Diagonaldi Very well executed

Libramedi Intense, gripping, stylish and poignant

Livestonth I am only giving this movie a 1 for the great cast, though I can't imagine what any of them were thinking. This movie was horrible

HottWwjdIam There is just so much movie here. For some it may be too much. But in the same secretly sarcastic way most telemarketers say the phrase, the title of this one is particularly apt.

movie-viking The book JANE EYRE is long. I've watched at least three versions of JANE EYRE (including the Orson Welles version...still think he's the best Rochester yet). Thus, expect that most movies will shorten the rather long ending. I do like where they touch on "the cousins" and hint at the passage of time before...she goes back. But expect that, except in a series, the "cousins" segment gets removed or vastly truncated. It's simply too long...and I think gets the reader way too caught up in Jane's new life.So most Jane Eyre movies will drastically shorten that segment. It's not totally needed. This film is a fairly good interpretation of Jane Eyre. Guess, tho, I see Rochester as more dark...and brooding than William Hurt.

drarthurwells Director: Franco ZeffirelliStars:William Hurt, Charlotte GainsbourgThis version of Jane Eyre benefits from the artistic sense of director Franco Zeffirelli, but it shows the financial restraints limiting the production. It is an abridged version in which many critical events are either summarily shown or are omitted. However, It is fairly well organized and well acted.Jane Eyre is a great love story of a couple who meet and feel an immediate attraction for each other. However this attraction evokes conflict in each. This conflict is resolved by suppressing (concealing) their love for one another. Jane's suppression is passive, but Rochester's initial suppression is to treat Jane somewhat coldly, as a master to his servant.However, subtle indications are shown in their relationship where mutual love is hinted - Jane shows jealousy of Rochester's female friend and devoted service to his wishes, while Rochester shows his captivation with Jane's independent and intelligent opinions, her devotion to her moral principles, and her lack of greed and selfishness.However the love grows but remains concealed, again because each is in conflict over loving the other. Jane is in conflict because she realizes she is just a "plain Jane" - a mere servant (although born into a good family), and below the social status of Rochester who would be a prize catch for any lady of high social standing. Rochester is in conflict, not because of Jane's servant status, which is irrelevant to him, but because of his concealed secret that he must never reveal. So each falls deeper in love while fighting hard to mask any display of their love for one another.Simmering conflicts eventually boil over in seeking resolution. This occurs as the turning point in their relationship.The climatic end is the movie's resolution.Some versions handle some of the above key elements better than other versions, but most are lacking to some degree in portraying most of these elements. Hurt's Rochester is well performed as is Gainsbourg's adult Jane, as are supporting performances. The scene depicting the turning point is well done in this version, but other critical events are perfunctory, summarily done, or are omitted.The film is organized but too choppy, as scenes switch quickly instead of being well developed.I have seen all film versions since 1973 as well as the 1943 version.I think that although all versions are very good, many are lacking in some respects. I like the longer versions best as they are more complete.This one is well worth seeing. Please see my reviews of five other versions of Jane Eyre.

mimi_txrngr I am a fan of the story and book, and while i know that movies from books are never the same, this movie makes so many fundamental changes to the story, that it ruins the experience. passage of time changes, characters change and the whole story is never truly told. it seems the writers were told they could only make a 90 minute film, and decided to slash the story to pieces without care. As with all verisons, they never get her time at school right, and then unlike others, you never believe the chemistry between Jane and Rochester. Anna Paquin is quite charming as a Young Jane, but the adult Jane does not live up to the younger. there are much better versions out there. don't waste your time with this one.

jhsteel Being a Jane Eyre fan and a bit of a purist as well, this wasn't for me. It is a shame that no one seems to be able to produce a really good film version of this complex story, but this one failed in many ways. The best versions of Jane Eyre are all BBC mini-series: Michael Jayston- Sorcha Cusack, Timothy Dalton-Zelah Clarke (the best of the lot) and Toby Stephens-Ruth Wilson. These each had enough running time to do justice to the story, which has many aspects, and all these aspects are needed to explain Jane's character and her relationship with Rochester. The outstanding dialogue of the novel also needs to be included to greater or lesser extent, and all the BBC versions achieve this. This version seemed to leave out the most important exchanges and change all the dialogue - possibly this was Zefirelli's interpretation of the story, but it was frustrating. This version is very European in appearance, even though set in Yorkshire. I didn't warm to Charlotte Gainsbourg unfortunately, and although I am usually a William Hurt fan, he wasn't right for this part. I agree with the person who suggested Alan Rickman - that would be worth seeing, although he is too old now. Rochester needs to look fierce and not very good looking - also needs to be about 37 years old, to Jane's 19. I won't attempt to spell out all the gaps in the plot, or the way that events that were far apart in the novel occurred next to each other in the film. For a viewer who has never seen another version nor read the book, this might be acceptable as a starter, but I would recommend going straight to Timothy Dalton's wonderful portrayal of one of the most charismatic figures in English literature.