Jane Eyre

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!!

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.

Since I have commented on every version of Jane Eyre, these last sorry laurels for worst adaptation go to this version. The screenplay is not good, condensing or altogether dispensing with what I feel are vital portions of the story. One commenter remarked that it was Zefferelli's vision taking precedence over the book. Is that a good thing? I feel not - if one is going to adapt a literary classic, one should make SOME attempt to hew closely to THAT classic. The biggest weakness in this version, sadly, is Hurt himself. Jane Eyres live or die according to their Rochesters, and this one is NOT worthy of the source material. I generally like Hurt, but he could not be more wrong for this role. It requires a non-Method heroic hamminess of which he is simply not capable. As a result, Hurt's Rochester is weak, nice, and definitely not dangerous in any way. He's simply a needy guy. One nice point - Charlotte Gainsborough makes a superb Jane. Her plain looks and subdued manner with sparks of the free spirit underneath do the role justice. I enjoy watching all versions of this work, but this one is by far the worst all-around.

I've seen 3 versions of this movie after having read Charlotte Bronte's book. The first was with Orson Wells as Mr. Rochester, the second with Ciaran Hinds, followed by William Hurt's version. Hurt's Rochester is the only one who didn't bring tears to my eyes. He is a wonderful actor, but it's as if this part was not suited to him. Mr. Rochester is a man of passion, pain, and jealousy; none of which were reflected in this story. The story is great, the actors are great, but story and actors are mismatched in this film. Another disservice is the failure of the movie to maintain the integrity of the book. Jane leaves Thornefield twice; once on the death of her aunt, and once again when left at the alter. In Bronte's book, Jane's travels and subsequent proposal of marriage after being left at the alter are somewhat cumbersome, but necessary to support her final return to Rochester, being willing to be with him under any terms. Unfortunately, these adventures are apparently difficult to incorporate into a film. Charlotte Gainsbourg's performance is the only one I've seen, and I'm anxious to follow her career. She seems to have the ability to well play suppressed emotion.

I saw the movie before I read the book. Usually this means that you prefer one of them, but in this case I like them both as they are. When a novel is filmed, the result will be a kind of summary and hopefully the people that have written the film version have stayed close to the original. This is not always the case. Walt Disney versions of Peter Pan for example, have very little to do with J.M. Barry's original.

Jane Eyre is a very serene, rather melancholical book with beautiful strong characters. The movie has the same quiet atmosphere and the casting of the actors is superbe. The only pity is that the movie is rather short. So see the movie and read the book!