 |
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. 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.Read full review
I am obsessed with Jane Eyre and have seen virtually every film version of this superb novel. The Zeffirelli version is respectful of the material. It abbreviates what it must to make a 400 + page book into a two hour film. The cinematography is breathtaking and the gorgeous locations are the best of all the Jane Eyre films. However, this version lacks all the passion and emotional tension that are the soul of the story. Perhaps having an Italian director, American actor as Rochester, and French actress playing the title role aren't the right ingredients for this most English of English gothic romances. William Hurt is hapless and bored as Rochester. Charlotte Gainsbourg can't keep her accent straight though she is an appealing Jane. She really looks 18 at least. The only actor who satisfies is Anna Paquin as the young Jane. She is spot on even though the film fabricated unnecessary scenes at Lowood and demoted Miss Temple (aptly played by Amanda Root). The best version of all is the Masterpeace Theater 2007 Jane Eyre with Toby Stephens and Ruth Wilson. There is reinterpretation there also but the core passion of the story is true. I highly recommend it but would only watch the Zeffirelli version again with the sound turned off.Read full review
This is quite unlike most versions of Jane Eyre. Of course to fit the story into a feature movie it is much condensed and altered, but in ways I think are in keeping with Bronte's intent. The religious depths of the story are not neglected, and unlike versions in which a priggish St John and hypocritical Brocklehurst are the only adherents, Christianity is presented as the force for good that it should be.This version relies less on the 1st person narrative of the novel, and so we see that not only Jane, but Edward as well is profoundly changed over the course of the film. Loving her makes him a better person. William Hurt is more introverted than most Rochesters, but it is quite interesting, and ultimately moving. Anna Paquin is really magnificent as young Jane, as is the actress who plays Helen, Leanne Rowe. Really, the entire supporting cast is, especially Joan Plowright (Amanda Root & Samuel West wasted by how truncated their contributions to Jane's journey are.) Charlotte Gainsbourg is among the finest Jane's. She is a lovely woman, of course, but comes across like the plain, "Quakerish," somewhat dour-faced Jane Bronte imagined, and her very contained manner (as if Helen's advice had and example had tamed the zealous spitfire we see in her youth,) makes her rare emotional outbursts very effective. This being a Zefferelli film, it is of course gorgeous, simply gorgeous and while the brightness of Thornfield's grandeur may be a bit off-putting for those who prefer it a touch "spookier," the house (almost a character in itself, in the book) is of a size to render it suitably mysterious, and make its secrets plausible. The director's being Italian, he & his co-screenwriter are not as attached to some of the language of the book as those of us who love it might be, and sometimes it is a little jarring to hear things expressed differently than had been expected, but it's a fine treatment. Not my *very* favorite Jane Eyre, but right up there with it - will watch and re-watch.Read full review
Verified purchase: Yes | Condition: Pre-owned
I have seen all but the 1973 bbc version with Sorcha Cursack of jane Eyre. I must say being a fan of William hurt I really wanted to like this movie, I really did. It just didn't make it for me I was very dissapointed. Wiiliam Hurt is much too laid back to play the tortured angry dynamic yet underneath it all kind and sensitive Mr Rochester. The writing and direction is terrible. Not at all like the book or even spirit of what Charlotte Bronte ha written. Charlotte Gainsbourg; while has a fairly nice demeaner in the film .. changes her look from [plain and pleasant after the first scene to very peculiar. It is like the director put cotten in her jowls and she has the look not unlike Marlon Brando in The Godfather and a lower like that hitches out like Buba in forest gump. It is very distracting and takes away from her good acting. What I can say about this film is that the background visuals ar breath takingly beautiful. But those scenes alone unfortunately can not save the film into becoming a true classic. If you want to see better versions See the 1944 Orson Wells version that has all the gothic mystery and mood and spirit of the story. He is Rochester.......or the Timothy Dalton Mini series done in 1983, Which is truly accurate to the book and... Dalton while some may say his is too handsome to play Edward Rochester, in reality he truly understands who Mr Edwards is,takes his time with the part and aces the role. In short he is briiliant.Read full review
It seemed cool and detached. Didn't remind me of the book. I suppose they are hard roles to act, but better casting might have helped. The lead actor doesn't look like the picture on the cover, which makes him look young, dark haired, and cute. In the film he has lighter hair and looks older.
Current slide {CURRENT_SLIDE} of {TOTAL_SLIDES}- Best-selling in DVDs & Blu-rays
Current slide {CURRENT_SLIDE} of {TOTAL_SLIDES}- Save on DVDs & Blu-rays
Current slide {CURRENT_SLIDE} of {TOTAL_SLIDES}- You may also like
