deprave and corrupt' its readers. Davies, however, asks the question a second time when Keith and Helena become aroused by the novel's content and leap into an affair behind Sylvia's back.While the affair is finely portrayed, Chatterley's best moments are in court. Courtroom dramas still abound on television but rarely offer something new; 'The Chatterley Affair' is a different story, as we can feel the shock, surprise, and hilarity of these proceedings. As evidence is presented at trial, director James Hawes shows people around the courtroom to remind us of a straitlaced atmosphere in 1960. Class differences on sex and language are particularly exposed, such as when audience members react to passages from the novel. The present-day reflections of Keith and Helena are intended as running commentary; these moments are interesting but unnecessary, since the plot easily stands on its own two feet.British TV veteran Donald Sumpter plays Gerald Gardiner, the attorney who defended Penguin Books. Sumpter is excellent as a lawyer who makes constructive arguments rather than abrasive ones. Pip Torrens ('Pride & Prejudice') shines as Mervyn Griffith-Jones, a highfalutin prosecutor who is obnoxious yet strangely likable. While asking working-class jurors if 'Chatterley' is a novel 'they'd even wish their wife or servants to read,' Torrens somehow wins respect for a lawyer who determinedly made his case without a single witness. Griffith-Jones is also heard futilely - and amusingly - reciting Mellors's northern dialect from the book.Karl Johnson is dignified and quite funny as Justice Byrne, the older trial judge; Byrne wasn't happy about Lawrence's writing and looks exhausted by the profanity and sexual descriptions that are filling the courtroom. 'Harry Potter' alumnus David Tennant masters the role of Richard Hoggart, a university lecturer who gave important testimony for the defense. A man of working class origins, Hoggart called the novel 'highly virtuous and puritanical,' after which followed some of the most bizarre cross-examination that you will ever hear. James Hawes never overlooks the book itself as a character, frequently showing its orange jacket in close-up. It's perhaps no coincidence that the novel looks bright and spirited amidst drab surroundings.Cinematographer James Aspinall gives a somber quality to this film and underlines the austere, 1950ish environment. Imaginary moments deriving from the book are also shown in flashback style to great effect. Nicholas Hooper's music emphasizes piano, which adds to the wistful setting. 'Chatterley' is excellent in depicting a society on the verge of upheaval, both public and private.Even if you haven't read D. H. Lawrence's work, 'The Chatterley Affair' is a moving, highly entertaining, and often light-hearted drama with unexpected surprises. As a writer, it's certainly one of my favorite films based on literary topics and is successful in a purely dramatic sense. The film is now available on DVD in the United States through Acorn Media and can be found at major retailers such as Borders and Barnes & Noble. 'Chatterley' is presented in 16:9 widescreen with Dolby stereo; the disc includes cast filmographies, biographical information on Lawrence, and information on the 1960 trial. With 'Chatterley,' the BBC adds yet another film to its list of impressive productions.*** out of 4Roving Reviewer - www.geocities.com/paul_johnr

What a clever idea! The complementary story of the two lovers and the tedious stuffy dialogue of the trial were neatly interwoven so that we were constantly wondering how things would turn out, even though everyone knows the book was eventually published. And has it depraved and corrupted us all? Well maybe it has. There were two people who certainly wondered about that, at the end. Excellent acting, especially in the court. Tennant was wonderful as Hoggart. The young wife who couldn't make out what was going on did a splendid job with a small part, totally convincing. Perhaps more so than the woman juror who made such an obvious pass at her husband. Nevertheless a great film that should have critical success.

Brilliant acting, photography, dialogue, you name it. This is a fantastic production from the BBC and Andrew Davies does it again with his great screen writing. Rafe Spall is wonderful as Keith, providing a sensitive and genuine spark of reality into his performance. Definitely a talent to watch. The actor who plays Keith as an old man also deserves an award for being absolutely believable. The action centres around the obscenity trial for D. H. Lawrence's 'Lady Chatterly's Lover', where two of the fictitious jurors find the book somewhat inspirational. Like the book, the programme doesn't modestly shy away from sex scenes. Instead they are quite graphic and clear, and yet they are in no way smutty or gratuitous. They are an integral part of the story and it is an artistically brave choice to have included them. This is a great production and will be one of the BBC's classics.