Jane Eyre

I loved the splendid performance of Anna Paquin and the inspired portrait of. Grace Poole offered by Billie Whitelaw.

The great problem remains , for me, William Hurt who, unfortunately, is not exactly the expected - hoped Rochester.

Few significant episodes of novel are just ignored and the basic consolation - it is a Zeffirelli film. Sure, beautiful, seductive, offering interesting cast but in colision against book.

The basic problem - maybe the full unrealism of relation between Rochester and Jane Eyre. Not as question of chemistry but as the result of feeling about two shadows passing one near other. So, Zeffirelli adaptation of remarkable Jane Eyre.

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.

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.

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.

Everything about this adaptation is quite good except for the terrible miscasting of Mr Method Acting himself, William Hurt. There is little chemistry between he & Charlotte G. How I cried out to see Alan Rickman, who would give an OUTSTANDING performance as Rochester! Anna Paquin is wonderful as little Jane, and Amanda Root from "Persuasion" gives us a warm Miss Temple at Lowood. Also good jobs by Geraldine Chaplin & Billie Whitelaw in small roles. This is worth renting out but not purchasing...