Jane Eyre

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...

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!!

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 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!

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.