Rating: 
Summary: Beautiful, But Disappointing
Review: Zefferelli certainly knows how to shoot a beautiful picture, but the script, the acting, and the casting were, overall, very disappointing in this dramatization of, what I would call, one of the most romantic novels of all time. Anna Paquin's performance as the young Jane Eyre (though verbally limited by the script) was by far the best one in this production. The adult Jane looked the part, except for being much too tall, but any attempt to capture the fire and spirit of the character was found greatly lacking by this viewer. William Hurt is a fine actor, but I think he was sadly miscast in this role, capturing none of the passion nor the physiogymy of Edward Rochester. Like other reviewers, I was not enough moved by the love story in this production. I think the greatest fault was found in the script, which was very milktoast in comparison with the lush poetry of the novel. The changes to the plot, I could have forgiven had they been handled in a fashion that kept the spirit of the book; I recognize that it is nearly impossible for a feature-length film to do complete justice to all the subtleties of a 19th century novel, but the deviations of plot seemed to serve no function - why, for instance, not do as they did in the 1944 film, and leave out the relationship with St. John Rivers altogether? It was a confusing inclusion which served no logical purpose, and only prolonged the timing needlessly. The best thing I can say about this film is its physical beauty - an ironic thing to be said about a story whose theme discredits superficial beauty as an attribute to be admired!
Rating: 
Summary: Great as a movie in itself!!
Review: I would highly recommend this as a great movie in itself rather than an accurate depiction of the book. Although it strays a little and there are large key parts missing, it's cleverly brought together and both Hurt and Gainsbourg do a fantastic job of creating the true demeanor of Erye and Rochester.
Rating:
Summary: Not the best, but very good
Review: I'll start with what impressed me about this. The two girls who played Jane (young and grown) were both perfect for the part visually. The older Jane had a sense of quiet intelligence and a gentle strength that gave her a certain charm. The man playing Rochester did quite a good job as well although it wasn't visually. I loved how he acted it, if only they could place his talent into another body. The scenery was gorgeous, just as I might have imagined it. It adheres to the story MOSTLY (the parts it did tell, that is). The music was astounding as well. Now, for the cons of this movie. First of all, it just simply left out SO MUCH of the story for it to be impactful! It also changed so much after Jane left Rochester to something less dreary than what really happened to her. If you haven't read the book, then this is fun to watch. If you have read the book though, and liked it, this version may insult you. I liked it overall though, it's not boring or corny.
Rating: 
Summary: i like it!
Review: Oh boy, I like this movie... and I like Charlotte Gainsbourg and William Hurt. I don't know... I am a down to earth, so I like Charlotte and William and how they played the characters. The Jane and Rochester also look like me from time to time. Haha, I like them because they are Pisces and Cancer, in particular late Pisces and late Cancer. I am a Scorpio.
Rating:
Summary: I'm in love with William Hurt's Mr. Rochester!
Review: This is my favorite version of the movie. I feel the actors portray the characters very accurately. In the book Jane had a very cool/calm/together demeanor and Charlotte Gainsbourg pulls this off beautifully along with her plain appearance. I'm a big William Hurt fan and feel this is his best work. To me, he IS Mr. Rochester. The only negative thing I have to say is the storyline strayed from the book... a lot. But we must keep in mind the book is very long and this movie isn't a big Hollywood creation. A smaller budget combined with time constraints force the writers to come up with a creative way to jam the story into 2 hours. I think they've done a nice enough job of making sense so those who've never read the book won't be left with too many questions. Those of us who are familiar with Charlotte Bronte's Jane Eyre can fill in the spaces quite nicely with our imaginations. Recently I watched the A&E version of Jane Eyre. It was done terribly and leaves me appreciating Zeffirelli's version even more.
Rating: 
Summary: This version is just "eh".
Review: This review contains many spoilers, so you might not want to read it if you haven't read the book.First of all, Jane Eyre is my favorite book. I love it so much because it is romantic, feminist, exciting and mysterious. It would be extremely difficult for any movie to do the novel justice. Still, this version COULD have been better. Charlotte Gainsbourg did look very much how I imagined Jane, but she always came across as so cold. It's true that in the book Jane does not always express how she feels, but she is not as stony as Miss Gainsbourg portrays her. William Hurt wasn't the best Rochester, either. I don't know what they were thinking, casting a blonde, conventionally handsome actor to play the dark and brooding Mr. Rochester! It even says on the back of the box something like, "Jane Eyre falls for her rich and HANDSOME employer..." I'm sure Charlotte Bronte would have been insulted that her character was changed to the point of blasphemy. Elle McPherson as Blanche Ingram was pretty bad too. I did like Anna Paquin as young Jane though, and the elderly woman who played Mrs. Fairfax was perfect. It's not just the acting that bothered me...I think they ruined three of my favorite scenes. The first is the scene in which Mr. Rochester dresses up as a Gipsy woman to find out if Jane loves him. This is a WONDERFUL passage in the book, and every version of Jane Eyre I have ever seen always leaves it out! I have a feeling that they originally filmed this scene, but they ended up having to cut it so the movie wouldn't be too long. So I was disappointed about that. The second scene I didn't like was when Mr. Rochester proposes to Jane. When I read it in the book it brought tears to my eyes, because it was so beautiful and passionate, but in this movie it just falls flat. Mr. Rochester: Duhhh, I love you. Will you marry me? Jane: Mmm, sure, why not. OK, so maybe I'm exaggerating a little, but that's how it felt to me. That scene was severely downplayed; it didn't move me at all. And why didn't they film it in the garden by the big tree, like it is in the book? I thought that was an important detail. I also thought it was cheesy how they showed Thornfield burning down JUST when Jane was leaving! Please, she just walked out the door and she doesn't even stop or notice when the mansion catches on fire? I think this was done for dramatic effect, but it came across to me as ridiculous. Still, I give the movie 2 stars, because although Mr. Hurt didn't really look his part, he did an OK job of playing it. And I did like how they did the scene in which Mr. Rochester admits to having been married before, and presents Bertha Mason to everyone who was attending his and Jane's wedding. That was pretty well done, and pretty faithful to the book. I'd recommend this movie for that scene alone. I think that above all, if a movie version of Jane Eyre is to be made, it MUST be faithful to the book. The novel is wonderful enough that they wouldn't have to change anything.
Rating:
Summary: i like it!
Review: Oh boy, I like this movie... and I like Charlotte Gainsbourg and William Hurt. I don't know... I am a down to earth person, so I like Charlotte and William and how they played the characters. The Jane and Rochester also look like myself from time to time. I like them because they are Pisces and Cancer, in particular late Pisces and late Cancer (March 20 and July 22). I am a Scorpio.
Rating:
Summary: Very Good!
Review: I really liked this movie! It was very good and was a little disapointed with the LOOK of the mad-person, but is still good but the 1944 adaption was a little better!
Rating:
Summary: The Best Version
Review: Although missing a few parts of the book it is still a good movie. Also unlike previous versions the charactor of Jane Eyre is neither very beautiful nor very ugly she is plain which is what Charlette Bronte had discribed her as. I think that this movie is good for people of all ages probably females would like it a lot more because it is a dramatic romance so it is hard for men to cope with. Also children could see it but they would probably not enjoy it as much as adults do because of the fact that it is a movie that requires you to pay attention in order to grasp everything that has happened. I hope that this review has helped you in making a decision about the movie Jane Eyre also I recommend the book to all people everywhere it is such a great book.
Rating: 
Summary: Cannot recommend this version.
Review: Other than than the notable Anna Pacquin as young Jane, and a few other supporting players, this film was a major disappointment to me. In fact, I feel it strayed so far from Miss Bronte's sensitive plot and characterizations that it actually dishonored it. My advice, avoid this one. If you love this brilliant novel, then I highly recommend the wonderful 1983 BBC version. It *is* lengthy (4 hours, though that is no deterrent to true fans!), allowing it to omit no important story lines, including the famous gypsy scene. Plus it features The Most Perfect Rochester Ever, Timothy Dalton, and the engaging Zelah Clark as the fairy-like Jane. For Bronte enthusiasts, there could be no better overall version. (Note: this needs to be released on DVD!!) However, if pressed for time, the recent A&E production starring Ciaran Hinds and Samantha Morton is tolerably good and enjoyable on its own merits.
|
