have just seen this. at the beginning it said: based on the novel 'john thomas and lady jane'. having never heard of such a book, i thought this was a little joke by the film makers, referring to the names the couple give to their parts in the book.
i therefore watched it as a version of 'lady chatterley's lover'. i observed that the gamekeeper's character was quite different from the book, as were various other details, and in a big way, the end. nevertheless, i was quite prepared to accept all this, in spite of being a fan of the book, as i accepted the makers' words that this was 'based on'. in fact i quite enjoyed the differences i have already cited, in this version. and the gradually developing affair is beautifully handled and portrayed.
filmically, largely sans intrusive musical score, and taken at a slow burn through wonderful images of nature, it was a pleasure.
subsequently, i discovered that there really is a second book, by lawrence, by this name and containing the differences that appear in the film!
so all the negative reviews here, mainly posited on the dissimilarity to 'lady chatterley's lover', are out of order on two counts. (being 'based on', and even actually a different book.)
as for the complaints about the characters not being 'beautiful' enough - puh-lease! this minor escape from the media body police was very welcome.
and adjacent to this, the complaint that he wasn't attractive enough to warrant her response - again, puh-lease! she was a passionate woman, living without sex and the touch of a man, his body turned her on (her, dear viewer, it didn't have to turn you on), and he was the only feasible sexual prospect in her world! so - a bit fanciful in either version, but it is fiction, and beside that, sex can be a powerful drive to strange/ dangerous behaviour.