Diagonaldi Very well executed

Dotsthavesp I wanted to but couldn't!

LouHomey From my favorite movies..

Megamind To all those who have watched it: I hope you enjoyed it as much as I do.

cheilith After viewing this adaptation of Jane Eyre, I'm going to go with my gut and label it as the "subdued" version. I have to say that it wasn't wholly bad as I anticipated (after reading reviews.) There are a few fans that will stick up for this one. I believe the charm they see in this film is perhaps relatable to them? Jane and Edward were more stoic, quiet and less passionate in this movie then the characters are in the book. However, as my sister stated (who did like this version) and I've have to agree, Jane was well suited for this Edward, despite coming across as a depressed drunk at times (Edward, not Jane). The lack of passion for me is what brought this movie down. I don't think William Hurt was fully suit to play Edward, but then I'd have to say Charlotte wouldn't make a good Jane paired with the other Edwards. The beginning of the film was good though. I was impressed with how it was handled and how much was kept in the story. (unrelated but I got a kick out of seeing actors and actress from other movies, Persuasion in particular).

Kirpianuscus not so bad. and far to be a real adaptation of the most impressive novels of XIX century. it is inspired by Jane Eyre, it has the profound mark of Zeffireli who transforms the Bronte's masterpiece in a sketch or subjective resume . the characters, the atmosphere, the air of novel are present. but the lead characters are almost dolls. the connection between Jane and Rochester are conventions. the coherence of story is lost. the beautiful images are the characteristic of this admirable art but the heart of novel are not the costumes or gestures or looks or runs but the feelings. sure, it is far to be a bad film. it is , maybe , only one "ad usum delphini", invitation to discover the book. in same measure, it is saved by admirable performance of Joan Plowright and by the high good intentions of Charlotte Gainsborough to give more than cold sketch of an extraordinary character. but it is not easy to say if it is enough.so, a Zeffireli. inspired by the novel of Charlotte Bronte.

movie-viking 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.

mimi_txrngr I am a fan of the story and book, and while i know that movies from books are never the same, this movie makes so many fundamental changes to the story, that it ruins the experience. passage of time changes, characters change and the whole story is never truly told. it seems the writers were told they could only make a 90 minute film, and decided to slash the story to pieces without care. As with all verisons, they never get her time at school right, and then unlike others, you never believe the chemistry between Jane and Rochester. Anna Paquin is quite charming as a Young Jane, but the adult Jane does not live up to the younger. there are much better versions out there. don't waste your time with this one.