Jane Eyre

Rating:
Summary: An Mediocre Cliff Notes Version of the Classic Novel
Review: Is there any film version of the book that stays true to the actual story? This version was very "Hollywood." I enjoyed the A&E film more because it was closer to the real story, but even it had flaws. Hello, Hollywood, anyone listening? We want an unadulterated, unabridged "Jane Eyre"!

Rating:
Summary: Excellent!
Review: Attention those of you who know the book by heart.When Rochester views Janes sketch of him and says "you have me completely" you will be profoundly moved and might even cry.When jane returns to the blinded Rochester and he says who's there and she replys "Pilot knows me" you will definitely break down.

Rating:
Summary: Remarkably spiritless.....
Review: ....adaption of Bronté's book, due to muddy direction and unengaging performances by Hurt and Gainsborough.

Gainsborough wanders through the film with the dazed look of a lost (or drugged?) lamb, while Hurt is appallingly miscast, playing Rochester as a passionless, anemic milquetoast. At times both actors appeared to be suffering from an advanced case of ennui, which in turn put ME to sleep while watching.

As for their lack of romantic chemistry, suffice it to say that these two couldn't start an onscreen fire if she were gasoline and he a lighted match.

All of Zefferelli's beautiful photography and sets can't disguise the fact that this project is the movie equivalent of a "lemon."

If you want to see the definitive visual version of "Jane Eyre", check out the BBC's excellent production starring Timothy Dalton and Zelah Clarke.

Rating:
Summary: A BIG disappointment
Review: As a huge fan of the book, I had high hopes for this movie version. What I got instead was a pallid Jane Eyre who sounded like she was reading cue cards and a very unbelievable Rochester. William Hurt is a good actor, but what were they thinking putting a blond American in the role of Mr. Rochester? Didn't any of the casting directors read the book? For true devotees of the novel, the only movie version that would suffice is the BBC production with Timothy Dalton. He's the only Rochester that would've made Charlotte Bronte proud.

Rating:
Summary: A compelling movie despite its weak moments.
Review: If all of this movie lived up to its high points, it would have been great. Gainsbourg is wonderful when she's not speaking, but often when she opens her mouth the scenes fall flat. Hurt is less self-indulgent than usual, but is best here at portraying deep emotions with small gestures -- not at delivering dramatic dialogue, which often becomes melodramatic. The movie suffers from inconsistent chemistry that builds while Gainsbourg is listening and expressing her emotions wordlessly -- and then evaporates as soon as she opens her mouth.

Rating:
Summary: I JUST WISH IT WAS A FULL THREE HOURS!
Review: Is it just me or what? After viewing this version two - three times, I went out & rented the Timothy Dalton version. Although the script of Dalton's version was more substantial, the acting was horrible!!! I had to stop mid way through and view William Hurt & Charlotte Gainsbourgh again just to purge the other from my memory banks! I thought both Hurt & Gainsbourgh were superb!

Rating:
Summary: Favorite version of this book; why no soundtrack?
Review: This is my favorite of Zefferelli's movies and my favorite version of the Bronte book. The casting seemed unusual, at first, but felt more true to the novel's intent as the story progressed. Miss Gainsbourg's performance captured perfectly Jane's proud alienation and humanity, yet adherence to the social values of the milieu. This talented actress deserves more opportunities in starring rolls. Anna Pacquin is likewise effective as the young Jane; her scenes with schoolmate, Helen, are especially touching.As a fan of film scores, I have just one criticism, not of the film but the distributors: why is there no soundtrack available for this film? The beautiful, moving themes that echo throughout the film are wonderfully matched to the visual elements.I'm curious as to why the notion of sentimentality is so often derided by the modern critic- as if that wellspring of feeling is any less valid than any other! Please, executive Powers-That-Be, release the soundtrack of this film!

Rating:
Summary: Wonderful. The only video I have ever ordered.
Review: Charlotte Gainsbourg's performance is spectacular. When she's introduced (as the adult Jane) I scoffed. Certainly they didn't expect me to take this homely girl seriously as a love object. An hour later I would glady have proposed, and grieved that I could not, and if the scene in which Rochester proposes doesn't grab you, then I'm afraid nothing ever will. Gainsbourg's performance is all the more impressive because she's French and English is a second language. Not to have seen this film is to be deprived.

Rating:
Summary: An anemic portrayal by William Hurt!
Review: A terrible performance by William Hurt! I don't like him as an actor & this only proves my point!! He has a WEAK English action & just isn't the quality of actor to attempt the part of Rochester!! Miss Gainsborough is worth watching, though, she is powerful & convincing as Jane. Anna Paquin is a wonderful younger Jane; it's a pitiful movie otherwise.

Rating:
Summary: What a lovely movie!!
Review: I'm probably the only person on earth who hasn't read the book, and believe me, it's on my list of things to do! I have now seen this particular video version two times and dearly loved it both times. I saw another version on A&E that was totally overacted and not nearly as visually appealing. Of course, I think William Hurt is just about the greatest actor ever, and I have to say that I thought he did a magnificent job. And contrary to some of the other reviews I've seen on this site - I think that he and his co-star had amazing chemistry. She was also incredible. I just loved the whole thing and hated to see it end. I watched it with my 10 year old daughter and she loved it too.