Also missing was Jane Eyre's charismatic sense of self, which enabled her to suffer through her turmoil and triumph over all. Rochester, seemed to be either missing from the screenplay or left on the cutting room floor. Much of the witty back and forth between the main characters, Jane Eyre and Mr. I was deeply disappointed to find that this movie, which seemed to be either written or filmed in great haste, had not the qualities that made the original novel so powerful. What made the idea of seeing this movie so attractive was the hope that it would live up to Charlotte Bronte's brilliance of the original classic story. I enjoy watching all versions of this work, but this one is by far the worst all-around.
#JANE EYRE MOVIE VERSIONS FREE#
Her plain looks and subdued manner with sparks of the free spirit underneath do the role justice. One nice point - Charlotte Gainsborough makes a superb Jane. As a result, Hurt's Rochester is weak, nice, and definitely not dangerous in any way. It requires a non-Method heroic hamminess of which he is simply not capable. I generally like Hurt, but he could not be more wrong for this role. Jane Eyres live or die according to their Rochesters, and this one is NOT worthy of the source material. The biggest weakness in this version, sadly, is Hurt himself. Is that a good thing? I feel not - if one is going to adapt a literary classic, one should make SOME attempt to hew closely to THAT classic.
One commenter remarked that it was Zefferelli's vision taking precedence over the book. The screenplay is not good, condensing or altogether dispensing with what I feel are vital portions of the story. Since I have commented on every version of Jane Eyre, these last sorry laurels for worst adaptation go to this version. She seems to have the ability to well play suppressed emotion. Charlotte Gainsbourg's performance is the only one I've seen, and I'm anxious to follow her career. Unfortunately, these adventures are apparently difficult to incorporate into a film. In Bronte's book, Jane's travels and subsequent proposal of marriage after being left at the alter are somewhat cumbersome, but necessary to support her final return to Rochester, being willing to be with him under any terms. Jane leaves Thornefield twice once on the death of her aunt, and once again when left at the alter. Another disservice is the failure of the movie to maintain the integrity of the book. The story is great, the actors are great, but story and actors are mismatched in this film. Rochester is a man of passion, pain, and jealousy none of which were reflected in this story. He is a wonderful actor, but it's as if this part was not suited to him. Hurt's Rochester is the only one who didn't bring tears to my eyes. Rochester, the second with Ciaran Hinds, followed by William Hurt's version. I've seen 3 versions of this movie after having read Charlotte Bronte's book. These early, well done scenes where the best in the entire movie but I regret to say they lead me down the primrose path to disappointment. Anna Paquin was amazing as she embodied the young Jane to near perfection. The best element to this film, however was the sequences of young Jane and Helen at Lowood. Why? Blanche Ingram was beautiful, true, but she was beautiful in the Victorian sense of the word, not a 90's waif snatched from a Parisian runway. The worst element to this film was casting Elle McPherson as the role of Blanche. But she even, at times seemed cool and unattatched to me too. She looked the part and added very charming persona to the character. However, I must say Charlotte Gainsborough was a pretty good Jane Eyre. If William Hurt was younger he would have played a better St. His scenes with the Jane Eyre character had no fire or emotion at all. He had a very wooden and unemotional presence throughout the film. William Hurt was a poor Rochester indeed.
But I must say how disappointed I was with this adaptation. I love the story of Jane Eyre so much, to insult anything that has to do with this beloved character is not easy to say.