one of my absolute favorites!

brilliant actors, brilliant editing

All of these films share one commonality, that being a kind of emotional center that humanizes a cast of monsters.

One of the most extraordinary films you will see this year. Take that as you want.

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).

With style, charm, and humor to spare, this film was among the top echelon of movies from 1996. The characters in this film have a lot of depth, and that makes all the difference. In the end, the audience gets a casserole of film elements and little of the satisfaction that comes from watching these types of movies. This is a story about a place most people might not be able to conceive. It is a powerful film, but I doubt I will ever want to watch it again. Many scenes do not feel believable, but great performances help to enhance this amazing story. All the characters struggle against a system that has perpetuated falsehoods -- many falsehoods. 7/10.

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.

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.