Rating: 
Summary: Good acting; not enough of the novel
Review: This movie is an ok movie to watch. If you have read the book then you can see why I lowered teh rating. This adaptation of the novel Jane Eyre leaves out primary parts. This occurs especially in the beginning where you see practically only a minute of when she is at home with her aunt then she is fastily whisted off to Lowood. The time she spends at Lowood is even shorter. The relationship between Helen and Jane exceedingly lacking. They hardly even know each other if you watched the movie and she cries and is depressed when she wasn't even really an intimate friend with her. In the novel she was an intimate friend with her. It makes a lot more sense in the book. In the movie they hardly even have a relationship. She's very fastily sent away and is even faster at Thornfield. When they were at Lowood it was probably the most, according to the book, correct. However, they still take out one primary scene before they leave and when Rochester's wife comes into her room. The acting was done very well but there was so little of the original novel. If you haven't read the book then it would seem like a good movie but to people who have read the book they lacked many important things from the book. The rest of it goes extremely fast and they take out many, many, many scenes. The ending is good and it goes with the book. As a whole, it wa Ok but not that good
Rating:
Summary: Short Stuff...
Review: This is the second version of Jane Eyre I've seen, and compared to the 1983 Dalton/Clarke version, it is a little lacking. The emotion isn't there, and the movie, overall, is too short to show all the themes and conflicts that occur in the story. I was also annoyed that they left my favorite line: "Oh Jane, my hope, my love, my life!" out. It did have its good points, though. Gainsbourg portrayed a very accurate Jane while young Jane, Adele, and Mrs. Fairfax did exceptionally wonderful jobs as their respective characters. If you love Jane's story, be sure to buy it.
Rating: 
Summary: Jane Eyre
Review: Music superb! William Hurt was wonderful as Edward, Charlotte Gainsbourg as Jane complimented Mr. Hurt. Would recommend highly.
Rating: 
Summary: Could be better
Review: Let me start off by saying that this movie production of Jane Eyre bares little resemblance to the classic novel by Charlotte Bronte. The beginning is rather slow in comparison to the rest of the movie, while the end is needlessly rushed. It's almost as if Mr Zeffirelli began making the movie with extreme gusto and then got fed up of it halfway through and decided to finish the project hurriedly, which is a pity because Jane Eyre is a wonderful piece of literature and certainly does not deserve such carelessness.Now on to the main problems with this movie. Firstly, although Charlotte Gainsbourg makes a competent Jane, she lacks the maturity of the Jane in the novel. Perhaps this is because Zeffirelli did not really show her as a protagonist - we don't get to see things from her point of view all that much, and sometimes the other characters overshadow her. Also, her expression rarely changes throughout the whole movie (she always looks like she has her teeth clenched), which is quite a drawback because Jane is supposed to have a lot of emotion in her, even though she looks plain and grey on the outside. This vital trait of Jane is something that Gainsbourg unfortunately failed to bring out. Rochester is by far the biggest mistake in this movie. If you are a true admirer of the novel, I suggest you avoid watching this movie, solely for the fact that the Rochester of the book has been completely and utterly destroyed in the movie. Most readers would agree on what Rochester should look like: tall, dark and almost gruff, yet somewhat attractive. Here, Rochester has been transformed into a lilly-livered, waterey-eyed blond zombie who bears absolutely no similarity at all to the Rochester of the book! Sacrilege! This was without a doubt the *biggest* disappointment of the movie for me. He almost looks clownish when he falls off his horse in his opening scene! While I'm at it, another character which has been completely ruined is Blanche Ingram. In essence, she is supposed to be elegant, dark-haired, slightly dark-skinned and somewhat arrogant, but still with a lot of flair and beauty, i.e. an absolute contrast to plain Jane. I certainly wasn't expecting to see a somewhat quiet, blonde, boring Blanche with her hair in two bunches! Although she is one of the less important characters, the contrast between her and Jane is important and should be brought out. Sadly I did not see that here. Apart from the bad casting, as I mentioned earlier the beginning is slow while the end is rushed. There is hardly any balance in this production. Zeffirelli did Jane's childhood rather well, with Reed House and Lowood School being quite similar to the way most readers would imagine them. However, after the point where Jane leaves Thornfield, Zeffirelli clearly did not care to finish the movie properly: Jane suddenly wakes up in the Rivers household (totally out of the blue), learns that she has inherited a large sum of money, learns that the Rivers are her cousins, finds out that Thornfield has been burnt down, hears Rochester calling her name, goes to him, marries him and there's the happy ending! Blink and you'll miss it. Well, in Zeffirelli's defence, Jane Eyre *is* quite a long book and is more suited to be made into a mini-series rather than a movie. But still, I was rather disappointed by this production of the novel. I strongly advise true fans of the book *not* to watch this movie. I can confidently say that you will be disappointed too.
Rating:
Summary: It writes the book on how to ruin a classic
Review: "Jane Eyre" is a very good novel by an extraordinary author. The people associated with the project obviously did not agree. They decided that the REAL story would not sell and the that the author was obviously wrong in every descision she made as far as plot, character and theme. Basically, it dosen't seem like the people who made this movie even LIKE "Jane Eyre" or even READ it. The plot isn't even reminisct of the novel's tone and message. Jane Eyre is transformed from a strong, moral woman to a wishy-washy girl and every single supporting character is massacred cruelly. How can anyone who liked the book like this moive? This adaptation takes the deep physcological journey of Jane Eyre and turns it into a boring, dark and superficial romance tale. I don't think it could've been any worse. Jane's childhood is, granted, done pretty well. But every single change made to the original (and there are tons) makes the movie that much worse and is an attempt to mass market the sensational parts of the story and downplay the intellect. Simply embarrassing for Zeffirelli and everyone involved. I would recommend this movie to be burned by anyone who loved the book.
Rating:
Summary: An average adaption of "Jane Eyre"...
Review: Now this isn't a bad movie, not at all. But it was'nt NEARLY long enough to be completely true to the book(Like the BBC adaption was). But its still good, and unlike the other past or future Janes, this one is ACTUALLY plain!!! The acting is good, and its still pretty romantic, but that doesn't seem to be its main focus. I *Love* the book very much, so this version upset me at the way they changed alot of things. While some parts are very true to the book others are not. Now even if you love the book I'm sure you can enjoy it, because its not so bad or so unfaithfull to the book that you'll be throwing pillows at the TV. Its worth watch, but don't expect it to be great or anything. *enjoy* God Bless ~Amy
Rating: 
Summary: William Hurt doesn't work
Review: If you LOVE LOVE LOVE this story as much as I do, then you must see this version. If you aren't that enthusiastic, then try the BBC version starring Timothy Dalton. Which is much better than this one. William Hurt is basically miscast. He's a whimp in this, unsure of himself and whiny. But, the scenery and supporting cast are very good and it makes it worth it all the same.
Rating:
Summary: Very Well Done
Review: The sets and costumes are really really great, but the highlight of this film is the truly wonderful acting on the part of William Hurt. He plays the elusive, eccentric country noble Mr. Rochester exactly the way he should be played. He's quietly passionate, sexy, and smoldering, while still exhibiting signs of being a real stuffy gentleman. Inwardly tormented, Rochester is perfect. Charlotte Gainsbourg takes on the challenging role of the title character, petit and plain Jane Eyre. Gainsbourg's unearthly prettiness adds immeasurably to her character, but she represses some of Jane Eyre's passion that we find in the book. The chemistry between Gainsbourg and Hurt is tense and shaky - exactly how it should be. Zeffirelli has created the best screen version of this book that I have ever seen!
Rating:
Summary: Old-fashioned Hollywood Gothic
Review: Director Franco Zeffirelli isn't currently the wild-eyed operaticist he was with films like "Brother Sun, Sister Moon" and his masterpiece "La Traviata," but this "Jane Eyre" adaptation shows that he can also thrive inside a Gothic tradition, a talent he first showed with his 1990 "Hamlet." A large part of the pleasure of this "Jane Eyre" comes from its sense of being a throwback to lavishly-mounted prestige pictures of yore which, unlike such productions today, featured a more authentic sense of romance and less bombast. Zeffirelli doesn't drag the show on; his editing is quite brisk, without compromising the lushness of his visuals (his Baroque sensibility expresses itself with almost evangelical power when Helen Burns unleashes her red mane--the gift of beauty which the Lowood puritans would strip away). Esteemed cinematographer David Watkin is in at least Oscar-nomination-worthy form here, managing the occasional touch of soft-focus diffused morning light without making the picture look frilly. As ubiquitous as badly-done gold tones have become, it's a great relief to look at a film with such a lush sense of the barren. But best of all, Charlotte Gainsbourg is absolutely hypnotic as Jane. To paraphrase another Bronte: "Nelly, she IS Jane!" It's amazing to behold such an unconventional beauty-- praise the gods for Zeffirelli bringing her to an English-language audience. Her brooding manner, her sense of merit scorned, her hidden yet bound-to-burst amorousness--Gainsbourg ravishes with her quiet luminescence. And the set of her mouth is one of nature's masterworks. I could never forget her face in the mirror--she manages to incarnate the literary Jane's patient capacity for self-blame with tear-inducing force. Such a lovely picture, both sombre and uplifting.
Rating:
Summary: For those who have not read the book
Review: The first time I watched this movie, I loved it. I thought it was a great romance and had wonderful scenery and acting. Then I read the book. I now cannot sit through this movie without feeling like I am being tortured. The movie had so many inaccuracies that it might as well have a different title. This is beyond dramatic license. People who, in the book, never even met each other were having conversations, family structures entirely changed, scenes that never happened added. For what purpose, I do not know. The book is so full of wonderful dialogue and emotion, the movie cannot live up to this. I am very disappointed and will never be able to watch this version again.
|
