windchaser13 I have loved the A&E version of Jane Eyre since I was a child. The story always spoke to me. I very recently finally read the book and was even more blown away and in awe. It is brilliant, fiction at it's finest! After finishing the book I re-watched the A&E version, the newest version with Mia Wasikowska, and the BBC version. All of which are quite brilliant! I was going through netflix and saw this. I got excited that there was a version I had yet to see and I watched it. It didn't take me long to realize it was ridiculous. The plot strays from the book far too much. The writing of the script was terrible. The acting was terrible. Both Jane and Edward are very passionate people. Jane is rather subdued, but still, when reading the novel and in the other film adaptions, you can catch glimpses of her true character. Both of them in this film were like wooden dolls. So lacking in feeling or conviction. And St. John was shoved in here like an afterthought. His part was nothing like how it was supposed to be and his proposal was mind numbingly, hilariously out of character! I laughed through a great deal of this film. And I don't even feel bad saying that.

marspeach This movie is really just not very good. The story was largely rushed and truncated- especially the ending. I know things have to be cut to fit it into such a short time frame (less than two hours) but I feel it was just handled clumsily. The first two thirds of the movie were just mediocre, nothing to write home about, but the last part was just a mess. The acting was nothing special either. Those who were good were wasted in their too-small roles. Those who were featured more were not very good. The two words that appear most in my notes are "flat" and "emotionless." It was an all around disappointment, devoid of all of the passion and fire of the book.Fiona Shaw was very good, but was entirely wasted as Mrs. Reed, in her very limited screen time. Gateshead was way too rushed. Anna Paquin is very good as Jane, but the character is even more feisty than in the book. Even though she was near 25, Charlotte Gainsbourg did look the right age for Jane and they did a pretty good job making her look plain. She was way too tall though (with an very long neck) and although she had everything to make a good Jane, she was pretty dull actually. She was even more reserved and quiet than the book Jane, which, given how passionate her younger self was in this, was especially jarring.If I thought Gainsbourg's Jane was lackluster, that was nothing compared to William Hurt's Rochester. My original feelings on him were "block of wood" and my opinion remains unchanged upon the latest viewing. My above mentioned "flat" and "emotionless" apply to him more than anyone or anything else in this film. Not only did he and Jane not have any chemistry (I'm unsure how they even fell in love in this, since they have so few scenes together), he just didn't seem to care at all. He was so dull! The proposal scene was so passionless, and even their kissing looked staged (i.e. their lips did not really touch). He did not show Rochester's brooding/angry side or the humorous side. He just played a block of wood.

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.

Neil Welch How odd that, within a couple of days of watching the 2011 version at the cinema, this 1996 version is run on one of the satellite channels.My first thought is that it is a good deal less dark and more colourful than the most recent version, although that is of relatively little importance.Charlotte Gainsbourg, an actress of relatively little import in England, does a good job as Jane: she looks right and conducts herself with dignity, independence, and controlled passion. I liked William Hurt's Rochester better than many have: I could detect gentleness beneath the anger.As for the adaptation, much of it seemed very hurried: in particular, from the aborted wedding onwards, events were telescoped together very uncomfortably (Jane would have seen the fire if she had looked back, for instance).So, while not disastrous, there have been better adaptations.