Steineded How sad is this?

FirstWitch A movie that not only functions as a solid scarefest but a razor-sharp satire.

Quiet Muffin This movie tries so hard to be funny, yet it falls flat every time. Just another example of recycled ideas repackaged with women in an attempt to appeal to a certain audience.

Deanna There are moments in this movie where the great movie it could've been peek out... They're fleeting, here, but they're worth savoring, and they happen often enough to make it worth your while.

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).

bkoganbing The much put upon Jane Eyre gets yet another adaption to the big screen with Charlotte Gainsbourg in the title role and William Hurt as the brooding Lord Rochester. As the story goes each becomes the other's savior at different points of the tale.I've always felt that the reason for Jane Eyre's enduring popularity is that it's a tale of both resilience and courage for women in an age when if woman did not have man's protection she was adrift and in trouble. Women were little more than chattel during the Victorian times that Jane Eyre was written.Anna Paquin plays Jane as a child and Jane is one unloved child sent to live with relations who barely tolerate her. She's sent to board with a school run by John Wood playing school master Mr. Brocklehurst, a man with issues. She's treated cruelly and has to watch a young friend die from neglect. But it hardens her character though she wonders if love will come her way.When the grownup Jane Eyre now played by Gainsbourg leaves the school where she has become a teacher she gets a job with Lord Rochester's estate as a governess. The master of the house is rarely there and Gainsbourg is well established by the time William Hurt returns from one of his many trips abroad.Gainsbourg's responsibilities is to Lord Rochester's daughter Adele and she becomes mother and father to the child. The story of the mother is part of the reason for William Hurt's frequent absences. Something in Gainsbourg touches a sentimental and romantic part of Hurt's character. There's still a lot of problems to be resolved. In the end the relative economic positions have been reversed, but these two people need each other more than ever.Charlotte Bronte's novel has certainly got an enduring popularity, this is one of several adaptions to the big screen and small. Gainsbourg compares well with Joan Fontaine probably the most well known portrayer of Jane Eyre. William Hurt is good as Rochester, so good that you hardly notice his distinct American speech pattern. Then again Fontaine's Rochester was Orson Welles another American.Jane Eyre I've always felt was a feminist role model, a woman who makes her way in the world successfully when women were not legal and social equals. It's the reason the story will have an enduring popularity and this version can stand proudly besides previous adaptions.

rsubber 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

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.