Rating: 
Summary: An overlooked jem---best version of Jane Eyre
Review: Compared to the 40's version, this TV movie is very faithful to the book. George Scott is excellent for Rochester,and Miss York is just born to be Jane Eyre. She makes Jane a spirited, intelligent, independent young lady, which you can't found in Fontaine's performance. The music in the movie is so wonderful.It captures the essence of the story, exceptionally evocative and touching. I highly recommended this version to anyone who loved Charlotte Bronte's novel.It is well worth tracking down.
Rating: 
Summary: Don't Bother!
Review: Don't bother unless you can't find the version with Timothy Dalton. I watched that version first. Then this one. This one was so poorly done in comparison that I got up and mopped the kitchen floor while it played and fast forwarded through the non-talking scenes. While the acting was good enough, the script leaves too much unsaid. It is difficult to see why the two main characters would bother falling in love with each other. The plot just wasn't developed enough to warrant it. So many key parts of the story are missing. I highly recommend the version with Timothy Dalton and Zetah Clarke, if you can find it.
Rating:
Summary: All Filmed "Classics" Should Be This Good!
Review: George C. Scott is brilliant as Rochester; Susannah York is superb in the title role; the English moors have never looked more menacing, and in a small, but pivotal role, Jean Marsh is mesmerizing as the very "off-centered" Mrs. Rochester. Featuring one of John Williams's most hauntingly beautiful and moving scores, this film is a winner by all counts. I saw it as a teen and still find it to be the definitive telling of the Bronte' masterpiece.
Rating:
Summary: My favourite movie of all time
Review: I first saw this version of "Jane Eyre" in Europe when I was 14. That evening marked my transition from child to romantic teenager. I never saw it again for 23 years until I bought the VHS last year. It is the only video I own. I watched the video 10 times now and can't get enough of it. Today I copied John Williams' theme from the Internet to my hard drive, and keep listening to it. I never knew Williams could compose something that doesn't sound like Gustav Holtz' "Jupiter." Awesomely beautiful... George C. Scott is the definitive Rochester, Susannah York is excellent, because she manages the fine balance of being vulnerable in love yet strong in her convictions. But I must admit, having read the book again last week, that some scenes could have better conformed to the original scenes without adding too much in length. For example, the "no reproach" scene where Scott holds back too much, not getting up from the armchair; and the final scene, again Scott holding back too much or trying to be too subtle. I always felt that he played like he's bursting in that final shot, but when compared to the book, bursting alone won't do. Pity, because you can't rewind the time and re-do this version. Still, I'll never be able to bear looking at another Rochester. (Have seen each version but Dalton's once and never again.)
Rating: 
Summary: A Real Disappointment
Review: I had high hopes for this film, because I could readily envision George C. Scott as Rochester. But, in the end, I think this is the very worst film version of Jane Eyre that I've ever seen. No attempt is made to make Suzannah York plain (she is called "pretty" several times); the actress does a fair job balancing Jane's passion with her temperance, but she seems to lack any real fire. Sadly, feminist diatribes are sometimes inserted into her dialogue, which reek of the 1970s. As Rochester, George C. Scott has potential, but he's largely hampered by the script. He can be both tender and tortured, fiery and depressed, but somehow the mix just never quite works. The script is just terrible--often corny. Many changes were made to the story line for no apparent reason (other than, perhaps, the screenwriter thought they "knew better" than Charlotte Bronte). Worst of all, the quality of the picture is so bad, I wondered if I'd bought a pirated copy! The Lowood section of the film, in particular, is so dark that I often had a hard time making out facial expressions. I don't know if scenes are missing from the original film, but I can say that the editing is very poor. For example, at one point Jane asks if Grace Poole is the one causing trouble at Thornfield...yet the audience has heard nothing about the character of Grace Poole up to that point. Overall, there is nothing really to recommend this film. It is slow, boring, and disappointing.
Rating:
Summary: Insipid Characters - Butchered Storyline
Review: I had seen all other versions of Jane Eyre including the original with Orson Wells to the "Blond version" with William Hurt and the "hunk" version with Timothy Dalton. I felt compelled to buy this one as well to round out my comparisons. Although I love George C. Scott as an actor, in this film, his "Rochester" lacked the passion and definition of the character in Bronte's novel. Compared to the other film versions, Scott and York are lackluster in their portrayals. Although a movie of this length can never be entirely true to the book, this version leaves far too much of the original story out. The purchaser would be better off spending their money on another edition of the story.
Rating:
Summary: Ewww!
Review: I had to stop watching this movie after about 35 minutes and I almost never do that. The characters are utterly lacking in chemistry, charm and appeal. The movie is incredibly creepy. I've seen other versions that were much better.
Rating:
Summary: Good movie, horrible DVD!!
Review: I have always enjoyed this version of Jane Eyre. George C. Scott is superb as Rochester, and while Susannah York is a bit old to be playing Jane she does a fine job. Great visuals, atmosphere and casting of other characters makes this one of the better versions. This DVD, however is atrocious. The cover claims the film has been digitally remastered, yet we are presented with a washed-out picture filled with scratches. Far worse, ALMOST AN ENTIRE SCENE IS MISSING--the film jumps from the end of one scene to almost the end of another (cadeaux scene). And last, the cover uses a picture of Scott from an entirely different film (Murders in the Rue Morgue, I think).
Rating:
Summary: Not A Very Good Version
Review: I have read the book and seen all but the 1996 version of this story. I found this version to be the worst I've seen. There was absolutely no chemistry between the actors that played Edward and Jane. Edward was lacking almost any emotion and didn't have me believing that he loved Jane. Plus, they left out many elements of the original story, such as the ending where Edward regains his sight and they have children. I have to say that I was very disappointed with this version, and even though I own it, it will be very unlikely that I watch it again!
Rating: 
Summary: Classic Television Treatment of a far more complicated book
Review: I recall seeing the television program when I was a junior in high school. The book was my all-time favorite at the time, and I felt that George C. Scott was a perfect Rochester: not traditionally handsome, difficult, brusque, hard to read. Despite her obvious beauty, Susannah York did an admirable job as a woman entitled to personal fulfillment despite her low social position in the society of her time. The sound track is magnificent, the photography dark and moody. The only original element missing from this abbreviated version of the text is the unusual transition device that was used to move the television viewer between the film and the commercials. The action of the film become a still picture, the picture would transform into a painting, and the commercial interruption would ensue. To return to the film, the viewer moved from the commercial to a painting which would then evolve into a still photo which began to move as the action resumed. It was truly innovative work at the time. I have very fond memories of this film and am DELIGHTED that it is finally available for purchase.
|
