Rating: 
Summary: The reviewer from NYC take a hike!
Review: I just read the review of someone from NYC and, they said that only narrow and simple minded DO NOT like this version. I read in his or hers review that William Hurt was handsome! If you read the book you will know that He is not Handsome. This novie left out To much of the book. If you agree click Yes at the Bottom!
So I do not agree with the person from NYC. Buy!
P.S Check out the BBC Version of the film, it has about 100,000,000 mor percent of the book.
Rating: 
Summary: My Favorite Version of Jane Eyre!
Review: This is my very favorite version of Jane Eyre! I only wish they had it out on DVD! :(
Rating:
Summary: Only narrow, simple minded people do not like this version!
Review: This was an amazing movie. William Hurt was perfectly brooding and handsome. Watch it with an open mind, for the version it is. The emotions are played to subtle perfection. If you are looking for a silly and overplayed soap opera, watch General Hospital.
Rating:
Summary: Oh, I love the book but what has become of this STUPID movie
Review: I love Jane Eyre. I love the book so much that I plan to change my last name to Eyre and name my daughter Jane. Just don't whatch this movie! I cried after I watched this, and they were not tears of joy. They were tears of disbelief. Tell me how can the best book in the world, be such a horrible movie. The first time I watched this I was so excited that I invited all my friends over. Then I felt embarassed. All my friends have read Jane Eyre, and they were just as shocked as I was. After We finished the movie we all laughed. So then we had only one option to go out and rent another Jane Eyre movie. We went out to Hollywood and we got the Timothy Dalton Version. The Timothy Dalton version was so pure, and it was so much like the book, that we all cried at the end. And those Ladies and Gentlemen were true tears of Joy. So I would never recomend this movie to anyone and not even for One Million Dollars. So if you want a good cry, or you just love the book, go out and get the Timothy Dalton version. I hope I helped. Run, Run! Rent the Best Jane Eyre movie, and don't give this stupid movie a second thought.
Rating:
Summary: A list of errors for Jane Eyre 1996,trust me it realy is bad
Review: Well I have to to have a reason, or should I say reasons to hate this version, and her they are.
Blanch Ingram was Blonde,
Rochester was Blonde,
Jane was Tooooo tall!
The fire did not start after Jane left,
Jane was supposed to meet Rochester at night,
Jane did not go to Gateshead after she left Thornfield,
and What happened to Diana Rivers, she was in the book?
and, it was a bad movie, that had only 50 percent of the novel,
And they are just making Charlotte Bronte look bad.
I recomend, the Dalton/Clarke one. It was exactly like the book.
I Wish I could give this movie 0 stars!
and trust me, you won't enjoy this film.
Rating: 
Summary: OMG
Review: Well, i had first read the book as a requirement for summer reading. I instantly fell in love with it, as Bronte's character Jane was so much like myself. Then, as in most cases, i went out and rented the movie, expecting it to as beautiful and intricate as the book. BOY, was I ever wrong.
It was so horrible, I have to admit that the begining was very well portrayed, until we came to the part where Jane had to leave Gateshead. After that, it was all down hill. What really irked me was that Rochester was blone, and didn't seem to have the complexity of the original character of the book. Also, Blanche was BLONDE! She was supposed to be dark haired, almost raven like, but was she nooooo. The ending was the worst, as it rushed along the introduction of Jane's cousines, and left out the entire point that St.John needed Jane. Uhhh. I highly un-recomend this movie, as in a great admirirer of the book I actually weept at the end of this film. Hopefully the other films have yet to prove me wrong.
Rating: 
Summary: A movie for movie lovers!
Review: This is an excellent movie with the exception if you have read the book. The original story was brilliantly written by Charlotte Bronte and was very sweet and a somewhat sad story. The movie, however did not really remain faithful to the book all the way through. The actors were very good, but i wasn't much for their appearances. They did leave out some great scenes from the books, but overall it was a very good film. I would suggest seeing it even though it wasn't a perfect movie. I think even the book readers still might take to it.
Rating: 
Summary: So many versions, so little truth...
Review: Out of the four versions (that I know about) of Jane Eyre in movie format, there was only one that truly stood out as being completely representative of the book, and that was the Timothy Dalton version in 1971. I thought he overacted a little, but that played with the character, so I can pass over that negative...however the interaction between him and Zarah (Black?) was much too unbelievable and strained. If you want a version to cuddle up with on a rainy Saturday afternoon, then either the William Hurt (1996) or the Orson Welles version in the 40's would be splendid. The 1997 Samantha Morton/Ciaran Hinds version is my favorite though, being that it really pulls the viewer into the romance of Jane Eyre and Edward Rochester, even though it cuts and manipulates many of the scenes and actions so as not to be completely recognizable to book enthusiasts. I have loved this book from the first time I read it, and it is on top of my all time favorite books. At first, I was disappointed with all the film versions, but after taking the time to really sit down and review and compare each of these (with waaaaaay too much time on my hands in college) I realized what these different versions were trying to do and grew to appreciate all of them for what they are. No one can recreate the literary masterpiece on film, as is true with almost all classics. I recommend this film for those who like symbolism over blatant scene recreation, but for those who want the cliffs notes version of the book in form if not fact, try the A&E version (1997). If you like pouty acting with great record-scratchy sound and the visual depth that only black and white film can give you, Orson Welles is your man. However, if you are a true book enthusiast, the BBC miniseries with Timothy Dalton is the most true to form and will get you an "A" on your book report ;)
Rating:
Summary: "She's Too Tall"
Review: That simple remark of mine was all I had to say when my friend Norma wanted to know why I didn't like this version of "Jane Eyre", which she was preparing to see herself. "What kind of comment is that?" she had to ask. But once she had seen it, she understood. Ever read "Jane Eyre"? Jane is a small insignificant-looking person who conceals a tumult of emotion smoldering within. She used to be a real wildcat when her aunt was raising her, but when Jane got shipped off to Lowood, an awful boarding school, she met up with two individuals who tamed her. One was a fellow student Helen, and the other was a favorite teacher, Miss Temple. So Jane adopted a quiet mien, but inside was still the tumultuous nature. She lets it out again only once, when her new employer Mr. Rochester plays with her emotions, pretending to be engaged to the wealthy Blanche Ingram when all along it's Jane he is going to propose to. She rages and storms about how she has a heart as great as his, even if she is only a little governess. Since he's a raging and storming guy himself, this is language he understands. Well anyway, this Jane is usually hard to convey in a movie. The latest A&E version is just awful; that Jane just thought she was all that. She didn't even act like she had an employer, which is very untrue to the book. Joan Fontaine did a convincing job of acting like she was a working girl having to answer to higher-ups, but lacked passion. However, she did convey littleness and insignificance. Now THIS Jane, at a height close to Mr. Hurt's, couldn't convey anything except monumentality. She was just much too tall! How could such a tall woman ever feel insecure? She didn't convey those feelings, and she must on some level. Actually, they had a good candidate for Jane in the movie, and let her slip by them; the actress Amanda Root (of "Persuasion" fame) plays Miss Temple. She really would've been marvelous. I suppose they felt her too old already for the part, but I would've forgiven her that for everything else I know she'd have brought to the role. Other things I found wanting concerned the lighting. "Jane Eyre" is a great Gothic romance, and Gothic romances are usually in dark places. This version had far too much light and lots of pretty garden strolls; not authentic in feeling. William Hurt is too amiable and blond for the brooding, dark, antisocial Rochester. And what about Joan Plowright's Mrs. Fairfax? Did she have a large percentage or something? I ask because every time I looked, there was some sort of slave camera shooting her reaction to whatever was going on. You'd have thought she was the protagonist, and not the governess. One thing she learned from her late husband Laurence Olivier was how to ham up a scene if necessary. So, another disappointing "Jane Eyre" for the records. Perhaps one day, the perfect Jane will dawn on the horizon, but until then, make do with Joan Fontaine.
Rating:
Summary: Real life and likeable characters
Review: I love this version of Jane Eyre. The plain-ness of this version makes for a story that is much easier to relate to... and the lack of display don't detract from the romanticism of the movie, but instead make it all the more believable. The acting is excellent and the lead characters are eminently likeable, and while complex people - yet are still easy to sympathize with... I can find little fault with this movie. Definitely a version worth seeing!
|
