IMDb user comments for
Jane Eyre (1996)

advertisement

Filter:

Best Chronological Prolific Authors Loved It Hated It Hide Spoilers:

Page 1 of 10:

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10]

Index

99 comments in total

---

36 out of 41 people found the following comment useful :-
Some bad decisions ruin what would have been an excellent adaptation, 22 June 2001

Author: Thornfield2 from West Valley

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.

---

30 out of 41 people found the following comment useful :-
WHERE'S ALAN RICKMAN WHEN YOU NEED HIM ?, 21 April 1999
Author: Lori S from Maryland, USA

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...

---

23 out of 30 people found the following comment useful :-
Great story, great actors, mismatched., 19 October 2004
Author: klmillscats from Texas

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.

---

27 out of 38 people found the following comment useful :-
This movie lacked the wonderfully romantic repartee between the two main characters which made the original novel so great., 29 June 2001

Author: cashby from Laurelton, New York, USA

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.

---

20 out of 26 people found the following comment useful :-
Powerful & Immersive--Bronte would be pleased, 8 November 2002

Author: YesAlphaDiva from Chicago

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.

---

13 out of 15 people found the following comment useful :-
A Bit Different But This Adaptation Of Bronte's Tale Is Excellent Film-making, 2 February 2006

Author: Hal-900 from WA, USA

When I first heard director Zeffirelli was going to film Bronte's classic novel, I immediately thought that he was an odd choice for the project. Zeffirelli has a tendency of making everything look beautiful and I did not think he could adapt a Gothic tale. I was also surprised about the casting of William Hurt as the mercurial Rochester. Now that I have finally seen the movie, I'm convinced that I had good reasons to be concerned. What I did not know is that despite the fact that Zeffirelli fails to capture the brooding texture of the novel (and Hurt is indeed a strange casting choice), I think this is a highly successful movie. It is just a different reading of a famous tale. If you are hung up on the idea that movies must be replicas of the book they are based on, then you will probably hate Zeffirelli's interpretation. But on its own, I think the film works marvelous well. The story's mystery is somehow downplayed, while the romance is amplified, and I think this approach works great. As for the acting in the film, I think Hurt is simply superb. I have seen many actors play this part, but Hurt is the only one who does not come across as an overbearing ham. Hurt finds Rochester's soul, and the film benefits greatly from his deeply felt performance. Charlotte Gainsbourg is also great as Jane. The lovely music score by Claudio Capponi and Alessio Vlad, and the excellent cinematography by David Watkin are memorable contributions to the film. I never thought I could say this about the film, but I think it is definitely my favorite film adaptation of Bronte's classic tale (Robert Stevenson's 1944 version is good too). Don't listen to the whiners - this is a wonderful movie.

---

17 out of 24 people found the following comment useful :-
Zeffirelli's personal interpretation of Bronte's novel! Really moving!, 13 October 2004

Author: Marcin Kukuczka from Cieszyn, Poland

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.

---

19 out of 28 people found the following comment useful :-
Excellent, until the last 20 minutes., 25 May 1999
Author: erniekc from Kansas City, Missouri

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.

---

8 out of 9 people found the following comment useful :-
I agree with the previous reviewer...., 28 January 2005

Author: Dorothy Wilson (thebigd56) from United States

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.

---

12 out of 17 people found the following comment useful :-
short, yet accurate, 24 September 2005
Author: anna van ruiten from Netherlands

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!

---

---

Page 1 of 10:

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10]

Add another comment

---

Related Links

Plot summary	Plot synopsis	Amazon.com summary
Ratings	Awards	Newsgroup reviews
External reviews	Plot keywords	Main details
Your user comments	Your vote history