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.

This prequel to D.H. Lawrence's "Women in Love" may result in more questions than answers for viewers of the film not familiar with that 1969 British film (also directed by Ken Russell, and giving Glenda Jackson her first Oscar) which focused on two sisters (Jackson and Jennie Linden) exploring the world through their own desires and rules. Gudrun and Ursula Brangwen (Glenda McKay and Sammi Davis) are passionate young ladies making their way in a man's world, one (Davis) chosing to be a spinster schoolteacher and the other settling into a more normal life. Jackson, who played Gudrun in "Women in Love", plays the wise, often witty mother, but the character she played there is not really significant here. Ursula has a passionate affair with Amanda Donohoe's gym instructor, and it is obvious from the time they meet that is where Lawrence and Russell are heading in the narrative of the story. While interesting as a character study of Davis's character, it really is more about a series of events in her life, how she stands up to the men who try to exploit her (a rather perverse artist and her supervisor at the school), and how her affairs shape her life. Jim Carter of "Downton Abbey" fame (butler "Carson") is the very rigid school supervisor who barks that him and his cane rule the school, that is until Davis must use her own on a trouble making student. That scene is quite disturbing as Davis swats the pre-teenage boy over and over until she breaks the cane and gets the attention of the entire school. What is amusing is how she basically laughs at all the men around her with their intent to get her into bed, and the passion that she does show when the more desirable men do manage to seduce her. Jackson's presence here merely is notable as a tie between the two books films, and while she is commanding as always, she really doesn't have much to do other than offer comfort or come out with a witty line here and there, showing that there's a Lady Violet ("Downton Abbey's" caustic matriarch) in the making. Perhaps the length of time between the very art house "Women in Love" and the film version of "The Rainbow" (written five years before Lawrence published "Women in Love") lessened the interest in this prequel which had some attention in big cities but came and went so fast. The art house focused video store I worked at when this was released had four copies on the shelf which basically sat there collecting dust after initial interest had passed. As this came out during the rise of Merchant Ivory, audiences were probably perplexed by the excessive sexuality and nudity, only very subtle in "A Room With a View" and the gay themed "Maurice". There is also much more symbolism here, not surprising considering Ken Russell's involvement as the director. It is certainly watchable, with the sets and costumes and outdoor garden like scenery transitioning the viewer to the English countryside, accompanied by a musical score that is perhaps the most memorable element of the film. It will be interesting to watch "Women in Love" after this as opposed to before it considering the timeline in which both novels and films take place.

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.

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 felt that this movie was too slobby and lazy. I think hiring Sammi Davis was a very bad idea, she looked like a 15 year old like i felt she was too young to be on this kind of rough movie! She looked like Goldlocks, she was gorgeous looking but its just, the role didn't suit her. Maybe if she played her sister, then that would probably look better! Alright having a rainbow is a good idea to have in a movie but really i think it didn't mean anything. It just was a rainbow she liked as a child, there didn't seem to be enough emphasis regarding the colors. I know the LGBTQ symbol is a rainbow flag but really, it didn't give a definition in my opinion. Its really disappointing. I wouldn't call it the best late 80's movie tbh, it was stupid!

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

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.

The characters philosophize and muse about love, war, religion, marriage, etc. but there is no clear line here. Sure, it's about the maturing of a girl who, since seeing a rainbow in childhood, strives for higher things. But she can't reach them any more than she can have that rainbow. (Right, Ken? Did I get it right? Deep stuff, indeed.) Translation: a confused free-spirit doesn't know what she wants, contradicts herself (as do most characters here), and bull****s occasionally. The film isn't boring, though; it's fairly interesting, but hardly fascinating. As is to be expected from a Russell film there is yet again homosexuality; but, thank God, this time it's lesbianism. There is also the absurdity of the ease with which Donohue seduces Davis. What was that all about? I mean, apart from the fact that everyone seems to be insane in a Russell movie.

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.