Jane Eyre (1996)

Having read the novel before seeing this film, I was enormously disappointed by the wooden acting and the arrogance of the producers in their blatant disregard of the plot. I feel this film in no way reflects the brilliance of Bronte's work, and rather gave the impression of a shallow love story. In the condensing of the film to a short 2hours, the film lost many of the key features which make the book comprehendable and progressional, thus resulting in a somewhat jumpy plot with little grounding. There is no build up to the romance between Rochester and Jane Eyre, so this appears rather abrupt and unfounded since the two characters have such infrequent interaction you cannot help but imagine their 'love' is superficial. This is such an injustice to Bronte's novel;you are given no impression of Jane's quirky cheek and boldness which attracts Rochester to her, and his arrogance which attracts Jane to him.

Despite to poor scripting, I think that a few of the characters were portrayed very astutely, namely Mrs Fairfax and Grace Poole, however overall the production was poor. Given a better scripting, perhaps the film would have been more successful. See "Jane Eyre" (1970) with Zelah Clarke and Timothy Dalton for an outstanding production.

Fmovies: This version is pretty insipid, I'm afraid. Jane Eyre is one of my favorite books and has been since childhood, but William Hurt's weary, throwaway acting style is completely unsuitable to the bold passion of Edward Rochester and poor Charlotte Gainsbrough looks like a bored, petulant teenager whose dental braces hurt! I also can't believe that they eliminated Edward's great marriage proposal scene from the end of the book, one of the most moving moments in literature. I do appreciate that they finally used such a young, plain woman to play Jane, a character who is supposed to be a worldly 18, but if you want to see a version that closer approximates the personalities and passions of the novel, please see the 70's version with George C. Scott and Susannah York. York was too old, tall and pretty to play Jane, but no one has touched Rochester's character the way that Scott did.

Ugh. I love this book. It is a classic, and it deserves to be one. It is a wonderful story of a girl who makes it through a very difficult life, is betrayed by people and circumstances, and still manages to be strong and trust and love people. The main character, Jane, is smart and witty and honest and honorable and outspoken for her position and not unhappy with that. She knows her position, is aware that it is low, but recognizes that it does not lower her as a human being. Rochester is a Byronic hero (yes, I learned that in a lit class) and despite his faults and broodiness and, at times, distance, he is totally captivating.

The movie has none of these qualities, and it is an insult to give it the same name as the book. Jane is not true to character, and she is way too submissive. Rochester just isn't interesting. All of the funny, deep, cute, make-the-character lines are missing. I haven't seen any other versions of this story, but I sure hope they're better than this one. Bronte should be rolling in her grave at this awful rendition of her gorgeous story.

Jane Eyre fmovies. Bronte's novel JANE EYRE has been brought to screen several times so far. This adaptation filmed by Franco Zeffirelli seems to me the most individual one. The director does not copy the book but entails his personal feelings and evaluations to the strange fate of Jane Eyre throughout the movie.

The film is made wonderfully: the cast, the music, the entire convention - It supplies the viewer with the right picture of the Victorian England. I particularly liked the scenes shot at Haddon Hall with William Hurt. He shines in his role! GREAT ACTOR! He memorably stresses Rochester's goodness combined with his boredom and fear of love, caused by his tragic life experience.

The sense of suspicion is also felt throughout. Jane (Charlotte Gainsbourg) comes to Mr Rochester's castle and hears strange laughter. It is much later when it occurs that it was Rochester's insane wife (Maria Schneider).

The way love is showed is very "Zeffirellian". He loves to show delicate love that is raising in time. There is a feeling on both sides, but it is Rochester who tries to show it first, especially because he considers Jane "an angel of happiness" that appeared in his tragic life. Jane is more "shy" but her way of dealing with Rochester changes, too.

The "Zeffirelian" way of showing love is also expressed when applied to friendship. Consider how Franco Zeffirelli shows the friendship between Helen Burns (Leanne Rowe) and Jane Eyre (Anna Paquin). One of the most touching moments of the movie is when Helen Burns dies and tells Jane that God cares for us. She was the girl that could notice everyone, even the orphan who was let down and terribly ignored by pious and pure "victorian teachers". Faith, open eyes connected with love and open heart is what Zeffirelli loved to show in most of his films.

The music is one of the best from the films I have seen so far. It's very moody but supplies the viewer with wonderful, sometimes even mystical experience. For long after seeing the film for the first time, the music, somehow unconsciously, rang in my ears. Really worth attention!

Maybe some people will treat my opinion with some irony but I must say that Zeffirelli's JANE EYRE can be watched many times and each time one can discover something new, something valuable, teaching, and moving.

TOUCHED INTO TEARS! That's what I feel whenever I watch this incredible film.

I watched this film shortly after re-reading the novel. I was positively intoxicated by it: the music, the acting, the actors, the plot. For the first time ever, I was enjoying Jane Eyre. Then, suddenly, the movie was ending. The last 10 chapters of the book had been condensed into about 20 minutes. That would be no big deal, except that they are the most important 10 chapters of the entire novel. Otherwise, the ending makes no sense. This is exactly what happened and it ruined an otherwise excellent movie. My advice: watch the movie until the last 20 minutes. Then read the book.

If you have read the book , do not watch this movie! It will ruin your perception of it forever.

There is no chemistry whatsoever and William Hurt (though I am a big fan!)is in no way credible as an Englishman . All sorts of important features of the book are left out in this movie. Even very special interactions between Jane and Rochester!! Entire characters are deleted , and it gets worse. Jane struggle after leaving Thornfield is gone. No mention of her finding her relatives , no , they pop up earlier in a most incredulous place , where they certainly shouldn't be. They even made up things of their own and put it in! As if this story needed "improvement".

Conclusion:I have no idea what they wanted to achieve making this movie. I have found it to be very disappointing and it may very well have distorted my pleasure in reading a most excellent book , for ever!!