User Reviews

Ken Russell was an interesting and very unique director with a style unlike any other. This said, he was always and still is an acquired taste with a lot of his later work containing excesses that will fascinate some and repulse others. The Rainbow is not Russell at his best and it is not in the same ball park as the brilliant Women in Love, but it is still well worth watching.

The Rainbow does get very rambling sometimes- in all fairness it's true for the book as well- with a couple of overly-talky parts and instances of lagging pacing, while the first third is on occasions awkwardly staged and the ending is rather abrupt. Russell gives some of his most controlled and restrained directing here, which is a plus, and like he did with Women in Love twenty years earlier he does show a respect for the book and D.H. Lawrence's writing while not trivialising the meaning. Compared to the book and for D.H. Lawrence, while Russell is to be admired for his restraint, the film can feel a little tame. What made Women in Love so brilliant was not just its respect for the source material but also the attention to characterisation and mood and the mood and emotional impact for each scene, The Rainbow has the themes and the characterisation but it does at times feel a little tame- Women in Love did a much better job showing what made Lawrence's work controversial and daring for his time- and not as powerful as it could have been.

Coming onto the many good things about The Rainbow, it is a very well-made film with gorgeous countryside scenery and luscious photography that positively soars. Carl Meyer's score is heartfelt, hypnotic and unashamedly sentimental(in a good way), cannot begin to describe how much the theme music resonates with me, and the use of the likes of Bach and Strauss is equally fitting. The dialogue mostly provokes a lot of thought and flows naturally, and while some of the storytelling is a little bland and tame with a bit of rambling, it still maintains interest and contains some nice dark and passionate(the love scenes) moments and makes an effort to give depth and personality to the characters. The cast are excellent, Sammi Davis does hold her own against her more experienced supporting cast and brings a lot of spirit and feistiness to Ursula if a little too eager to please at times. Amanda Donohoe brings sultry sexiness to her role, Christopher Gable brings authoritative dignity to William and Paul McGann brings charm and intensity. Special mention also should go to Glenda Jackson, her role is a relatively small one but Jackson is so poignant in it the role is a very memorable one at the same time.

Overall, better than it's given credit for and a decent film, but missing something and falls short compared to Women in Love(if there is a film that shows Russell at his best it's that one). 7/10 Bethany Cox

The Rainbow (1989) was a film Ken Russell made based upon the writings of the legendary Victorian era author D.H. Lawrence, but with a Ken Russell twist. The story is a bout a young woman (Sammi Davis) who wants to live her life but she has to do it during the repressive Victorian age of England. But she meets a mentor (Amanda Donohoe) who shows her the many ways she can escape her button up lifestyle (if only for a few hours at a time). At many times it feels like a stuffy D.H. Lawrence novel (with the occasional highly charged eroticism). Ken Russell gets the chance to show the beauty of Amanda and Sammi in various stages. Too bad it was never released in the United States on D.V.D. If you love Victorian romance films, D.H. Lawrence or the films of Ken Russell then you appreciate more than the average viewer.

Recommended for Ken Russell fans.

Apparently, the late Ken Russell's dictum was "When in a crisis, turn to D.H. Lawrence": in 1969 he made WOMEN IN LOVE after the critical panning of the Harry Palmer espionage saga BILLION DOLLAR BRAIN (1967), which almost killed his career (to quote the eminent British film critic Leslie Halliwell); that film, which landed him a Best Director nod at the Oscars and awarded the Best Actress prize to the up-and-coming Glenda Jackson led to the full-flowering of his movie career. However, the 1980s would see a slackening in the quality of his work, while taking his trademark vulgarity to new depths in such efforts as CRIMES OF PASSION (1984), Gothic (1986), SALOME'S LAST DANCE and THE LAIR OF THE WHITE WORM (both 1988); so it came to pass that 20 years after his first Lawrence adaptation, Russell returned to the safe prospect of a second (though he had already tried, and failed, to raise the money for it around the time of CRIMES OF PASSION) – ironically, "The Rainbow" was actually the prequel to "Women In Love"(!), and even odder is the fact that the previous year a TV mini-series had been produced based on that very source (directed by seasoned adapter Stuart Burge)! For the record, the director would return once more to Lawrence territory in 1993 with a perhaps inevitable adaptation – in the format of a TV min-series – of the author's most notorious property, "Lady Chatterley's Lover", retitled simply LADY CHATTERLEY...but, although I do own a copy of it in my collection, I decided to bypass it for the present since I also have the earlier 1955 and 1981 film versions of the same sources likewise lying in my unwatched pile!

At least, Russell came to his old battleground, as it were, prepared with several cast and crew members of the earlier film: actors Glenda Jackson (as the mother of her own previous character!) and Christopher Gable (here as the heroine's cheerful father rather than her sister's fiancé!), cinematographer Billy Williams and production designer Luciana Arrighi; besides, he recruited other actors who had stood him in good stead in the past, such as Dudley Sutton, Judith Paris and Kenneth Colley. For the leads, then, he depended upon a couple of new alumni within his oeuvre, Sammi Davis and Amanda Donohoe (both from THE LAIR OF THE WHITE WORM), and a hot property of the time i.e. Paul McGann (co-star of the cult movie WITHNAIL AND I {1987}); another notable but surprising presence is that of David Hemmings (who was the first choice for the part yet, when the producers balked, Russell audaciously offered it to none other than Elton John but he proved predictably 'difficult' and, then, after Alan Bates – as it happens, one of the leads in WOMEN IN LOVE itself – chose to pass, the role found itself yet again in Hemmings' lap)!

Preceded by some horrid computer-generated titles, the opening scenes feel awkward, as if the director was uncertain of his ability to pull it off, and the narrative loses steam during its last third but, to quote popular American reviewer Leonard Maltin, there are "many beautiful and striking moments" along the way. Even if Davis tries hard, her all-too-modern looks and acting style work against her and she only captures the essence of the central role (played in the sequel adaptation by Jennie Linden rather than Jackson, whose character from the 1969 film is here reduced to a wimpy, jealous sort) in fits and starts! The film's chief bright spot, in fact, is Donohoe (though she too grows stale eventually) as the sports instructress at Davis' school, a free spirit who influences and inspires the younger woman (towards achieving her own freedom from the shackles of convention); perhaps as a means of matching WOMEN IN LOVE's notorious nude wrestling scene, their relationship often gratuitously resorts to nudity but is nonetheless sensitively portrayed (indeed, Russell demonstrates surprising restraint here)! While Davis is later involved with McGann in various couplings, including one by a waterfall that would grace the movie's poster, and Donohoe herself 'falls in with the crowd' by marrying wealthy collier Hemmings (the heroine's uncle), it is the two women's scenes together that stick in the mind...even if, in true Russell style, Davis's confused feelings are expressed in a dream in which she is pursued by both her lovers on the plains (with all three of them stark naked)! The latter romance leaves Davis pregnant but she miscarries the child following a horse scare she receives during a rain-drenched walk in the countryside. Indeed, one of the film's more interesting aspects is the way it introduces social commentary into the mix with Davis' sexual/artistic/vocational/philanthropic awakening is, for all its eventual disappointments, seen as being diametrically opposed to the accepted fashion of the times she lived in: her nude posing for painter Sutton here ends in disaster, she is disrespected by her pupils and lusted after by her superior after applying for a job as a schoolteacher; she stamps all over Hemmings' orchard when she witnesses the cruelty with which the roaming farm animals are treated by his poachers, etc.

All in all, the end result (set to a notable Carl Davis score) did not disgrace the memory of the 'original' but neither did it provide the lease of life to his career that the director had hoped for; indeed, of the 23 subsequent projects that carried his name, only 2 were made for the big-screen and the second (2002's by-all-accounts dreadful Poe pastiche THE FALL OF THE LOUSE OF USHER) barely got released at that!

Why do some reviewers think this is a bad movie? There is nothing bad about it at all; unless you are some exceptional prude. Both Sammi Davis and Amanda Donahoe give outstanding performances. The chemistry between the two that was just glimpsed in "The Lair of the White Worm" comes to a beautiful frutation in this movie. That said, it should be noted that females have the primary roles in this movie unlike in "Lair" where Hugh Grant upstaged Amanda and drove Sammi into a virtually insignificant role. Perhaps that is the reason; movies that have women as leads are boycotted by the male audience.

Regardless of why, this movie got a lot less credit than it deserved. I hope it comes out on DVD in the near future.

Director Ken Russell tones down his typically flamboyant style (somewhat) for this adaptation of the D.H. Lawrence novel, celebrating yet another free spirit on the verge of womanhood, yearning for independence within the moral and emotional straightjacket of Victorian England. True to the spirit of its source the script presents lots of earnest dialogue discussing the nature of men and women, sandwiched between scenes of elemental passions unleashed and a little cavorting naked in Arcadian splendor. Some of it is fresh and exciting, other parts are strangely anachronistic, and the best moments occur after the heroine leaves home to seek her fortune as a schoolteacher in the urban slums of London's Industrial Revolution. The young and talented Sammi Davis isn't quite ready to carry an entire film by herself, but a fine supporting cast capably shoulders much of the dramatic burden. Russell's atypically circumspect direction slips only twice: when Davis surrenders her virginity to soldier boy Paul McGann, and again when she finds herself suddenly pursued on a country road by (symbolically) a herd of stampeding horses.

Pretty saucy material, considering it was written in 1915, in England. although in many ways, England is less shocked by some subjects then the U.S. Sammi Davis (the other one) is Ursula Brangwen, young lady from the country, who has experiences with both men and women. nudity. activism. sexual acts, almost shown. body parts tastefully hidden during the sex scenes. She moves to the big city, and lives the rough,gritty life there, working as a teacher. she is so naive at the start. everyone takes advantage of her softness and easy going nature. co-stars well known brit actors David Hemmings and Glenda Jackson, who was SO amazing in Hopscotch. story by David Lawrence, better known as DH Lawrence. Lawrence had also written Lady Chatterly's Lover and Women in Love. Rainbow contains much some of the same cast from Women in Love. also directed by Ken Russell. sadly, Lawrence died of TB at age 44, but left us a bounty of literature, which is constantly being remade into film. ironic, since several of his books were banned as obscenity. showing on the roku channel. some commentary on the pros and cons of war. womens' rights. industrialism. moves slowly but steadily. ok for a period piece.

Based on DH Lawrence's novel, it centres on Ursula (Sammi Davis) a young girl, used to a perfectly decent life in early 20th Century England. A staunch feminist living in a man's world, she grows intellectually and sexually into womanhood determining despite bi sexual romances and ultimately a challenging job as a teacher that she will remain her own woman.

Remarkably calm and engaging piece of work from maverick director Ken Russell, that nicely follows the aspirations of a young girl through to womanhood, including her battles with bosses, her father and partners. Davis is good in the lead but the film's strengths is also maintained by a very strong supporting cast including Russell stalwart's Glenda Jackson and Christopher Gable.

Beautiful score by Carl Davis.

A person either likes the casting or they don't, I didn't. Sammi Davis literally gave me the creeps. And the rest weren't much better. This movie had a budget of almost 12 million and grossed around 450,000. Worldwide. That should tell you something.

I loved this film. I went through a big DH Lawrence phase in my late teens and early 20's, and Ursula and Gudrun from Women In Love and The Rainbow were characters I loved and related to, despite and because of their flaws.

This is a beautifully written and filmed story of a young woman who just wants more than her ugly industrial town has to offer. She is influenced by a couple of unconventional older people in her life. I thought it was a sensual portrait of bisexuality and creative freedom

This plays like a Cinemax Saturday Night Special, with Merchant and Ivory production values. I watched it for one reason and one reason only: to see what Amanda Donohoe of "L.A. Law" fame did when she wasn't playing an Australian-Accented lawyer named C.J. on TV. After sitting through this soft core dreck, now I know: making soft core dreck.

Sammi Davis (the "actress"--not to be confused with the one-eyed Rat Pack dude) plays the giggling coming-of-age gal who falls for this soldier guy and finds pleasure under the moon and near a waterfall. If you're into expository walks through flowery gardens and scenes that remind you of a low-budget cross between "Emma" and "Pink Floyd's The Wall", this flick's for you.

But you know, I'm the kind of guy who falls for low-budget crosses between "Emma" and "The Wall". I mean, Amanda Donohoe is no Susan Dey, and Sammi Davis is no J-Lo, and D.H. Lawrence is no Anais Nin, but I'm a sucker for croquet, sex and badminton. If it wasn't for the croquet, sex and badminton--this would get a 1. With it, it gets a 6. No wait, I just checked to see what Sammi Davis' most recent movie was: something called "Soft Toilet Seats". I'm going to have to cut this down to a 5. Even with the badminton.

A young woman deals in her own personal way with the trials of adolescence and young adulthood in early 1900s England. Ken Russell's loose adaptation of the last part of D.H. Lawrence's "The Rainbow" sees impulsive young Ursula coming of age in pastoral England around the time of the Boer War. At school, she is introduced to lovemaking by a bisexual physical education instructress. While experiencing disillusionment in her first career attempt (teaching), she has an affair with a young Army officer, who wants to marry her. Unable to accept a future of domesticity, she breaks with him, and eventually leaves home in search of her destiny.

This Movie by Ken Russell is based upon the writings of the legendary Victorian era author D.H. Lawrence, but with a Ken Russell twist. The story is about a young woman (Sammi Davis) who wants to live her life but she has to do it during the repressive Victorian age of England. But she meets a mentor (Amanda Donohoe) who shows her the many ways she can escape her button up lifestyle (if only for a few hours at a time). I recommend this Film for Ken Russell fans and those who if like period films.

Overall I did love this film, which in my opinion is a beautifully written and filmed story of a young woman who just wants more than her unsightly industrial town has to offer. She is influenced by a couple of unconventional older people in her life. I thought it was a sensual portrait of bisexuality and creative freedom. This is period drama that has genuine relevance to modern life and modern concerns, and is a great coming-of-age story with a brave and life-inspiring message.

Review Courtesy of Neville Cawas Cyrus Bardoliwalla OBE

Despite the film's many flaws- it is loosely based on only a section of DH Lawrence's Northern saga, the lead actress is fairly wooden and the style of the film screams eighties cheese- I think it's a great little film. It's one of those few films that not simply inspire you to follow your dreams but actually insists that you do so, whether those dreams come to fruition or not.

It's set in a mining town in the 1910's. Ursula Brangwen (Sammi Davis- no, not THAT one) is a rebellious teenager and persistent dreamer, constantly striving for 'the rainbow' that symbolises fulfilment. She pursues it in two different ways; one through trying to gain work as a schoolteacher, thereby becoming financially independent, and because this is DH Lawrence directed by Ken Russell, sexual fulfilment.

Though she shares a naughty kiss in the local church with family friend and dashing soldier Anton Skrebensky (Paul McGann), it is Ursula's female swimming instructor Winifred Inger (Amanda Donohoe) that gives her her first sexual experience. Ursula is devoted to her but Inger's experience outweighs Ursula's innocence. There is nudity here but no big love scene. It's actually fairly restrained for Russell, and for once it actually feels appropriate for the film.

Ursula moves back to sexy soldier Skrebensky (try saying that out loud) and experiences true Freudian bliss against a tree with a gushing waterfall behind it. Now that's more like Russell, isn't it? It's not pornographic but it's a bit raunchier than Colin Firth's wet shirt. Perhaps not the best viewing for teatime with the family. Still, Paul McGann is a suitable substitute for eye candy; it's very much a film for the women.

The love scenes are shot in an interesting way. Ursula never seems to fully connect as part of the couple- or if she does, the camera doesn't care. The focus is on Ursula's reactions so Russell uses techniques like jump cuts- although this makes one love scene unintentionally hilarious.

Acting-wise, I'm glad that they didn't cast a star. Yes, Davis was not going to be the next Elizabeth Taylor but her inexperience works perfectly for the film. Ursula has not fully worked out her character yet but only that she has a drive to do something different with her life and make more of herself. Because the film is very condensed, the actors have less to work with, which is why Donohoe's character comes off more as a type. Still, I think she conveys an interesting image of a very masculine woman. McGann is a brilliant actor and despite being the obvious eye candy (indeed,a shot of Skrebensky and Ursula by the waterfall graces the film's poster), he manages to show that Skrebensky is also a slave to convention. As Ursula tells him, "I'd rather be swept off my feet by a half-naked robber than a soldier defending my honour". Sassy! Yes, it's not perfect but I think that it's well worth a watch. This is period drama that has genuine relevance to modern life and modern concerns, and is a great coming-of-age story with a brave and life-inspiring message.

This film features two very Strong leads and They were not ashamed to have equality in all things even sex as the men did. Those not familiar with these times a women could be a Married or an old maid. As for work teacher,actress,nurse,novelist,strumpet or Nun were the varied career choices. As for what women had to say well it was re-expression of the views or opinions of the husband or father.( see Henrik Ibsen's A Doll's House)

As it is an art film it has some fornication and nudity scenes that some moralists will find pornographic for it is "pleasures of the flesh".

This is a prequel to Women in Love. neat Point,in the story Gudrun Brangwen mothers', Anna Brangwen played is played Glenda Jackson who played Gudrun Brangwen in Women in Love.

So if you like period film get both movies and have a double feature.