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.
139 Reviews
Zeffirelli's personal interpretation of Bronte's novel! Really moving!
marcin_kukuczka13 October 2004
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.
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.
A haunting movie
glentom118 October 2006
A haunting movie. Charlotte does a stunning job of playing Jane Eyre. William Hurt is perfectly cast.
The story is a sad one, of bitterness, and a down trod human spirit, and the meanness of humanity.
Jane brings brightness to the lives of others, even in the face of treachery from others. As a child, she overcomes the ill-intent of others by her shear strength of will and determination.
The movie has great suspense, even when you know the story, you are still pulling for a happy ending.
I see the movie has a relatively low rating, but its not a movie for today. Its a 19th century rendering of life at that time. A great movie, I highly recommend to those with patience.
The story is a sad one, of bitterness, and a down trod human spirit, and the meanness of humanity.
Jane brings brightness to the lives of others, even in the face of treachery from others. As a child, she overcomes the ill-intent of others by her shear strength of will and determination.
The movie has great suspense, even when you know the story, you are still pulling for a happy ending.
I see the movie has a relatively low rating, but its not a movie for today. Its a 19th century rendering of life at that time. A great movie, I highly recommend to those with patience.
Great story, great actors, mismatched.
klmillscats19 October 2004
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.
Courage and resiliency
bkoganbing1 April 2014
The much put upon Jane Eyre gets yet another adaption to the big screen with Charlotte Gainsbourg in the title role and William Hurt as the brooding Lord Rochester. As the story goes each becomes the other's savior at different points of the tale.
I've always felt that the reason for Jane Eyre's enduring popularity is that it's a tale of both resilience and courage for women in an age when if woman did not have man's protection she was adrift and in trouble. Women were little more than chattel during the Victorian times that Jane Eyre was written.
Anna Paquin plays Jane as a child and Jane is one unloved child sent to live with relations who barely tolerate her. She's sent to board with a school run by John Wood playing school master Mr. Brocklehurst, a man with issues. She's treated cruelly and has to watch a young friend die from neglect. But it hardens her character though she wonders if love will come her way.
When the grownup Jane Eyre now played by Gainsbourg leaves the school where she has become a teacher she gets a job with Lord Rochester's estate as a governess. The master of the house is rarely there and Gainsbourg is well established by the time William Hurt returns from one of his many trips abroad.
Gainsbourg's responsibilities is to Lord Rochester's daughter Adele and she becomes mother and father to the child. The story of the mother is part of the reason for William Hurt's frequent absences. Something in Gainsbourg touches a sentimental and romantic part of Hurt's character. There's still a lot of problems to be resolved. In the end the relative economic positions have been reversed, but these two people need each other more than ever.
Charlotte Bronte's novel has certainly got an enduring popularity, this is one of several adaptions to the big screen and small. Gainsbourg compares well with Joan Fontaine probably the most well known portrayer of Jane Eyre. William Hurt is good as Rochester, so good that you hardly notice his distinct American speech pattern. Then again Fontaine's Rochester was Orson Welles another American.
Jane Eyre I've always felt was a feminist role model, a woman who makes her way in the world successfully when women were not legal and social equals. It's the reason the story will have an enduring popularity and this version can stand proudly besides previous adaptions.
I've always felt that the reason for Jane Eyre's enduring popularity is that it's a tale of both resilience and courage for women in an age when if woman did not have man's protection she was adrift and in trouble. Women were little more than chattel during the Victorian times that Jane Eyre was written.
Anna Paquin plays Jane as a child and Jane is one unloved child sent to live with relations who barely tolerate her. She's sent to board with a school run by John Wood playing school master Mr. Brocklehurst, a man with issues. She's treated cruelly and has to watch a young friend die from neglect. But it hardens her character though she wonders if love will come her way.
When the grownup Jane Eyre now played by Gainsbourg leaves the school where she has become a teacher she gets a job with Lord Rochester's estate as a governess. The master of the house is rarely there and Gainsbourg is well established by the time William Hurt returns from one of his many trips abroad.
Gainsbourg's responsibilities is to Lord Rochester's daughter Adele and she becomes mother and father to the child. The story of the mother is part of the reason for William Hurt's frequent absences. Something in Gainsbourg touches a sentimental and romantic part of Hurt's character. There's still a lot of problems to be resolved. In the end the relative economic positions have been reversed, but these two people need each other more than ever.
Charlotte Bronte's novel has certainly got an enduring popularity, this is one of several adaptions to the big screen and small. Gainsbourg compares well with Joan Fontaine probably the most well known portrayer of Jane Eyre. William Hurt is good as Rochester, so good that you hardly notice his distinct American speech pattern. Then again Fontaine's Rochester was Orson Welles another American.
Jane Eyre I've always felt was a feminist role model, a woman who makes her way in the world successfully when women were not legal and social equals. It's the reason the story will have an enduring popularity and this version can stand proudly besides previous adaptions.
Caught on TV by happy accident
KMW200025 September 2001
A very charming adaption of the classic book. Beautifully shot (if you're familiar with Franco Zeffirelli's Romeo & Juliet, you'll have a good idea of the look of this film. Simple, dark in places, whimsical and beautiful in others. Look out for a great shot of the house framed by the fantastic colours of the autumnal woodland of the surrounding area. That is Zeffirelli at his best.) William Hurt is simply perfect as Mr Rochester, (and actually extremely sexy in a slightly strange way..) Both Anna Paquin and Charlotte Gainsbourg turn in great performances as the young and slightly older Jane respectively. The film overall is quite heartwrenching (actually more so than I remember the book being) and very elegant in style. The cinematography is very complimentary to the tale. The only complaint I might have is how quickly it ends. It seemed to wrap up quite suddenly in the space of about 5 minutes at the end. What happened there? Budget run out? (Either that or the editor wanted to get home early..)
Overall though, a very good film. Kudos to Franco Zeffirelli and William Hurt particularly.
Overall though, a very good film. Kudos to Franco Zeffirelli and William Hurt particularly.
Powerful & Immersive--Bronte would be pleased
YesAlphaDiva8 November 2002
I've seen this particular film adaptation of Jane Eyre four times, and I'm still not tired of it. As a faithful fan of the book Jane Eyre, I could not be more pleased with the cast and their faithfulness to Bronte's characters. There will never be another Mr. Rochester for me now that I've seen William Hurt craft his subtleties around this firey and complex man. Charlotte Gainsbourg in the difficult title role satisfies completely. They make an odd pairing for such a profound love story, but I BELIEVE THEM. I watch feeling as if it could only be Them telling the story, and that is perhaps why I keep coming back to the movie. I can't recommend this film enough.
Not the book -- but very good movie.
skyblueangel-11 July 2005
Having read the book for my Literature class, I felt I needed something to give me a good picture as to what in the heck the author was talking about! Some of the stuff in the book was so hard to follow, I knew I was going to have to watch the movie.
Trust me, it is not the book. Although the beginning does follow very close to the storyline, going to Lowood and all. But, once we get to Thornfield Hall, things start to change. Instead of delivering a letter to town on (I believe) a close to winter evening, Jane is instead taking a walk on a foggy, autumn (It looked like autumn) day when she meets Mr. Rochester. And, we never got to see Mr. Rochester dress up as a gypsy, which was a really cool part in the book. Then, Jane leaves Mr. Rochester in the middle of the day, and he chases after her. But in the book, she leaves at night, while Mr. Rochester is "asleep".
Mr. St. John Rivers' character was downplayed into the parson of her aunt's old place. They downplayed a lot of that storyline in the movie. Then, at the end, Mr. Rochester is at the burnt-down Thornfield Hall instead of at his other place.
Overall, I thought that the acting was very good. Everything else was okay. I already knew what was going to happen at the end, so it's not like I cried or anything. Though, if you haven't seen it, I guess it could be a tear-jerker, but whatever. Just see it, and you'll know what I mean.
Trust me, it is not the book. Although the beginning does follow very close to the storyline, going to Lowood and all. But, once we get to Thornfield Hall, things start to change. Instead of delivering a letter to town on (I believe) a close to winter evening, Jane is instead taking a walk on a foggy, autumn (It looked like autumn) day when she meets Mr. Rochester. And, we never got to see Mr. Rochester dress up as a gypsy, which was a really cool part in the book. Then, Jane leaves Mr. Rochester in the middle of the day, and he chases after her. But in the book, she leaves at night, while Mr. Rochester is "asleep".
Mr. St. John Rivers' character was downplayed into the parson of her aunt's old place. They downplayed a lot of that storyline in the movie. Then, at the end, Mr. Rochester is at the burnt-down Thornfield Hall instead of at his other place.
Overall, I thought that the acting was very good. Everything else was okay. I already knew what was going to happen at the end, so it's not like I cried or anything. Though, if you haven't seen it, I guess it could be a tear-jerker, but whatever. Just see it, and you'll know what I mean.
Wow
majik_tripp6 March 2002
I had never had the chance to read Jane Eyre, but after seeing this movie I want to. The performances of William Hurt and Charlotte Gainsbourg were absolutely magnificent. Most actors struggle with a piece of this magnitude but they did very well with it.
A fine, uncompromising retelling of a classic gothic romance.
=G=6 February 2001
"Jane Eyre (1996)" does a good job of telling Bronte's oft told tale. The film's two central characters avoid the usual inclinations toward schmaltz and melodrama which romantic films often use to capitalize on the market potential of the mindless masses. Instead, Eyre is rigid and unemotional while Rochester is anything but urbane and most of the romance is understood as opposed to demonstrated. Those who appreciate such fidelity to the period will likely appreciate this version of "Jane Eyre". The film is well shot, costumed, cast, scripted, and acted thought it does lurch through time periodically. Not a chick flick but an earnest retelling of a wonderful old gothic tale.
This movie lacked the wonderfully romantic repartee between the two main characters which made the original novel so great.
cashby29 June 2001
What made the idea of seeing this movie so attractive was the hope that it would live up to Charlotte Bronte's brilliance of the original classic story. I was deeply disappointed to find that this movie, which seemed to be either written or filmed in great haste, had not the qualities that made the original novel so powerful. Much of the witty back and forth between the main characters, Jane Eyre and Mr. Rochester, seemed to be either missing from the screenplay or left on the cutting room floor. Also missing was Jane Eyre's charismatic sense of self, which enabled her to suffer through her turmoil and triumph over all. The original Jane Eyre was a hero. The woman in this movie did not seem to have much to triumph over, including one of the greatest parts of the story when Jane runs away from Thornfield and Mr. Rochester. Her struggle to find food and shelter, her shame at having to beg for bread, the threat of freezing to death in the cold, all to get away from a man she loved were, in my opinion, poignant parts of the story that were simply left out of this movie. The title character seemed dry and uninspired. The story was unappealing and for those who did not read the book, I cannot imagine that this story would be the least bit interesting. The screenplay and Direction did little if any credit to the classic story.
William Hurt should have won an Oscar for his performance in Jane Eyre
gretgib13 April 2005
I think that too many people overlook the great acting done by William Hurt in Jane Eyre. I had seen several of his earlier films, and thought that he was an overly dramatic actor; however, the role of Mr. Rochester was a perfect fit for him. He did such a great job of showing both the undesirable and tender sides of his character! He did so with such finesse that he helped to make the girl who played Jane seem to be better suited to the role than she was.(That garden scene when he proposes is done so well and seemed so real-it takes a terrific actor to really pull that off as well as he did.) And he looked so handsome, too. I also liked the ending-he seemed so believably sad until Jane rescues him. I'm not sure about the adaptation aspect or not-I was too entranced by William Hurt's performance.
A good if not great film.
Tamarah20 June 2000
Gainsbourg has the right look as the grown-up Jane Eyre, and for the most part, I liked her performance if a bit stiff. Hurt was "okay" but I do think they could have cast it better. Anna Paquin and Joan Plowright were, as always, marvellous. Scenery and music a plus (although in places the music volume was a bit too intrusive). I grew up watching (over and over again) Joan Fontaine as Jane Eyre, and after reading the book, I felt that Fontaine, even though they "played down" her look, was far too lovely to play the part. I thought Orson Welles was perfect in the role.
BTW, the young Miss Eyre was played by Peggy Ann Garner in the 1944 version (good but I think Anna Paquin was equally as good if not better), not Liz Taylor. Miss Taylor played Helen Burns in the 1944 version.
I have not seen the Timothy Dalton version, but will be renting it soon as I love all the stories by the Brontes.
Anyway, I'd give this telling of Jane Eyre a 7.
BTW, the young Miss Eyre was played by Peggy Ann Garner in the 1944 version (good but I think Anna Paquin was equally as good if not better), not Liz Taylor. Miss Taylor played Helen Burns in the 1944 version.
I have not seen the Timothy Dalton version, but will be renting it soon as I love all the stories by the Brontes.
Anyway, I'd give this telling of Jane Eyre a 7.
Disappointing
kipperfrogfud5 January 2003
Having read the novel before seeing this film, I was enormously disappointed by the wooden acting and the arrogance of the producers in their blatant disregard of the plot. I feel this film in no way reflects the brilliance of Bronte's work, and rather gave the impression of a shallow love story. In the condensing of the film to a short 2hours, the film lost many of the key features which make the book comprehendable and progressional, thus resulting in a somewhat jumpy plot with little grounding. There is no build up to the romance between Rochester and Jane Eyre, so this appears rather abrupt and unfounded since the two characters have such infrequent interaction you cannot help but imagine their 'love' is superficial. This is such an injustice to Bronte's novel;you are given no impression of Jane's quirky cheek and boldness which attracts Rochester to her, and his arrogance which attracts Jane to him.
Despite to poor scripting, I think that a few of the characters were portrayed very astutely, namely Mrs Fairfax and Grace Poole, however overall the production was poor. Given a better scripting, perhaps the film would have been more successful. See "Jane Eyre" (1970) with Zelah Clarke and Timothy Dalton for an outstanding production.
Despite to poor scripting, I think that a few of the characters were portrayed very astutely, namely Mrs Fairfax and Grace Poole, however overall the production was poor. Given a better scripting, perhaps the film would have been more successful. See "Jane Eyre" (1970) with Zelah Clarke and Timothy Dalton for an outstanding production.
Excellent, until the last 20 minutes.
erniekc25 May 1999
I watched this film shortly after re-reading the novel. I was positively intoxicated by it: the music, the acting, the actors, the plot. For the first time ever, I was enjoying Jane Eyre. Then, suddenly, the movie was ending. The last 10 chapters of the book had been condensed into about 20 minutes. That would be no big deal, except that they are the most important 10 chapters of the entire novel. Otherwise, the ending makes no sense. This is exactly what happened and it ruined an otherwise excellent movie. My advice: watch the movie until the last 20 minutes. Then read the book.
Jane Eyre - short and sweet
drarthurwells14 December 2011
Director: Franco Zeffirelli
Stars:William Hurt, Charlotte Gainsbourg
This version of Jane Eyre benefits from the artistic sense of director Franco Zeffirelli, but it shows the financial restraints limiting the production. It is an abridged version in which many critical events are either summarily shown or are omitted. However, It is fairly well organized and well acted.
Jane Eyre is a great love story of a couple who meet and feel an immediate attraction for each other. However this attraction evokes conflict in each. This conflict is resolved by suppressing (concealing) their love for one another. Jane's suppression is passive, but Rochester's initial suppression is to treat Jane somewhat coldly, as a master to his servant.
However, subtle indications are shown in their relationship where mutual love is hinted - Jane shows jealousy of Rochester's female friend and devoted service to his wishes, while Rochester shows his captivation with Jane's independent and intelligent opinions, her devotion to her moral principles, and her lack of greed and selfishness.
However the love grows but remains concealed, again because each is in conflict over loving the other. Jane is in conflict because she realizes she is just a "plain Jane" - a mere servant (although born into a good family), and below the social status of Rochester who would be a prize catch for any lady of high social standing. Rochester is in conflict, not because of Jane's servant status, which is irrelevant to him, but because of his concealed secret that he must never reveal. So each falls deeper in love while fighting hard to mask any display of their love for one another.
Simmering conflicts eventually boil over in seeking resolution. This occurs as the turning point in their relationship.
The climatic end is the movie's resolution.
Some versions handle some of the above key elements better than other versions, but most are lacking to some degree in portraying most of these elements.
Hurt's Rochester is well performed as is Gainsbourg's adult Jane, as are supporting performances. The scene depicting the turning point is well done in this version, but other critical events are perfunctory, summarily done, or are omitted.
The film is organized but too choppy, as scenes switch quickly instead of being well developed.
I have seen all film versions since 1973 as well as the 1943 version.
I think that although all versions are very good, many are lacking in some respects. I like the longer versions best as they are more complete.
This one is well worth seeing. Please see my reviews of five other versions of Jane Eyre.
Stars:William Hurt, Charlotte Gainsbourg
This version of Jane Eyre benefits from the artistic sense of director Franco Zeffirelli, but it shows the financial restraints limiting the production. It is an abridged version in which many critical events are either summarily shown or are omitted. However, It is fairly well organized and well acted.
Jane Eyre is a great love story of a couple who meet and feel an immediate attraction for each other. However this attraction evokes conflict in each. This conflict is resolved by suppressing (concealing) their love for one another. Jane's suppression is passive, but Rochester's initial suppression is to treat Jane somewhat coldly, as a master to his servant.
However, subtle indications are shown in their relationship where mutual love is hinted - Jane shows jealousy of Rochester's female friend and devoted service to his wishes, while Rochester shows his captivation with Jane's independent and intelligent opinions, her devotion to her moral principles, and her lack of greed and selfishness.
However the love grows but remains concealed, again because each is in conflict over loving the other. Jane is in conflict because she realizes she is just a "plain Jane" - a mere servant (although born into a good family), and below the social status of Rochester who would be a prize catch for any lady of high social standing. Rochester is in conflict, not because of Jane's servant status, which is irrelevant to him, but because of his concealed secret that he must never reveal. So each falls deeper in love while fighting hard to mask any display of their love for one another.
Simmering conflicts eventually boil over in seeking resolution. This occurs as the turning point in their relationship.
The climatic end is the movie's resolution.
Some versions handle some of the above key elements better than other versions, but most are lacking to some degree in portraying most of these elements.
Hurt's Rochester is well performed as is Gainsbourg's adult Jane, as are supporting performances. The scene depicting the turning point is well done in this version, but other critical events are perfunctory, summarily done, or are omitted.
The film is organized but too choppy, as scenes switch quickly instead of being well developed.
I have seen all film versions since 1973 as well as the 1943 version.
I think that although all versions are very good, many are lacking in some respects. I like the longer versions best as they are more complete.
This one is well worth seeing. Please see my reviews of five other versions of Jane Eyre.
Shortens the Book's long ending...only a minor problem.
movie-viking23 September 2013
Warning: Spoilers
The book JANE EYRE is long. I've watched at least three versions of JANE EYRE (including the Orson Welles version...still think he's the best Rochester yet).
Thus, expect that most movies will shorten the rather long ending.
I do like where they touch on "the cousins" and hint at the passage of time before...she goes back.
But expect that, except in a series, the "cousins" segment gets removed or vastly truncated. It's simply too long...and I think gets the reader way too caught up in Jane's new life.
So most Jane Eyre movies will drastically shorten that segment. It's not totally needed. This film is a fairly good interpretation of Jane Eyre. Guess, tho, I see Rochester as more dark...and brooding than William Hurt.
Thus, expect that most movies will shorten the rather long ending.
I do like where they touch on "the cousins" and hint at the passage of time before...she goes back.
But expect that, except in a series, the "cousins" segment gets removed or vastly truncated. It's simply too long...and I think gets the reader way too caught up in Jane's new life.
So most Jane Eyre movies will drastically shorten that segment. It's not totally needed. This film is a fairly good interpretation of Jane Eyre. Guess, tho, I see Rochester as more dark...and brooding than William Hurt.
Bravo to Hurt
Annika-Maria16 February 2003
I have seen quite a few adaptations of Jane Eyre, but I have never seen one that I loved this much. There are a few things that I would not have changed about the book, but one must realize that Film does not read the same way as a book. I think that William Hurt's portrayal of Rochester was astonishing. Some have called it a "wooden" portrayal. I think that is exactly the way that Rochester SHOULD be. He is a man hurt by so many disappointments through life that he is afraid to love and to feel. In the scene with Adele when she says that Jane may never come back and Rochester hesitates to comfort her, I think that Hurt's acting choices showed great insight to the character. Bravo, I say!!
Flawed but still pretty good
kikiboo_87 May 2022
Despite its length, it feels rushed and like it was made in a corner cutting fashion. It shows very little of any major events/chapters, and gives you a minute or two version of them. All the same, I found both characters to be very likable and they had great chemistry too. This is more of an overall story told in a rushed fashion, but it's still warm, inviting and lovely.
A powerful, romantic sucker-punch
mechanicalsockmonkey22 June 2006
This is my absolute favourite version of one of my absolute favourite books. I can't say that any of the others have done it justice.
This version captures the romantic core of Bronte's novel, and I think all of the cast did a fine job.
Though this may be contrary to the opinions of some other, rather grumpy reviewers, I absolutely adore William Hurt as Mr. Rochester. Remembering that this WAS the Victorian age, I found his Mr. Rochester appropriately raw and gruff.
And to those who try to say that he and Charlotte Gainsbourg have no chemistry, I beg to differ. There's a raw but restrained emotion to their interactions in the film (very accurate to the time period), and I found the evening scene between them to be just as romantically thrilling as it was in the novel.
All in all, this is a movie I will be purchasing.
This version captures the romantic core of Bronte's novel, and I think all of the cast did a fine job.
Though this may be contrary to the opinions of some other, rather grumpy reviewers, I absolutely adore William Hurt as Mr. Rochester. Remembering that this WAS the Victorian age, I found his Mr. Rochester appropriately raw and gruff.
And to those who try to say that he and Charlotte Gainsbourg have no chemistry, I beg to differ. There's a raw but restrained emotion to their interactions in the film (very accurate to the time period), and I found the evening scene between them to be just as romantically thrilling as it was in the novel.
All in all, this is a movie I will be purchasing.
beautiful telling
SnoopyStyle6 October 2016
Jane Eyre (Anna Paquin) is an orphan living with her dead uncle Mr. Reed's family. His wife and kids are cruel to her. Mrs. Reed sends her to the Lowood Institution under the harsh Mr. Brocklehurst. She befriends Helen Burns who dies from neglect and sickness. Years later, Jane Eyre (Charlotte Gainsbourg) leaves her dead friend and her mentor Miss Temple to be the governess to French orphan Adèle Varens at at Thornfield Hall. Mrs. Fairfax (Joan Plowright) is the housekeeper and Edward Rochester (William Hurt) is the master. Strange things are happening in the estate. Her aunt dies after confessing her sins to Jane. Blanche Ingram (Elle Macpherson) arrives to be courted by Rochester.
Paquin's Jane doesn't really match Gainsbourg's Jane. Paquin is playing a defiant rebel. She's Joan of Arc. Gainsbourg is a wallflower. I really like Paquin but she may not be doing the character right. At the very least, these are almost opposite characters. Nevertheless, the story is compelling and the romance is romantic. Franco Zeffirelli's directing is beautiful. The Charlotte Brontë novel is a romantic epic and this movie delivers that.
Paquin's Jane doesn't really match Gainsbourg's Jane. Paquin is playing a defiant rebel. She's Joan of Arc. Gainsbourg is a wallflower. I really like Paquin but she may not be doing the character right. At the very least, these are almost opposite characters. Nevertheless, the story is compelling and the romance is romantic. Franco Zeffirelli's directing is beautiful. The Charlotte Brontë novel is a romantic epic and this movie delivers that.
One of the worst
linda-2327 March 1999
I read the novel 'Jane Eyre' for the first time back in 1986. It was round that time that I saw the BBC-version with Timothy Dalton and Zelah Clarke. It was an excellent version and very much like the book. Years later, I laid eyes on this version and was horrified. William Hurt is totally miscast as Mr Rochester. Mr Rochester is a passionate character, where as William Hurt portrays him as a block of ice. The same goes for Charlotte Gainsborough. It was like watching two zombies together. This is story about love and passion, but I couldn't see it in this version. No, back to the BBC-version. A wonderful time is guaranteed.
My absolute favourite movie!
Ms.Eyre6 May 2000
Zeffirelli´s version of Jane Eyre is the most touching movie,I´ve ever seen.....Hurt is BRILLIANT AS USUAL and just PERFECT as Mr.Rochester!....his facial expression is superb......I don´t care what the critics say. This film is,and will always be,my favourite! :-)))
Surprisingly refreshing if also flawed
springm20 September 2009
I didn't have high expectation for yet another adaptation of this novel. But this one really reaches me in a surprising way when every other screen version of Jane Eyre I've seen try to connect the audience to the characters by casting way-too-attractive actors. Admittedly, it's pretty enjoyable to watch two beautiful people fall in love in a fairy tale way. But I couldn't believe for one moment that they're real human beings under those harsh circumstances.
Too often Jane Eyre has been portrayed as inexplicably attractive and Mr. Rochester charismatically mysterious. It's refreshing to see an actually plain Jane and a deeply flawed Mr. Rochester. They're not attractive people in general. They're just attractive to each other in their own way. Their bonding doesn't come from their physical presences but from the pain, the unfair fate, and the harsh past they've both endured and survived. On this note, I think this version is by far the most authentic adaptation I've seen.
The only complain I have also comes from the major characters - their lack of chemistry in later scenes. It would be more believable if the two actors had shown more genuine emotions for each other. The script, though adequately written, also failed to give them enough space to embody their change of mind states towards the end.
Nonetheless, it's a must-see for any classic literature fans. You'll be pleasantly surprised by their different approach to casting and acting, if nothing else.
Too often Jane Eyre has been portrayed as inexplicably attractive and Mr. Rochester charismatically mysterious. It's refreshing to see an actually plain Jane and a deeply flawed Mr. Rochester. They're not attractive people in general. They're just attractive to each other in their own way. Their bonding doesn't come from their physical presences but from the pain, the unfair fate, and the harsh past they've both endured and survived. On this note, I think this version is by far the most authentic adaptation I've seen.
The only complain I have also comes from the major characters - their lack of chemistry in later scenes. It would be more believable if the two actors had shown more genuine emotions for each other. The script, though adequately written, also failed to give them enough space to embody their change of mind states towards the end.
Nonetheless, it's a must-see for any classic literature fans. You'll be pleasantly surprised by their different approach to casting and acting, if nothing else.
I agree with the previous reviewer....
thebigd5628 January 2005
This version is pretty insipid, I'm afraid. Jane Eyre is one of my favorite books and has been since childhood, but William Hurt's weary, throwaway acting style is completely unsuitable to the bold passion of Edward Rochester and poor Charlotte Gainsbrough looks like a bored, petulant teenager whose dental braces hurt! I also can't believe that they eliminated Edward's great marriage proposal scene from the end of the book, one of the most moving moments in literature. I do appreciate that they finally used such a young, plain woman to play Jane, a character who is supposed to be a worldly 18, but if you want to see a version that closer approximates the personalities and passions of the novel, please see the 70's version with George C. Scott and Susannah York. York was too old, tall and pretty to play Jane, but no one has touched Rochester's character the way that Scott did.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
