Jane Eyre

... that's not at all faithful to that tale. Virginia Bruce stars in the title role, a young woman raised in an orphanage who hires on as a governess of the niece of the cranky Mr. Rochester (Colin Clive). As Jane tries to find her way within the household, she starts to fall in love with her boss while also wondering about the strange screams coming from the room into which she's forbidden to look.

Some sources have called this the best movie ever made by a Poverty Row studio. There are plenty that I liked more than this, but I'm not really the audience for this type of story. The acting is decent, and the costumes and sets are nicer than in most Monogram efforts, but it still seems clunky, sometimes amateurish, and with very uninspired direction. Running at just over an hour, it's not a major investment in time.

Adapting a classic novel faithfully and accurately is a good thing, and most IMDB reviewers have condemned this version for its fast-and-loose adaption of the Charlotte Bronte novel. However, faithfulness to the source material isn't the only standard by which to judge a movie. This version of Jane Eyre is only an hour long, so all except a few of the main plot points are sacrificed or, as others have noted, altered. But if you don't intend to pass a school exam on the novel by watching the movie, and if you judge the movie on its own merits, it does have merits. Virginia Bruce and Colin Clive are attractive and appealing leads. Several of the character actors are given moments in which to shine, and make the most of them. And the settings and photography are suitably moodily atmospheric. On its own, without reference to the book, it's not half bad, and worth the hour.

This version of the classic story should move like the wind at 62 minutes, instead its slow and talky and not very good. I'm not certain how much is the result of too much time having passed since this film was made, 70 odd years ago and counting, but this is a movie to a avoid simply because time has not been kind to it. The film feels more like a filmed stage play than a movie as there is never any sense place beyond what we would see if it were on a stage. The performances are okay but there are times one wonders if they were aware of that film acting for sound had advanced from the overdone to a more naturalistic style. I don't think it would be fair to comment on the additions and subtractions from the book, especially in light of the fact that they use chapter headings from the book to advance the plot that gallop from one to ten and onward. Not something to watch unless you love the story or hate yourself enough to watch a film thats almost too painful to get through.

Charlotte Brontë's "Jane Eyre" is one of the great novels in the English language, and almost any reasonably faithful movie adaptation can be worth watching. At the same time, the depth of the characters and the complexity of their relationships make it very difficult for a movie to do complete justice to the story, and even the best film adaptations are usually better as movies in their own right than as adaptations. This scaled-down, low budget Monogram version can hardly be compared with the original, but in itself it is pretty much an average B-movie of the era.

Virginia Bruce plays the lead role, and her portrayal of Jane is sympathetic, if rather different from the Jane of the novel. Given the overall production, Colin Clive was a reasonable choice to play Rochester, since he adds a nervous energy to his roles that fits with Rochester's secret concerns, although for much of the time his Rochester is little distinguishable from Henry Frankenstein. Some of the secondary characters are also portrayed a bit differently from the novel, fitting in with the somewhat simplified nature of the adaptation.

Viewed in its own right instead of being compared with the novel, the script sets up a few decent scenes, although at other times some of the running time is wasted on relatively inconsequential material. As other reviewers have pointed out, this version does not work as an attempt to convey some of the depth of the novel and its memorable characters. Instead, it tells a rather simpler story using the same main characters, and in that respect it's about average for its genre.

I totally agree with reviewer of May 2003. This film is a travesty of a wonderful classic novel.

The entire film is made up..there are characters that do not even exist in the book and ones that are pivotal to the story were left out.

But the best mess was "Rochester's wife". Where did they dig her up? She was suppose to be insane not ugly and look like a witch.

Don't even bother to waste your time watching this turkey.Another case of "Did anybody bother to read the book"..

The Timothy Dalton version for the BBC is best and I also liked the Welles/Fontaine version in 1944 as well as the one with George C. Scott in 1970....all the newer ones are mediocre, at best.