Rating: 
Summary: Can you say "What were they thinking?"
Review: Ok, first of all, the movie is totally unlike the book. Secondly the acting was so, so BAD! Hurt was the worst Rochester ever to walk the earth! Gainsburg was OK as Janebut she didn't "look" the part. Jane is supposed to be plain Gainsburg is just plain UGLY! IT misses so many points in the book includeing the wonderful scene in wich Edward dresses up as a gypsy woman! Also, the two leads do not seem to well how can I say this? Connect. Another thing one scene that truely disturbed me was the scene when Jane is Leaving Edward and Thornfeild begins to burn down.
"Mr. Rochester you'r house is up in flames and Jane way less that a mile away doesn't notice!"
Now tell me, if a house was going up in smoke right behind you would you notice. I know, I know that scene is was made for "Dramatic Affect" but please! I did like Anna Paquin as young Jane and the woman who played Mrs. Fairfax was perfect. Over all the movie was OK I wouldn't recomend unless you like movies that are stupid and deserve to be banished from the world.
Thank You.
Rating: 
Summary: a grate romance strory
Review: This movie is both sad and happy. I loved the romance in it, and the drama was also grate. I say this is a must see movie.
Rating: 
Summary: Jane Eyre - 1996 - William Hurt
Review: Great story and great version. My wife said this was the best love story she every saw. I thought it was pretty good. Some great acting
Rating: 
Summary: Very dissapointing adaptation
Review: This is one of the most bitter dissapointments I have ever encountered. Though the female lead did a very good job, William Hurt is the worst Mr. Rochester that I have seen so far. The movie misses so many important points that the novel makes, it is really quite disturbing. The entire relationship between Jane Eyre and the Rivers family is completely missing. The scenery shots are very pretty, and the costumes are nice, but the content of the movie is very inferior compared to the BBC version with Timothy Dalton. If you are a true fan of Bronte's novel, please buy the BBC version (1983), it is the best adaptation out there so far.
Rating:
Summary: Remarkable remake of Brontë's classic romance!
Review: I, too, must disagree with many of the reviewers who do not like this film. For me, this version of JANE EYRE works magic-in a quietly intoxicating sort of way. Case in point: I've been haunted (pleasantly) by its breath-taking scenery shots and its beautiful background music. I've watched this film three times since I bought the tape-and I bought it just two days ago!!I must confess that I did not take to Gainsbourg's Jane immediately; I found her a bit too reserved. But cold and stony, as some people find her to be? Never, for I warmed up to her soon enough: I was drawn by her serene manners, her soft-spoken and intelligent words, and her somewhat otherworldly beauty. And surely William Hurt's Mr. Rochester would easily fall in love with a woman of such qualities, no? This is why I must strongly object to the observation that there is no chemistry between Gainsbourg and Hurt. I see plenty to love in both Gainsbourg's and Hurt's characters. Why, the scene where Mr. Rochester says good-night & shakes hands with Jane after the "midnight fire" incident positively sizzles!!! (But doesn't EVERY scene where the two appear together feel so?) This is not a dramatic film in which grand passion oozes from every scene, but it's not over-the-top, either. This version of JANE EYRE just sort of draws you patiently and slowly, and it gets better and better upon every re-viewing. I highly recommend it!
Rating: 
Summary: It wasn't the best. . . but a nice way to spend a Saturday
Review: It wasn't the best, but a nice way to spend a Saturday Night. They've adapted the book quite well, changing a few things around, but not much. It's a very dramatic movie, and there is chemistry between Mr. Rochester and Jane. And the characters do look as how I pictured them, Mr. Rochester handsome in an odd way, and Jane . . . well, let's just call her a plain Jane. Why not check this movie out?
Rating:
Summary: This is my favorite book too. . .
Review: but I must disagree with the reviewers who stamped this film as terrible. Please! Yes the book is wonderful, wonderful, wonderful (it's my favorite by far), but cut this movie some slack! A movie can only contain so much without becoming tedious and overblown. I found this version to be superb in production AND acting. True, the characters are never quite the same on film as they are in one's head, but I believe that all the actors chosen did a good job despite some's apparent physical inadequacies (meaning not looking EXACTLY like the character, i.e. William Hurt). The ending was a little more hurried than I would have liked, and the Gipsy scene in the book is one that I would have wanted to see in the film as well. But unlike some of the other versions that I've seen, this one had charm. I highly recommend it. It's not completely true to the novel, but it's not worth skipping for that reason alone.
Rating:
Summary: Flat as a pancake
Review: I love Austen and Austen-type movies, including Jane Eyre. My favorite Jane Eyre is the version with Ciaran Hinds and Samantha Morton. I like to watch different versions to see if I gain any new insight into the characters or the plot and that is why I watched this version. I was so disappointed! The actress playing Jane showed no emotion throughout the entire movie -- not when Edward was professing his love for her or when she found out he was already married. Throughout the entire movie her expression didn't change once. And, William Hurt as Edward was not much better. Throughout the movie I could find no reason why Edward would be drawn to Jane or vice versa -- there was absolutely no chemistry/intense feelings/passion between the actors/characters. Even during Edward's speech about there being a string between his and Jane's heart, he doesn't even look at her! They're not even close -- he's sitting down looking away and she's standing up. I will admit that the supporting cast was good, with the exception of Anna Paquin as young Jane. I don't think she did a very good job of conveying emotion. The girl who played young Jane in the Ciaran Hinds/Samantha Morton version was very good. If you want to see passion, then please check out the version I mention. Samantha Morton is so expressive that you know exactly what she is feeling and even though Ciaran Hinds is a very gruff Edward, you can't help but fall in love with him -- because you see how he comes to care for Jane.
Rating:
Summary: A Disappointing "Jane Eyre"
Review: True to the Miramax tradition the only thing this version of Jane Eyre has in common with the book are the names of the caracters. The acting was wooden and uninspired, there was no chemistry between this Jane and Mr.Rochester and the story was changed so much, even Charlotte Brontee would not recognize it. The Ciaran Hinds/ Samantha Morton version was much better. Ciaran Hinds certainly has the "dark brooding" looks of the original Mr. Rochester, and when he asks Jane if she finds him handsome, she could be truthful when she said no. This version showed some of the passion and the agony that both feel. It is beond me to understand why directors spend millions to make a movie from a book, only to butcher the story beyond recognition. The classics have endured because of the ability authors like Jane Austen, Charlotte Brontee and Charles Dickens have to bring people to life. The William Hurt version has succeded to reduce the caracters to become onedimentional.
Rating:
Summary: Best Version of Jane Eyre
Review: I saw this movie two year ago on Bravo Channel. Since then I rented the tape a few times. This is the best version of Jane Eyre! I read Jane Eyre many years ago(in Chinese), then later I read it in English. The book was beautiful. And I watched different versions of Jane Eyre movies... I think Charlette Gaingsberg is superb as Jane Eyre, just like in the book. But most important, she looked the right age as in the book. I always felt that Jane Eyre in other versions was too old... William Hurt did a great job as Mr. Rocherster. The passion between them was the same way as I imagined. I also purchased the movie sound track. It is wonderful! I often find myself listening to the music and recalling the beautiful scenary in the movie...
|
