Jane Eyre

I love the story of Jane Eyre so much, to insult anything that has to do with this beloved character is not easy to say. But I must say how disappointed I was with this adaptation. William Hurt was a poor Rochester indeed. He had a very wooden and unemotional presence throughout the film. His scenes with the Jane Eyre character had no fire or emotion at all. He seemed very detached and aloof. If William Hurt was younger he would have played a better St. John. However, I must say Charlotte Gainsborough was a pretty good Jane Eyre. She looked the part and added very charming persona to the character. But she even, at times seemed cool and unattatched to me too. The worst element to this film was casting Elle McPherson as the role of Blanche. Why? Blanche Ingram was beautiful, true, but she was beautiful in the Victorian sense of the word, not a 90's waif snatched from a Parisian runway. Sheesh. The best element to this film, however was the sequences of young Jane and Helen at Lowood. Anna Paquin was amazing as she embodied the young Jane to near perfection. These early, well done scenes where the best in the entire movie but I regret to say they lead me down the primrose path to disappointment.

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!!

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 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.

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.