Save your money for something good and enjoyable

Powerful

Fun premise, good actors, bad writing. This film seemed to have potential at the beginning but it quickly devolves into a trite action film. Ultimately it's very boring.

The acting in this movie is really good.

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).

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.

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.

I have loved the A&E version of Jane Eyre since I was a child. The story always spoke to me. I very recently finally read the book and was even more blown away and in awe. It is brilliant, fiction at it's finest! After finishing the book I re-watched the A&E version, the newest version with Mia Wasikowska, and the BBC version. All of which are quite brilliant! I was going through netflix and saw this. I got excited that there was a version I had yet to see and I watched it. It didn't take me long to realize it was ridiculous. The plot strays from the book far too much. The writing of the script was terrible. The acting was terrible. Both Jane and Edward are very passionate people. Jane is rather subdued, but still, when reading the novel and in the other film adaptions, you can catch glimpses of her true character. Both of them in this film were like wooden dolls. So lacking in feeling or conviction. And St. John was shoved in here like an afterthought. His part was nothing like how it was supposed to be and his proposal was mind numbingly, hilariously out of character! I laughed through a great deal of this film. And I don't even feel bad saying that.