Rating: 
Summary: Literature's famous couple accurately fleshed out
Review: I have been a Jane Eyre fan since high school and have seen almost all of the different movie versions. This one is my favorite. Why? Most importantly, this is the only Jane Eyre film with a "plain Jane." Her unattractiveness is absolutely fundamental to the story. The other cinematic Janes, Joan Fontaine and Suzanna York are drop dead gorgeous, Samantha Morton is very pretty and Zelah Clark is cute, chubby and perky, nothing like the "real" Jane Eyre of the book. When this book was published in 1847, it was absolutely unheard of to have a plain heroine, but Charlotte Bronte felt strongly about her heroine's plain looks and the book became a phenomenal best-seller in its day. Despite plain-Jane's best-seller status, most 20-century film adaptations still can't handle the idea of a plain heroine. Well, this film can and did!(Charlotte Gainsbourg's performance has been criticized in other Amazon reviews as being less than passioned. But by the time Jane meets Rochester, her natural passion had been repressed, both by her lengthy austere circumstances and her own strong will. Her passion therefore, for most of the story is internal. Charlotte Gainsbourg does a fine job of portraying a Jane Eyre whose turbulent emotions are hidden below a firmly self-controlled surface.) Secondly, the age difference between Rochester and Jane is fully realized in this film. They are supposed to be 20 years apart. All the other Jane/Rochester's look like they are approximately the same age, while William Hurt and Charlotte Gainsbourg don't even look like they belong together -- exactly the point of the story.
Thirdly, there are a few little scenes and lines straight out of the book that I haven't seen in any other adaptations but this one. For instance, there is a small but key moment in the book -- Rochester smoking a cigar in the garden just before he declares his love for Jane. In the book, she smells his cigar and tries to escape before he notices her. To have William Hurt puffing on a cigar at this point in the film is a nice true-to-the-book touch. There are many other such incidents and lines in this film that I haven't seen in any other versions and haven't had the pleasure of meeting since I read the book. Of course, given the time limit of this movie, there is some unavoidable tinkering with the plot line. If you want more of the actual text and plot, get the Timothy Dalton version, but try to keep William Hurt in mind while you watch it. Yes, I know -- he's blond, but he gives an excellent performance. His good looks are toned down and he manages to be the most compelling Rochester I have yet to see on film. Timothy Dalton is tolerable in his portrayal but too thin, handsome, and too high strung; his acting is difficult to watch at times. Hurt's portrayal is also far superior to the one actor who has the closest physical resemblence to Rochester -- Orson Welles, whose performance is a string of ridiculous screaming fits. Watching Cirian Hinds' portrayal is like getting too near a snake pit or a steaming pot of boiling oil; he's way too tortured and it's not a pleasant sight. Yes, Rochester was a tortured man, but he usually kept it in check and below the surface. The nuances of this complicated character are lost on most all of the the actors that have attempted to play Rochester; all of the actors that is, except William Hurt who brings to his performance all the irony and subtlty the others are sorely lacking. William Hurt and Charlotte Gainsbourg are as cinematically close as you will get to the physicality of this famous couple of literature. Although the superiority of this film can be measured by the plainness of it's leading characters, I must conclude by saying that it is beautifully shot and includes a gorgeous soundtrack.
Rating: 
Summary: The worst version of the book ever made
Review: While I have great affection for many of Zefferelli's films, mostly his Shakespeare adaptations, this is possibly the worst film he has ever made. He just does NOT get 'it' about Charlotte Bronte's famous novel - a blonde Rochester? A brunette Jane? And tall in the bargain? And NO passion? Gainsbourg may be a well known actress in her country, but her work here was possibly the most wooden acting by the part of an actress that I have ever seen. Joan Plowright made a 'fair' Mrs. Fairfax, and Amanda Root was good in the Lowood school section, but mostly this film did NOT offer any improvements on the Timothy Dalton/Zelah Clarke version (the BEST and MOST faithful to the novel) or the Orson Welles/Joan Fontaine version, since Welles and Fontaine embodied the characters of the novel brilliantly, though in a much edited (probably for time in those days) script, like the original black and white Pride and Prejudice with Sir Laurence Olivier and Greer Garson. However, the Welles/Fontaine version captured the gothic creepiness of the novel better than any other version, while the Dalton/Clarke combines all the elements, including my favorite part of the book, where Rochester embodies the gypsy woman telling fortunes at his home. Stay away from this one - stick with Dalton/Clarke, Welles/Fontaine, or even the respectable version by Hinds/Morton/A and E (though with anachronistic dialogue, NOT in the book). Even the Susannah York/George C. Scott one is preferable to this - Scott simply CANNOT give a poor acting performance, and his physicality embodies Rochester, though without the dark, brooding, rugged looks which the book describes him having - as Dalton and Welles DO have, though obviously both are too handsome to be the perfect Rochester.
Rating: 
Summary: The best Rochester, the best overall...but an awful Jane
Review: If you want to see an awesome Mr. Rochester, this film is a must-see. William Hurt gives a rich and layered performance as Rochester, really digging deep into the character and making us realize what a tortured man he is. His rendition of Rochester is unequaled. On the other hand, Charlotte Gainsbourg has nothing going for her except her looks. (Which is undoubtedly why she was cast; she very much looks the role.) Her Jane is wimpy, simpering, and even a little dumb. In short, she is not the Jane Eyre of the novel. The rest of the cast is quite good, the cinematography is lovely, the costumes great, etc. But for me, Ms. Gainsbourg's performance severely detracts from the film.
Rating:
Summary: The director could have read the book first!
Review: I regret to say that I do not feel there were many redeeming qualities to this version of Jane Eyer. In my opinion, it turned out to be a different story entirely. The lack of feeling and desire between Jane and Mr. Rochester irritated me greatly. After reading the book, this was such an unrewarding experience for me! I have found to love the book better than any I have ever read. As I realize that it would be difficult to portray this novel in a movie well...it sure could have tried harder! Where is the spirit, the drive, the passion?! Having left out some very valuable scenes and changing the ones that were used was a complete insult, I feel, to the author of the story. She would roll over in her grave 20 times over!
The young Jane was perfect for the part and had the ability to do the novel justice. Too bad it all fell flat with the story changed as it was. Did they not read the book before they made a movie on it!?! Somebody read the book!
Rating: 
Summary: Make use of your fast-foward feature.
Review: I love period films, epics, and film adaptations of classical literature. I am not an expert, however. I have seen this film quite a few times, but only in bits and pieces. The dialog often drags, and it causes the viewer to grow impatient for some true "meat" to chew on. I thought the beginning of the movie depicting Jane's childhood (I am not referencing it back to the text for authenticity, mind you) was quite good. I watched this with interest. I rather liked the young Adelle and the other characters at Thornfield. However, the grave dissapointment came from Mr. Rochester. While I am sure this gentleman may be a fine actor elsewhere, he was not suited for this role. His coloring, his non-accent, his build, his mannerisms, all of these things gave him a large hurdle to overcome, and unfortunately he never did. I found him to be very weird... not dark and peculiar like the true Mr. Rochester. Because of this, I did not find myself longing for the ultimate union of the two characters in the end. The black and white version was far better.
Rating:
Summary: A waste of money and a waste of our time!
Review: Whoever thought of taking a blonde Rochester, blonde blanche Ingram, and a tall Jane was simply out of their minds. and hence, I thought it was very awkward that the fire started right at the moment when Jane left. I think that they were just trying to save money! and the thing that really made it dodgy, was the fact that Jane went to Gateshead. The same, careless mistake was made in the 1944 version *which was, by all means better than this waste of money* probably everyone who likes this hasn't read the book, and thinks it's marvelous! but if you *like me* read the book, and loved it, you too will know that if it didn't have the name JANE EYRE printed on the cover, you wouldn't know what it is
Rating:
Summary: Jane Eyre perfectly done
Review: I found this movie to be moving. I found Charlotte Gainsbourg to be the perfect person to play the part of Jane Eyre. Charlotte plays the character with such depth. Just a look in her eyes tells the viewer how much she loves Mr. Rochester, and even how much pain she has gone through. William Hurt plays the part of Mr. Rochester. I found that he was exactly as the housekeeper (Joan Plowright) said he was: you don't know if he's happy when he's sad, or if he's joking or not (or something to that effect). I found it refreshing to see a man (Hurt) express his feelings through the emotions that played out on his face and in his eyes, rather than solely relying on dialogue. While some movies feel the need to over-emphasize the romance between characters; this movie realizes the importance of a touch of the hand, a glance, and even simple dialogue. This movie leaves it up to the viewer to notice the emotions running through the main characters (such as when Mr. Rochester uses his hankerchief on Charlotte's hand when he sees that she's hurt). The director obviously realized that the audience was intelligent enough to sense these emotions. However, the movie also knows when to satisfy the viewer's need to see the two share a romantic moment. The one complaint I could possibly have about this movie is that it seemed rather drawn out. But the more I watch it, the more I realize that each part in the movie serves a purpose. Even the music moved me.
Rating: 
Summary: A moderate interpertation of an underestimated book
Review: The book Jane Eyre was assigned to me this year in 10th grade. It has moved from a homework assignment to my second favorite novel. Our teacher allowed us to view this film in class. In the beginning it is very good, the interpertation of Jane's traumatizing expericence in the red room was very well portrayed. I believe that the actors were casted very well. Jane, Mr. Rochester, Mrs. Reed, St. John, all looked VERY similar to what I imagined them as. (The only thing that bothered me about Jane Eyre was her teeth. She seemed to have an overbite of somekind and one would think that she has braces or desperatly needs them.) The actors, Jane and Mr. Rochester, made the best out of the script they were given. They were very well paired. I do have several complaints though, I know that one can not transfer a book to film perfectly, but they should follow the story line. (spoiler-if you havn't read the book don't read this) The meeting between Mr. Rochester and Jane when they confess there love is to short and lacks the passionate speach and playfullness that the book has. When Jane is leaving Thornfield catches on fire, this happened later. Also in the film Grace Poole dies, this contradicts the book. Also they don't really explain how she hears his voice and how he heard her calling back- this makes the book seem less gothic. Also in the end Mr. Rochester only regained partial sight in one eye, not all his sight as in the movie. Besides the details the movie is resonable. I have only seen this one, but I have seen the beginning of the older black and white one which looks quite good. This movie is resonable. The settings are good , oh they also left out one of my favorite scenes when Mr. Rochester talks to Jane after they first meet in a chair and he tells her to move closer and pull up her chair.
Rating:
Summary: PLAIN JANE
Review: The real stars of this film version of Jane Eyre are Thornfield and the English Countryside - the photography is breathtaking. But the actors who play Mr. Rochester and Jane Eyre are not really suited to the parts. The acting is good, but without passion. This to my mind is a very Plain Jane version of Charlotte Bronte's novel.
Rating:
Summary: Pathetic
Review: I was expecting great things from this film. The actors are terrific, and the novel has been my favorite since childhood. Wow - was I ever disappointed! This is a pathetic, mutilated version of one of the best novels of all time. If given the choice of staring at a wall or watching this film, I'd take the wall in a heartbeat. If you are even remotely a fan of Charlotte Bronte or her novel, do yourself a favor and rent the 1980's BBC version with Timothy Dalton, instead.
|
