To me, this movie is perfection.

Sorry, this movie sucks

Pretty Good

It’s fine. It's literally the definition of a fine movie. You’ve seen it before, you know every beat and outcome before the characters even do. Only question is how much escapism you’re looking for.

I have seen many of the adaptations of "Jane Eyre" I like the original book so much that in each adaptation I usually find redeeming qualities as well as the opposite. Even with the most recent 2006 film.It must be very difficult to translate this story to film, since even with the many mini series, that have plenty of time to include aspects in the book, that two hour movies cannot, still seem rather lacking one way or another.Every one seems to have their favorite adaptation, and this one appears to be less often among them, with even harsh criticism of William Hurt in the role of Rochester.For me, although he does not have the dark hair and eyes Hurt's demeanor is more like the Rochester I grew fond of from the novel. I don't think it was the perfect representation, but He is my favorite, by far.Again physically, Jane Eyre was described differently in the novel, but just like Hurt, had the essence of the Jane from the novel.Most of the flaws I saw, were directorial and screenplay originated, and very much not the acting or the interpretations of the characters by the actors. And that the novel has too much information to squeeze in the many important aspects of it, into a two hour movie. Or even a mini series...obviously.This is still my favorite adaptation, but enjoy all of them, for the parts that the others don't have.I will continue to hope that one day, someone will come along, and follow the book onto the screen.

its virtue - the inspired choice of Zeffirelli for Anne Paquin and Charlotte Gainsbourg as Jane Eyre sides.the bad part- forced end. beautiful, as many films by the same director, it seems be a sketch who not has the courage to explore a part of novel possibilities. so, it seems be a part of adaptation, a review for a masterpiece "ad usum delphini". a sweet version for a bitter novel, it is almost credible love story but not at whale. and the regret has as source , first,the remarkable cast, than, the music and the details. it seems be a run , a puzzle with improvised pieces and a fairy tale end who can destroy all the book spirit. more than a film. it is a promise. or just a title in a long filmography.

It is early in the 1800s England, young Jane is orphaned and raised in the household of her aunt-in-law, who favors her own three children and mistreats Jane. Until Jane is about 11 or 12, when she is sent to a boarding school. The aunt makes it clear that she doesn't want Jane to return to her home during holidays.Anna Paquin is the young Jane Eyre and, even though her performance lasts only about the first 20 minutes of the film, it is arguably the most critical one here. She established Jane as a straightforward, truthful person that is willing to buck convention and become a woman of independent thought and independent means.The movie follows the familiar arc of the Jane Eyre story, with Charlotte Gainsbourg as the young adult Jane Eyre , taking the job as governess. Gainsbourg is not really a homely person, but her makeup, wardrobe, and hair style made her look very homely, quite a contrast to the pretty women that the master sometimes brought home.The other key character is William Hurt as Rochester, the master of the estate. He uses a passable English accent and is fine. But the movie works because of Jane Eyre, it is her story.I saw this version just two months after the most current version with Mia Wasikowska as Jane Eyre and Michael Fassbender as Rochester. While both of them are very good, I believe I preferred this 1996 version a bit more, for the way the various scenes were presented, and because Gainsbourg I feel is a more effective young adult Jane Eyre.

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.