Rating: 
Summary: Okay For The Most Part
Review: The actress who plays Jane is quite good, and is certainly PLAIN. The story is interesting or not, as you please. I can't quibble too strongly with this adaptation, except in one major detail.William Hurt's performance as Rochester is one of the weirdest, and worst, ever put on film. He plays the role as if Rochester was afflicted with narcolepsy, and is having an especially hard time staying awake. Hurt's characteristic mumbling and bizarre attempt at an English accent don't help matters much. I don't see what on earth possesses even that poor governess Jane Eyre to find him even at all attractive. Weren't there any hunky stableboys she could be dallying with? There's a far more effective version starring George C. Scott, who is similarly untraditional in his outlook on Rochester but manages through sheer intelligence and acting ability to make it work. Seek out that version for an entertaining and moving version of this story.
Rating: 
Summary: gorgeous!
Review: I am not giving it a lot of stars, but I think this DVD is gorgeous. I love the story. I love the acting.
Rating: 
Summary: not worth the time
Review: i am a big fan of Jane Eyre. this movie barely followed the book and didn't even seem like the events could and would possible happen. my advise is to not waste your time watching this movie. if you want to see i good Jane Erye movie watch the one with Timothy Dalton. that one is the best by far.
Rating:
Summary: What a disappointment
Review: Well I am a fan of the book and I was really excited to see this so I went ahead and bought it. It got good reviews on rotten tomatoes and the cover just made it look good. Well, I was really disappointed. I tried so hard not to be critical, but it was BORING. They left all of the magic out of the movie. I could accept it not being very true to the book if only they had enhanced some of the scenes, but everything was just so bland. I should have rented it, and also the BBC version b/c that seems to be getting good ratings. The ending was in no way a good thing and I didn't feel any kind of true climax.
Rating:
Summary: Ugggghhhh...
Review: Someone called it a "shockingly beautiful" movie. Yes, shocking sounds about right, though I would not call it beautiful. I am sorry, I just can't help it. This movie effectively mangled my favorite childhood novel. First of all, the casting. Charlotte Gainsbourg does a passable Jane Eyre, but a BLOND ROCHESTER?!.... I think that it would help a lot if whoever were casting an adaptation of such a well-known (and well-loved) book would actually READ the novel... Another thing that I could not abide--they removed all the romantic/gothic scenes from the movie. "Stripped of the romanticism", you call it? I would say, rather, that they took out the most interesting scenes in the novel, including the wonderful Rochester-dress-up-as-a-gypsy scene, where you first begin to believe he loves Jane and not Blanche. And what about the dread that the woman in the attic inspires *before* she appears? For instance, they dispensed with the scene when Bertha walks into Jane's bedroom at night and rips her veil. Gosh, I remember the feeling of impending doom and gloom these chapters inspired--when Rochester is telling Jane that it's only a dream, and you begin to believe him, and hope he's right--until she holds up her torn veil! How could they simply cut them out? Jane Eyre, for all its social significance, is a GOTHIC novel, and such scenes are absolutely important! Without these scenes, it is just another governess story--it certainly is not the Jane Eyre I remember... I say again, ugghhh. Not good...
Rating:
Summary: Better luck next time....
Review: I have been a big fan of Bronte sisters and their novels since I read them first at age 9. Mr. Rochester was and has been the Ultimate fantasy man for me since then. The complexity of his emotions and his tortured soul has prompted me to re-read this novel a few time. How disappointing to see William Hurt's portrayal of this character. Although I am a fan of Mr. Hurt, he should have been the last man to play Rochester. Last weekend I watched this movie immediately after the 1983 version with Timothy Dalton and I was truly disappointed. Charlotte Gainsbourg played the title role effectively enough, given the fact that there was no chemistry between her and Mr. Rochester. Finally, the dialogue in this version was rushed; the script altered so much so that it barely resembled the original. If you have a couple of hours to kill, watch this movie but do not expect too much from it. For an honest and true Jane Eyre Experience, check out the 1983's version staring Timothy Dalton and Zelah Clark. You will not be disappointed.
Rating:
Summary: It's alright but . . .
Review: Having seen two other versions of "Jane" (BBC version and Wells/Fontaine), this version was okay but it could have been better. I thought Gainbourgh/Hurt looked interesting together as Jane and Mr. Rochester . . . and Anna Paquian who plays young "Jane Eyre" delivered a solid performance. (you may remember her in "The Piano", "Finding Forrester" and "The X-Men")
The problem was most of the story was not at all faithful to the novel. Several times I found myself saying "that scene wasn't in the book" or "she never said that" (e.g. Jane, upon hearing of her fortune, said, "I will give part of my inheritance to the Lowood School"--did she really?! That was one of MANY "artistic changes" to the story) . . . At best, the movie felt more like an adaptation of the Wells/Fontaine version of "Jane" than an interpretation of Charlotte Bronte's novel . . .
If you're a fan of William Hurt (LOVE him), buy (or rent) "The Accidental Tourist" or "Children of a Lesser God". Although he played an "okay" Mr. Rochester (angst and all), I thought he was short changed in this vehicle.
As a whole, this adaptations was pretty to look at, had some interesting bits here and there, but fell short of the novel. The musical score was beautiful . . .
Rating: 
Summary: An alternate view.
Review: I've never read the book, but perhaps this gives me a unique perspective from which to review the movie that is different from most of the other reviewers. I found the movie very captivating. The characters are generally likeable (where they are supposed to be) and well developed, and are given depth and shading. So the movie doesn't reflect the book - when does a movie ever do that? It's hard to capture complex books in a (comparatively) short movie. Case in point: Lord of the Rings. I think the first two installments are excellent movies, but they don't capture every aspect of the books. I don't know that you can even capture some things about the books in a movie. It's just a different medium of communication. I also disagree with the statement by another reviewer... "every trace of rebellion against gender, race, and class hierarchies is completely eliminated". I think it's just subtle. I know that Bronte makes strong use of these issues in her books, and maybe the movie isn't as in your face about it? Anyhow, I think the movie is worth a chance. And for what it's worth, it does make an excellent romance, purists notwithstanding.
Rating:
Summary: Would have been better if it weren't for Elle!
Review: This is a fine version of JANE EYRE, and I loved the soundtrack and the actors...most of them. Elle MacPherson must have had a connection somewhere to have scored the role of Blanche Ingram. She doesn't cut it as a blonde, and certainly not as a high-society gal of the 1830's. This is sometimes what happens when supermodels insist on acting. Charlotte G. as Jane was totally believable. She was plain and stoic enough to carry it off. The sequence of events in the beginning was very rushed. Within the space of a two days Jane fights with her cousins, is spirited away to Lowood School, foments a friendship with Helen Burns, and is with Helen on her deathbed. In the book, all that unfolds within several months, not just two days.
Rating:
Summary: Bronte is rolling in her grave
Review: I feel like this movie was made for people who don't want to be bothered with reading the novel. Every trace of rebellion against gender, race, and class hierarchies is completely eliminated, and the plot is whittled down to an unrealistic love story. Charlotte Bronte was making a statment against the norm, this movie is shameful in its adherence to it. If you have any love for the novel, STAY AWAY from this movie.
| 
