So many nested comments that I'm replying to the original ...
I just read the first couple of pages of PK's review; that much did not leave me wanting to read more. I found it supercilious and unfocused. Here's a few samples.
probably he doesn't have anything he really wants to do in movies except to command the technology. He probably enjoys working in his gentleman-technician's tasteful-colossal style.
That's in the very first paragraph. Already she is claiming to know Lean's motivations, and seems to be in love with the big words she uses. She's reviewing her perception of the director's motives rather than the movie. (Some have said that at least she's a brilliant writer. To me this is not brilliant writing. The New Yorker's current film critics, primarily Anthony Lane and David Denby, are much better.)
The sex-starved colleen falls for the shell-shocked hero
Did PK really think sex was what Rosy was starved for? It was obvious to me that she was starved for the excitement of new ideas.
Of Sarah Miles: This girl simply does not move the heavens
Well, she moved me. She and the scenery and cinematography were probably the best things about the film. Maybe that's because I'm male, but I don't think that's all -- Rosy's desire for ideas came through. (It may be apparent that I didn't exactly love the film. Some of my reasons are even mentioned in the PK review. But most of what she wrote, I find beside the point or just wrong.)
Her orgasms are recorded in glinting star-shaped patterns
I had almost forgotten that there even was a sex scene. It just wasn't important in the movie. It was the adventure in the forest that drew, and drove, Rosy's desire. PK could not see this? How sad for her.
the picture puts Lady Chatterley's lover back into the pseudo-aristocratic pulp romanticism from which D. H. Lawrence wrested him.
I can barely follow that sentence. Not even sure if I did. I think that basically she's saying that the sentiments are expressed too directly and openly, but I'm not sure. To me this is academic writing enamored with its own barbs.
looks as if he'd been rushed and hadn't had time to complete the editing ... (A constable is murdered in the beginning and his body is hidden, but apparently he isn't missed, because he isn't mentioned again.)
I have to wonder how carefully PK watched the film! In the first place, it isn't clear where this event takes place. The constable probably was missed, but in another town. The point of the scene is to show Tim O'Leary, to show his character, early on, even though he doesn't appear again until much later. It's called foreshadowing, PK. A barb like that makes me wonder just how carefully she watched any movie. Maybe she knows what's wrong with them, but does she know what's right with them? Does she understand that drama and reality are very different?
Well, that's enough, I don't want to read the rest. Though skimming it, it appears she never even mentions my biggest dislike, which is the musical score, shimmering bad romantic music which does not evoke Ireland in any shape or form. I'm certainly no great fan of the film, but much more so than of PK.
BTW, someone mentioned eight pages. It's spread out over nine pages, but that includes ads. It's actually only six columns -- two full pages.
Very insightful commentary, paleolith. I agree with much of what you said.