Jane Eyre

Rating:
Summary: Great Movie - terrible video!
Review: Oh, come on y'all...I admit I did not read all 29 other reviews, but this is NOT the worst movie ever made. I recently bought this DVD. The last time I saw this was on TV in 1971, I think it was a Hallmark Hall of Fame production? Anyway I remembered loving it and when I saw it again I still loved it. Has there ever been a plain Jane? of course not. Scott's Mr. Rochester came across as a man who has seen a lot of wear and tear in his efforts to forget his problems. Here he gradually wakes up to the possibility of a new life. He is reluctant, conflicted but unable to resist trying somehow to win Jane and begin again.
The script dealt very well with the made-for-TV constraints. The writer did not have the luxury of using big chunks of dialogue stright from the book, as the BBC might do (there is a wonderful Timothy Dalton/Zelah Clarke version that does just that) but zips along with great concision, hitting the high points with economy and clarity. This version tries to recast the characters' concern in modern terms and I think succeeds without seeming too dated thirty years on.
An the music is beautiful. It's like another character - the theme stayed with me all these years and it is as pretty and haunting as I remember.
And yeah, it was a nice production but the quality of the DVD is not very good. But not bad enough to keep me from enjoying it.

Rating:
Summary: Oh, come on...
Review: Oh, come on y'all...I admit I did not read all 29 other reviews, but this is NOT the worst movie ever made. I recently bought this DVD. The last time I saw this was on TV in 1971, I think it was a Hallmark Hall of Fame production? Anyway I remembered loving it and when I saw it again I still loved it. Has there ever been a plain Jane? of course not. Scott's Mr. Rochester came across as a man who has seen a lot of wear and tear in his efforts to forget his problems. Here he gradually wakes up to the possibility of a new life. He is reluctant, conflicted but unable to resist trying somehow to win Jane and begin again.
The script dealt very well with the made-for-TV constraints. The writer did not have the luxury of using big chunks of dialogue stright from the book, as the BBC might do (there is a wonderful Timothy Dalton/Zelah Clarke version that does just that) but zips along with great concision, hitting the high points with economy and clarity. This version tries to recast the characters' concern in modern terms and I think succeeds without seeming too dated thirty years on.
An the music is beautiful. It's like another character - the theme stayed with me all these years and it is as pretty and haunting as I remember.
And yeah, it was a nice production but the quality of the DVD is not very good. But not bad enough to keep me from enjoying it.

Rating:
Summary: Rochester completely lacking passion...
Review: Susannah York was absolutely wonderful, albeit too pretty, as Jane, and quite believable in her portrayal. However George C. Scott was unmoving, unemotional, and unbelievable. If I hadn't known the story so well already, I wouldn't from this movie believe them to be in love. The lack of passion and attraction between Jane and Rochester was frustrating. Rochester is supposed to be rough, violent, moody, and all we got was a solemn quietness. On the other hand, the emphasis on the gothic aspects of the novel were great, and the proposal scene between Jane and St. John was awesome and full of feeling (unlike the one between Jane and Rochester, which was too rushed). I really aslo enjoyed the whole Lowood School scene, the young Jane and Helen both acting well. The music soundtrack to this movie, I must say was awesome and accompanied wonderfully. Overall, you should see this movie if you are a die-hard fan of the novel, as I am, but of all the versions I still prefer the A&E Morton/Hinds version with so much visible chemistry between Jane and Rochester, and that is what Bronte was about; passion.

Rating:
Summary: I will never forget it.
Review: The first time I saw it, I loved it very much. I'm a Chinese girl, maybe my English is poor, but I still want to say that I like foreign literature very much. I think Scott and Miss York performed very well. This version of "Jane Eyre" is the best of all. I agree with ybc_us

Rating:
Summary: Absolutely Miscast
Review: There have been many mediocre-to-awful "Jane Eyre"s, and this is one of them. No, Mr. Rochester is not meant to be conventionally handsome, in an era when handsome meant a "Grecian" profile and blond curls. He should not be, however, devoid of all charisma and positively unattractive. Of the various actors who have portrayed him, Orson Welles best fits the book's description, down to the glowing black eyes, but George C. Scott does not even come close, in face, voice or demeanor. And as various people have already pointed out, Susanna York was both too old and too conventionally attractive for Jane. When neither of the principals fits the role, the story simply cannot work. The one thing this version has going for it is a hauntingly beautiful score, which I am fortunate to own on CD, and which contains some of the most lovely titles I know. Its charm and simplicity would be a complete revelation to those who only know John Williams' work through his scoring of Spielberg epics. If you want a version that is faithful to the book and beautifully acted, then by all means wait for the version with Timothy Dalton as Rochester; he may be too handsome (but then again, perhaps not when contrasted to the "blond god" Victorian ideal), but he acts Rochester to the core, and his scene with Jane when she finally emerges from her room, following the revelation, is both breathtakingly romantic and amazingly sexy. Zelah Clarke as Jane is indeed small and plain and passionate, and they make a perfect match. It is too bad that Williams' score could not have been adapted for that version!

Rating:
Summary: STRANGE
Review: This film version of Jane Eyre has turned Charlotte Bronte's gothic novel into an episode of the Twilight Zone, evidenced by degenerative dialogue, a raucous musical score and unimpressive photography. The underlying themes of the necessity of faith and moral integrity in Bronte's novel has been transformed into humanitarian ethic, and the love between Edward and Jane which encompasses body, mind and soul, in this film has none of the passion found in the novel.

Rating:
Summary: worse jane eyre ever
Review: This is the worse version of Jane Eyre I've ever seen. I cannot believe that Scott would even consider doing a movie like this. British accent? HA! Not even in his dreams. That was distracting enough. A story of this kind needs a certain amount of subtlety and Scott has none. Thank goodness I saw this as a special showing and did not pay money for it. See the Timothy Dalton BBC version instead. Much more enjoyable.

Rating:
Summary: Memorable!
Review: This is truly a memorable version of this beloved classic. I wish it had been longer but wouldn't change a thing about it otherwise. I remember seeing it when it originally aired on TV in 1970. I was only 7 but never forgot it. The performances especially Scott's are wonderful. To me he will always be the definitive Rochester. And the score by John Williams is one of the most beautiful pieces of music I have ever heard, it's absolutely haunting.

Rating:
Summary: Annoying
Review: This version of Jane Eyre does not leave much of Bronte's book. The character of Jane Eyre is received as a smiling Hollywood star and does not reflect anything of her Lowood history which is so splendidly done in the Zefirelli version. I would never be induced to read the book after seeing this movie.
Watching the movie is waste time even if one likes to compares the different movie versions!

Rating:
Summary: Too short to be definitive however great performances, music
Review: This version of Jane Eyre is marked by good performances, and a great music score by John Williams. If it had been longer, I think it might have been the definitive version, but at under 2 hours, it cannot come close to the Timothy Dalton BBC version which was several hours long, took dialogue straight out of the book in most scenes, etc. But George C. Scott was a more realistic Rochester. Timothy Dalton acted well, but was far too pretty, and Rochester was supposed to be a rather ugly man physically, to match Jane's plainess. Susannah York had the right sweetness to play Jane, but again far too beautiful. I haven't seen a real plain Jane yet in any filmed version, except for the William Hurt version, which I actively disliked. (Worst was the A&E version, I threw pillows at my tv screen, it was so bad).