Rating: 
Summary: It's not the best version - but it's a good primer!
Review: This version has all the romantic music that you could ask for - Franco Zeffirelli outdid himself lining this up! That said, this version unfortunately lacks certain elements. William Hurt does portray Rochester well, and has a twinkle in his eye while doing so, but being blond messes up his credibility - didn't anyone read the book? Charlotte Gainsbourg is a good Jane, but the scenes involving the two are too short to really make you feel what they are supposed to feel. Joan Plowright is a wonderful Mrs. Fairfax, and Elle MacPhearson as Blanch Ingram makes you want to slap that snotty smirk off her face! I don't know why two of the versions of Jane Eyre - this one and the 1944 version - have Jane fleeing Thornfield to go to Gateshead - in the book, she ended up in Morton and Moor House, not Gateshead! And as we who read the book also know, although it makes a good dramatic point to have Thornfield burn down the day Jane leaves, it actually burns down two months later! This version is a good one to watch if you don't have much time (it clocks in at just under two hours), but for me, I very much prefer the Timothy Dalton/Zelah Clark version, which fleshes out the book SO much better.
Rating: 
Summary: A Disappointing Rendition
Review: The screenwriters tried to shorten the story by cutting corners, and in doing so, ruined large parts of it. Too much of the story is left untold, making it hard for people who haven't read the book to fully understand what's going on. One of the reasons the book is so wonderful, is its detail and explanation - both of which are left out of the film. William Hurt, however, made a surprisingly good Mr. Rochester.
Rating: 
Summary: It was very interesting.
Review: The video has it's ups and downs. Though, not exact (like any other movie) like the book, it is a very good movie to see. Those who have not read the book will find this drama/romatic movie beautiful and interesting. Almost like a fairy tale hit with reality.
Rating: 
Summary: A good attempt
Review: Recently I have finished reading Charlotte Bronte's Jane Eyre. I was so entranced by the story. I ran to the movie store to rent the video after I was finished the book. In short, I think the movie made the story lose it's flare. Yes, of course, the main points of the story were covered. Yet, the parts that helped greatly to things such as character development and the passion of the story were left out! The scenes between Edward and Jane were so short in their dialogue. Those scenes that were shortened were important to the development of the relationship between Jane and Edward. Not to mention how the end of the story was dulled down to nothingness. The actors that portrayed Jane and Edward were different. I liked the performance that William Hurt gave. Though he seemed too gentle for the character sometimes, he did have his many moments. The actress who played Jane, Charlotte Gainsbourg, was dull. Yet, it was not her fault. In the book, Jane has so much vivacity because it is told from her point of view. In the movie Jane's thoughts were not touched upon, so Jane seemed a dull character. So it is not Gainsbourg's fault, but the fault was to choose not to narrate her thoughts. That does seem difficult to do, but it is some what important to lure people to Jane's character. For those who have never read the book but wish to later, I would advise against this version. You will know plot during your reading, and that shall spoil the book as it adds charm to your known plot. For those who have read the book, I would also advise against the movie. You'll probably nit pick it too much as I am currently doing. For those who have never read the book and don't plan to, you might enjoy this film.
Rating:
Summary: The best Jane Eyre movie ever.
Review: I've read the book and seen all the movies and this is the best one. A perfect movie to watch when you're feeling blue. A must for all romantics. Excellent job!!!
Rating:
Summary: Great, but the novel was better!
Review: I just finished reading the book for school. In the past I had tried to read Wuthering Heights by Charlotte's sister, Emily, but to no avail. However, I LOVED Jane Eyre!! Upon hearing that it is also a movie, my teacher recommeded this version, and I was impressed. Of course, they changed a few things, but that always happens when novels are make into movies! My only critism is the way it ended. The ending was like that of the novel, however, it seemed to fly by in the movie! About the last 100 pages of the book only took up about 12 minutes of the movie! Also, like some of the other review say, it can be pretty dull if you haven't read the book. So my advise, read it first, then rent the movie.
Rating:
Summary: William Hurt's miscasting brings down the film
Review: Here you have wonderful performances in roles big & small with actors like Anna Pacquin or Amanda Root or Geraldine Chaplin or Joan Plowright. Hurt was all wrong for the role & spoiled it for me. Alan Rickman shold have played Rochester & he would have been great! You're better off renting earlier films versions, such as the 1983 one with Timothy Dalton (altho he's a bit too handsome for the role, and the movie is 4 hours long) or the 1971 hard-to-find movie with George C Scott & Susannah York. Or even the 1997 A&E production with Ciaran Hinds!
Rating: 
Summary: Dull and lifeless from beginning to end..a dreary two hours.
Review: Unfortunately, my selection for a Saturday night movie at home turned out to be this version of JANE EYRE. The actors moved through their paces as if they were third rate beginners. There is no chemistry..no vitality..no power of emotion..nothing. For those of you who love the story of Jane Eyre, try the version with Timothy Dalton and Zelah Clarke. It is a beautiful piece of work, superbly portrayed by two gifted actors. This one should be used as a training film for young actors and directors when faced with the disaster of miscasting and poor performance.
Rating:
Summary: Disappointing for fans of the novel.
Review: This film version of my favorite novel is excruciatingly disappointing. Hurt (a gifted actor) tries his best as Mr. Rochester but is undermined by the flat screenplay, as is Gainsborough, who is a credible-looking yet oddly passionless Jane. The screenplay has misguidedly stripped away nearly all of the curcial scenes and dialogue between Jane and Rochester that in the novel is so essential for character development and relationship-building, and consequently their relationship feels superficial and passionless, and ultimately uninteresting. Equally oddly, the film lacks visually the unique blend of gothic and Romantic atmospheres that the novel so palpably creates, and which lends essential suspense to the story. And the soundtrack, while pretty, does nothing to build suspense or engage emotion and therefore seems misplaced. My only praise is that Mrs. Fairfax is splended: Joan Plowright gives a compelling performance and truly brings the character to life. Again, a tremendous disappointment.
Rating:
Summary: Read the book, then see the movie
Review: I must admit my eyebrows went up when I saw the pairing for Franco Zeffirelli's "Jane Eyre". William Hurt certainly didn't seem a likely Rochester and Charlotte Gainsbourg was an unknown quality. But the pairing works, at least in this version.Zeffirelli emphasizes the dark aspect of Charlotte Bronte's story, an aspect too often neglected. Hurt is obviously a man living with painful thoughts and Gainsbourg has a quiet, strong presence. Zeffirelli might have used more voice-overs; they would have clued the audience in on what the characters were going through. As is is, unless one is familiar with the book, you may have to guess. Another flaw is the "rushed" ending; surely the director could have added a few more minutes to tie up all the loose ends and let the viewer enjoy the conclusion. Bottom line on this version is that you'll appreciate its virtues all the more if you've read the book. And why no soundtrack??
|
