MovieChat Forums > Jane Eyre (1996) Discussion > Is it good, is it bad?

Is it good, is it bad?

posted 18 years ago by jolypm
10 replies | jump to latest

Just saw this version last night. Still prefer the first one with Joan Fontaine and Orson Welles. The black and white is just perfect for this kind of story. And Robert Stevenson filmed unforgettable sequences: the arrival of Jane at the Rochester mansion. When she gets out of the carriage and we see her black silhouette on a grey sky. Wow. And Elizabeth Taylor -not even mentioned on the casting credit- as Helen Burns, so young, so lovely and already so talented. And Welles, as the best Rochester I have ever seen. Would see it again right now! Gainsbourg is sometimes very moving and sometimes too unemotional. Can't imagine a Rochester with... blue eyes! And the chemistry between the two leads is nil. Absolutely nil. It is Charlotte Bronte's story that is still good! Captivating. A real classic.

[–] classycassie 18 years ago

this is the only version I have seen, though I finally just finished reading the book. It's strange that, as I was reading, things seemed familiar that weren't even in this version. Anyway, I watched it again and was surprised how condensed it was.. but what else can you do with only two hours. Anyway, I like it but I plan on checking out some other versions. I love this story!!

***
The truth might hurt, but a lie will only get you a billy club to the windpipe.

[–] kat63 18 years ago

Watch the 1973 version with Michael Jayston and Sorcha Cusack which has just been re-released. It is exceptional, an absolute classic!

[–] ADoorABell 18 years ago

I felt the same way about the movie. Still I do like it because it was how I found out about Jane Eyre...yet I do know that the movie is seriously lacking. I do think that William Hurt was a good choice to play rochester...

I have to do something spectacular, yet again. Spectaculars always take so much out of me...

[–] mlabot 18 years ago

Well, Franco Zeffirelli tends to condense things in his literary adaptations such as Taming of the Shrew (1967), Romeo and Juliet (1968), and Hamlet (1990).
For a amateur photographic, I enjoyed the scenic shots in his films.

IMO, a complete theatrical film adaptation of Jane Eyre (From Gateshead to Jane's return to Edward), running time may be up to three hours.The question iswould anyone will be willing to watch a Jane Eyre film more than three hours in the theater.

Talking for myself, for a guy who seen four 3+ hour movies in the theater (Titanic (1997), Gods and Generals, LOTR:ROTK, and King Kong (2005)), I'm willing to see a 3 hour Jane Eyre film.

[–] anniemine 18 years ago

I always thought of this variation of Jane Eyre as a more grown up version of the story which though always fun to read is a young girl's story of romance, fantasy, soapy drama, and a a bit of horror.
Oh, it is still lushly soapy but it is a story of two people damaged by their circumstances who find a home with each other. William Hurt plays an unhappy person, uncomfortable with the world who feels happiness is beyond his reach. In company his tired jokes are a little flat, but his acquaintances chuckle.

I like this one. I have enjoyed others and look forward to seeing the new one.

[–] nomen_est_omen_4 18 years ago

I thought the first half was really well done. Everything up to Jane's Aunt's death was condensed, but mostly accurate and successful. Everything afterward seemed tacked on and pieced together. The characters stopped developing, events were out of sequence or completely changed, and nothing was given its due drama.

I figured any movie would let me down since I have the book practically memorized, but I was especially disappointed since the first half led me on to think it might actually be a good adaptation.

[–] flapjackoneill 17 years ago

That's not good news, since I'm under the opinion that the first portion of the film is exceedingly condensed. I have not finished watching the entire thing, It just seemed so disappointing that I felt I needed to turn it off so as not to taint the feeling of masterpiece I still have in my mind of Bronte's novel.
Talk about lack of character build up... by the time Mr. Brocklehurst takes Jane out of her aunt's house, we know so little about her... and the injustice they did to Helen Burns' character - although shortlived in the novel for obvious reasons, Bronte still carved out one of the most memorable characters in literary history... and in this film they made her seem almost monosyllabic in contrast.

http://www.ymdb.com/moviefanatic1899-yahoo-co/l7902_ukuk.html

[–] neenerbrown 17 years ago

I actually really enjoyed this film. I thought the acting was superb and not too flashy as the characters themselves should be played. I enjoyed seeing a realistic depiction of Jane that wasn't the most attractive physically, but one could see how Mr. Rochester could fall in love with her. And of course, in the end, it doesn't matter what color Rochester's eyes are.

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] hayley-80 17 years ago

I am sorry if this offends anyone but I love the book dearly BUT hate this version!! It is one of the worst - though one version fron the 1970s had me turning off!! I love the new version (2006), and quite like shock hooror, 1997 despite the shouting!! 1983 is faithful to the text but the scenary etc was poor.