Customer Reviews

Jane Eyre [VHS]

5 star:		(60)
4 star:		(38)
3 star:		(27)
2 star:		(36)
1 star:		(36)

 

 

The sets and costumes are really really great, but the highlight of this film is the truly wonderful acting on the part of William Hurt. He plays the elusive, eccentric country noble Mr. Rochester exactly the way he should be played. He's quietly passionate, sexy, and smoldering, while still exhibiting signs of being a real stuffy gentleman. Inwardly tormented, Rochester is perfect.

Charlotte Gainsbourg takes on the challenging role of the title character, petit and plain Jane Eyre. Gainsbourg's unearthly prettiness adds immeasurably to her character, but she represses some of Jane Eyre's passion that we find in the book. The chemistry between Gainsbourg and Hurt is tense and shaky - exactly how it should be.

Zeffirelli has created the best screen version of this book that I have ever seen!

Oddly enough the Charlotte Brontė's classic novel 'Jane Eyre' has had more cinematic transitions than almost any of the old novels. The story is powerful but with the frequency of film adaptations, even the story grows tired, unless someone breathes new life into the interpretation. In this case that breath comes from director Franco Zeffirelli who has engaged Hugh Whitemore to open the story as a screenplay. The results give a different emphasis to the story and one that for this viewer works well.

In this particular incarnation the rags to riches heroine Jane Eyre is played with subtlety by the beautiful Charlotte Gainsbourg (with Anna Paquin as the younger version) and Rochester the master of the manor is a William Hurt, playing his character more for life and flesh than the usual darkly sinister keeper of secrets. What results from the combination of cast and crew is a film that is far more a romance than a vapid mystery: the fire between Jane and Rochester is palpable and is given more space and time than the other versions which elect to dwell on the mad 'wife' upstairs finally destroyed in the fire that brings Rochester down to Jane's initial stance on the social scale.

The cinematography by David Watkin captures the period beautifully as does the musical score by Claudio Capponi and Alessio Vlad. As with all period pieces the cast of supporting characters paint the various aspects of the novel and here such luminous actors as Joan Plowright, Geraldine Chaplin, Joséphine Serre, Maria Schneider, Elle Macpherson, and John Wood among many others offer fully realized portraits of the class distinctions that ruled the era. This is a fine film version of the Brontė novel and one well worth watching repeatedly. Grady Harp, October 06

A somewhat slow but overall rewarding version of the Bronte classic , 'Jane Eyre.' Beautifully filmed as all Franco Zeffirelli films are, we are taken on a journey of contrasts as Zeffirelli explores the darker nature of human suffering, regret and memory as played out against the lush, natural beauty of the English countryside.

William Hurt and Charlotte Gainsbourg deliver wonderful, though rather subdued performances as the two star-crossed lovers and Anna Paquin is absolutely marvelous in her all too brief role as the young Jane Eyre.

I'm a huge Jane Eyre fan (both written and film/TV) so I was very excited to see this version. William Hurt is a terrific actor and I've enjoyed his other work, so I looked forward to his portrayal of Rochester.

I enjoyed the adaptation until halfway into the movie. Then everything went horribly wrong - Jane leaves right after the failed wedding to go to Gateshead? The Rivers family (minus one sister, I forget if it's Diana or Mary) live at Gateshead? She met St. John when her Aunt Reed died? Why take huge liberties with the storyline that are completely untrue to the story? I'm not a Jane Eyre purist, but the William Hurt/Charlotte Gainsbourg version was just as awful as the Ciaran Hinds/Samantha Morton version.

Bottom line:

1) If you've never read Jane Eyre, I would NOT recommend seeing this version before you read the book. Actually I wouldn't recommend this version on any level.

2) If you've never seen a film/TV adaptation of Jane Eyre, I'd recommend starting with the Timothy Dalton/Zelah Clarke version first and move on to the Toby Stephens/Ruth Wilson version afterward. The TD/ZC version is 6 hours and does a fantastic job of keeping the integrity of the novel in tact. The TS/RW is 4 hours, takes a few liberties with the novel, but the two leads' performances are absolutely electric and this version is very well done. Enjoy!

I'd better confess that I'm a Jane Eyre fan since I was a child, having read the book several times. I can practically recite passages by heart. I have a small collection of every version of this story I have found. I keep hoping that I will find the right combination of actors and script... I'm still waiting.

Zeffirelli obviously had some money to spend on this production, and managed to get some very good people to play the respective parts - they LOOKED like they were supposed to look - but even all dressed up in good costumes with great cinematography, the movie doesn't go where it should.

Of course, it would be impossible to condense Bronte's novel into 2 hours and convey the stark psychological drama that is the major theme of the work. The script is actually well done all things considered. A friend who watched it with me and didn't know the book liked it well enough. But there was a sad lack of passion in the grown up Jane and William Hurt just wasn't rakish enough.

I was also very disappointed with the "meet the mad wife" scene. I don't think I have ever seen this rendered as it ought to be, a descent into Hell and damnation and horror. Zeffirelli's rendering was even weaker than others. I suppose that the madness was supposed to be conveyed in the eyes or something, but it was lost on me just like Jane's passion and Rochester's recklessness was so absent due to under-acting.

As I said, Charlotte Gainsbourg and William Hurt really looked the parts, they just weren't up to playing them. Probably the best acting in the whole movie was by Geraldine Chaplin as Miss Scatcherd at Lowood school and John Wood as Mr. Brocklehurst. They were really fiendishly evil.

I just wish that with all the effort put into the arranging of the movie, they had put a bit more into ACTING!

I was expecting great things from this film. The actors are terrific, and the novel has been my favorite since childhood. Wow - was I ever disappointed! This is a pathetic, mutilated version of one of the best novels of all time. If given the choice of staring at a wall or watching this film, I'd take the wall in a heartbeat. If you are even remotely a fan of Charlotte Bronte or her novel, do yourself a favor and rent the 1980's BBC version with Timothy Dalton, instead.

This is a film that I continue to go back to over & over. The last time I watched it, I had just finished reading Charlotte Bronte's book (again). The movie is faithful to the *spirit* of the book - it captures the essence of Jane's upbringing, her stoicism, & the troubled romance with Mr. Rochester.

Why do I like it?

* It's a good adaptation of the book. (For Bronte fans, I stress the word adaptation.) It doesn't get bogged down representing all the details of the book (for example, St John Rivers is a minor character in the film), but does capture the spirit and the essence of the book.

* It's got a great cast. Charlotte Gainsbourg is a "dead ringer" for Jane Eyre/Charlotte Bronte - if you're a fan of the book, this is the person who is in your imagination. Geraldline Chaplin, Amanda Root, Anna Paquin (the young Jane Eyre), William Hurt and Joan Plowright are perfectly cast. Even Elle MacPherson is ably cast.

* Zeffirelli's films are a visual treat - the landscape, the costumes, the scene setting. My favorite scene is when they morph the story from young Jane to grown Jane. Another favorite is when William Hurt first sees her and falls from his horse. The sweeping shots of the countryside are breathtaking.

* The music (I think it's original) is wonderful too!

Why would anyone else like it?

* My husband & I just watched it with my mother-in-law over the holidays. My mother-in-law is a huge devotee of Jane Austen, Charlotte Bronte, and the older film versions (think Greer Garson) of their books. Despite her preference for older films, she couldn't find fault with the film (I consider this a huge victory). Even my husband liked it and he is neither a devotee of older films or classic romantic English novels. He hasn't read Jane Eyre.

* The DVD has extra features that are interesting, e.g., interviews with Joan Plowright (who grew up near the Brontes' parsonage) and with Franco Zeffirelli which provide additional background on Jane Eyre and the film.

I, too, must disagree with many of the reviewers who do not like this film. For me, this version of JANE EYRE works magic-in a quietly intoxicating sort of way. Case in point: I've been haunted (pleasantly) by its breath-taking scenery shots and its beautiful background music. I've watched this film three times since I bought the tape-and I bought it just two days ago!!

I must confess that I did not take to Gainsbourg's Jane immediately; I found her a bit too reserved. But cold and stony, as some people find her to be? Never, for I warmed up to her soon enough: I was drawn by her serene manners, her soft-spoken and intelligent words, and her somewhat otherworldly beauty. And surely William Hurt's Mr. Rochester would easily fall in love with a woman of such qualities, no? This is why I must strongly object to the observation that there is no chemistry between Gainsbourg and Hurt. I see plenty to love in both Gainsbourg's and Hurt's characters. Why, the scene where Mr. Rochester says good-night & shakes hands with Jane after the "midnight fire" incident positively sizzles!!! (But doesn't EVERY scene where the two appear together feel so?) This is not a dramatic film in which grand passion oozes from every scene, but it's not over-the-top, either. This version of JANE EYRE just sort of draws you patiently and slowly, and it gets better and better upon every re-viewing. I highly recommend it!

This version has all the romantic music that you could ask for - Franco Zeffirelli outdid himself lining this up! That said, this version unfortunately lacks certain elements. William Hurt does portray Rochester well, and has a twinkle in his eye while doing so, but being blond messes up his credibility - didn't anyone read the book? Charlotte Gainsbourg is a good Jane, but the scenes involving the two are too short to really make you feel what they are supposed to feel. Joan Plowright is a wonderful Mrs. Fairfax, and Elle MacPhearson as Blanch Ingram makes you want to slap that snotty smirk off her face! I don't know why two of the versions of Jane Eyre - this one and the 1944 version - have Jane fleeing Thornfield to go to Gateshead - in the book, she ended up in Morton and Moor House, not Gateshead! And as we who read the book also know, although it makes a good dramatic point to have Thornfield burn down the day Jane leaves, it actually burns down two months later! This version is a good one to watch if you don't have much time (it clocks in at just under two hours), but for me, I very much prefer the Timothy Dalton/Zelah Clark version, which fleshes out the book SO much better.

I won't take a long time writting this review. Simply put, this film is horrible in my opinion because (1) it leaves out so many scenes that are vival to understanding Jane's passion, (2) its acting is far from superior, (3) its sets are no better than in the 1983 BBC Jane Eyre, and (4) the film costs as much money as many of the other Jane Eyre versions that are considerably more accurate and better produced.

Now, for people who have read the novel "Jane Eyre" by Charlotte Bronte, they realize that a man named St. John Rivers plays an important role in the novel. In this film, St. John and his sisters all but eliminated. The same situation of elimination occurs for many other minor characters. The dialogue from the novel that is kept is combined and changed from classic English to modern American. I am sorry if people have a problem hearing the long discussions Jane and Edward have together. However, for a literature fanatic, this Jane Eyre version is much to short - lacking in intelligence.

I personally recommend the 1983 Jane Eyre version starring Timothy Dalton as Edward Fairfax Rochester, and Zelah Clarke as Jane Eyre. The BBC film keeps nearly all of the dialogue and many of the scenes. The BBC 1983 film is far more intelligent and insightful into the struggles Jane Eyre faces. For those who dislike Timothy Dalton playing Rochester, I recommend the 1973 BBC adaptation starring Michael Jayston as Rochester. It is also a powerful adaptation, and Jayston actually appears quite vulcan-like.