Jane Eyre (1996)

People are voting emotionally.

Great Film overall

Good story, Not enough for a whole film

As Good As It Gets

The Franco Zeffereli film of Jane Eyre starts out well enough: the blind cruelty of Gatewood and harshness of Lowood are beautifully shot and true to the spirit of the book. Anna Paquin is a believably precocious and strong-willed young Jane. As the adult Jane, on the surface, Charlotte Gainsbourg certainly looks the picture: lantern-jawed, skinny as a beanpole and clearly not a day over 19. But we hardly get time to evaluate her acting ability before the film is ruined by the arrival of a miscast Rochester. William Hurt is too blond, too old and too sensitive; whispering his lines and mooning over the bland Jane. Worse, the chemistry between the leads is nonexistent. The intense intellectual connection between poor but self-possessed Jane and the brooding Rochester is the cornerstone of the book's appeal. The script is a fairly faithful adaptation of Bronte's work, but it's almost painful to watch the two actors say her words while pretending they are in love. Watch only for the cinematography & sets, or if you are a die-hard Jane Eyre fan. For those that haven't read the book, this is a poor introduction.

A quick scan on IMDb.com turns up more than two dozen screen versions of Bronte's classic Jane Eyre. This version, with a subdued William Hurt as Mr. Rochester, and a startling, demure Charlotte Gainsbourg as Jane Eyre, is among those that are worth watching a second time. If you're reading this, you may think you know the story, and how it ends. Let's agree on this: from our modern vantage point, if we discovered a previously unknown Charlotte Bronte novel, I don't think it would be difficult to guess the general storyline and character development. Not to say that this makes Bronte uninteresting or unexceptional—I think you can best appreciate and enjoy Bronte if you know what you're getting into, if you can bring an openness to deeply personal, individual human drama to the reading. Any movie version is an abbreviation. I think this one brings Bronte's protagonists to life in a steadily stronger crescendo of the tragic and fortuitous experiences of two lives that are, at first, on grimly divergent paths, and, finally, reach a happy convergence that literally strikes the sparks of love in the ashes of Thornfield Hall. For me, the romance of Jane Eyre is, of course, the storybook love of Edward, master of Thornfield, and Jane, the governess, but the love story ebbs and flows, and, for me, there is a concurrent theme that is equally satisfying. I am drawn to the stark reality of the separate lives of Mr. Rochester and Jane Eyre, and their gritty willingness to endure that reality, even as they yearn and yearn for the improbably better lives that they can profoundly imagine. Right up to very end, they don't know how it's going to turn out. Read more on my blogs: Barley Literate and History: Bottom Lines

This movie is really just not very good. The story was largely rushed and truncated- especially the ending. I know things have to be cut to fit it into such a short time frame (less than two hours) but I feel it was just handled clumsily. The first two thirds of the movie were just mediocre, nothing to write home about, but the last part was just a mess. The acting was nothing special either. Those who were good were wasted in their too-small roles. Those who were featured more were not very good. The two words that appear most in my notes are "flat" and "emotionless." It was an all around disappointment, devoid of all of the passion and fire of the book.Fiona Shaw was very good, but was entirely wasted as Mrs. Reed, in her very limited screen time. Gateshead was way too rushed. Anna Paquin is very good as Jane, but the character is even more feisty than in the book. Even though she was near 25, Charlotte Gainsbourg did look the right age for Jane and they did a pretty good job making her look plain. She was way too tall though (with an very long neck) and although she had everything to make a good Jane, she was pretty dull actually. She was even more reserved and quiet than the book Jane, which, given how passionate her younger self was in this, was especially jarring.If I thought Gainsbourg's Jane was lackluster, that was nothing compared to William Hurt's Rochester. My original feelings on him were "block of wood" and my opinion remains unchanged upon the latest viewing. My above mentioned "flat" and "emotionless" apply to him more than anyone or anything else in this film. Not only did he and Jane not have any chemistry (I'm unsure how they even fell in love in this, since they have so few scenes together), he just didn't seem to care at all. He was so dull! The proposal scene was so passionless, and even their kissing looked staged (i.e. their lips did not really touch). He did not show Rochester's brooding/angry side or the humorous side. He just played a block of wood.

How odd that, within a couple of days of watching the 2011 version at the cinema, this 1996 version is run on one of the satellite channels.My first thought is that it is a good deal less dark and more colourful than the most recent version, although that is of relatively little importance.Charlotte Gainsbourg, an actress of relatively little import in England, does a good job as Jane: she looks right and conducts herself with dignity, independence, and controlled passion. I liked William Hurt's Rochester better than many have: I could detect gentleness beneath the anger.As for the adaptation, much of it seemed very hurried: in particular, from the aborted wedding onwards, events were telescoped together very uncomfortably (Jane would have seen the fire if she had looked back, for instance).So, while not disastrous, there have been better adaptations.