|
|
Rating:  - Best version
I think this is the best version of the book. It's "English" tone and the feeling of the era, the clear dialogue, are all there.
Rating:  - Not worth the time
I bought this movie expecting it to be a more modern and updated version of the Timothy Dalton version of Jane Eyre. This may be just my personal preference but if I am going to sit down to a movie I expect it to include most of the stuff in the book (the movie excluded the scene where Mr. Rochester calls for Jane and she hears and answers him even though they are hundreds of miles apart from each other, which is one of the best parts of the book)and their was absolutely no romance. I couldn't see Jane fall in love at all she just all of a sudden expresses her emotions to Mr. Rochester and he 's like "Wow, that is totally awesome. I was hoping you would say that. Let's get married in two weeks." Go watch the Timothy Dalton version.
Rating: - Better than the Book
Jane Eyre is my wife's favorite book. Although not my favorite, it is high on the list. What has made it a four-star book for me is the over-dramatization. Sometimes the characters seem just a little too dramatic to be real.
This version of the movie addresses that problem. The drama is toned down just enough to make the characters completely believeable. The acting is great and the chemistry between Jane and Rochester is excellent.
I have seen several versions of Jane Eyre. This is easily the best one. (Do not ever watch the George C. Scott version)!! This is the only time I can remember saying the movie is better than the book.
Rating:  - It had the potentials to become the best "Jane Eyre" movie but it is not...
Franco Zeffirelli's 1996 version of "Jane Eyre" had all the workings of becoming the best adaptation of the fabulous novel. Zeffirelli is known for gorgeously lavish films based of the celebrated classics such as "Falstaff" (1964), "La bohème" (1965), "The Taming of the Shrew" (1967), "Romeo and Juliet" (1968), his most famous and beloved film, one of the best screen romances that made me feel incredibly close to its young doomed lovers, and many more.
Zeffirelli's "Jane Eyre" is the most visually beautiful color adaptation of four I have seen. The color palette for the scenes outside Thornfield Hall is delicate and romantic and creates the right atmosphere for the blooming romance of Mr. Edward Rochester, the Master of the estate and his young employee, pale, thin, "almost un-earthy" but determined and strong-willed Jane Eyre. Charlotte Gainsbourg, a talented subtle and intelligent actress whom I like in every movie I've seen her made a great Jane. Gainsbourg was surrounded by great supporting cast - Anna Paquin (young Jane), Geraldine Chaplin, Fiona Shaw, and Joan Plowright. Plowright gave the best supporting performance in all "Jane Eyre" movies as Mrs. Fairfax, a housekeeper of Thornfield Hall and she is one of the reasons to see this movie. Plowright's Mrs. Fairfax is kind, warm woman with sense of humor, intelligence, and understanding of human's nature. She cares about Jane and wishes her happiness but she does not believe that "people like Mr. Rochester marry their governesses".
Yes, Zeffirelli's film has a lot to admire but sadly there are some major flaws that spoil the film's charm and decreased it to the level of just an average period peace. One of them is miscast of William Hurt. His Rochester reminds more Richard Mason as Charlotte Bronte described him - passionless and blank-eyed. As good as Gainsbourg was, there was no chemistry between her and Hurt. Hurt neither looked nor played right for the part. He was a big disappointment. Another serious problem is the script. Too many important parts were cut out or strangely mixed together, and several scenes in the end of the movie simply did not make much sense. This is a shame - like I've mentioned, the movie had great potentials but did not realize them all.
Rating: - The worst Jane Eyre remake
After reading the book Jane Eyre, I decided to watch every remake of the film that I could find - at least half a dozen. By far the best is the newest one with Rochester as Toby Stephens (what a marvelous flirtatious exchange between Rochester and Jane); another favorite is the Timothy Dalton and Zelah Clarke production. But this one with William Hurt (who I always liked as an actor) is so bad that it makes me cringe.
There is absolutely no chemistry or romance conveyed between Charlotte Gainsborgh and William Hurt; I could not feel or believe that they loved each other. The performances of both fall flat, flat, flat. I find myself even wondering if the two actors did not even like each other or connect in real life but felt compelled, due to signing their contracts, to play the role of lovers. But neither succeeded in summoning up any real feeling - it just doesn't work!
Joan Plowright is excellent as always, and Charlotte Gainsborgh does make a believable Jane Eyre, but there is no real fire in her, and as a result her outspoken moments feel heavy, as if she were depressed and exhausted and pretending to an energy she does not possess.
Another complaint about the film, probably not obvious to those who haven't read the book, is that the story is distorted and about 1/3 of it omitted. What happened to Jane's fleeing of Rochester and landing at the home of strangers whom take her in and with whom she lives for half a year? Perhaps because of time limitations, Sintjen's role was altered in this film, and the fire was portrayed as Jane was leaving Rochester, and not many months later.
In any case, if you're going to watch one version of Jane Eyre, I highly suggest it not be this one!
|
|