Jane Eyre
|
Our Price: $21.26 Availability: Usually ships in 1-2 business days Buy Used: from $10.33 (click here) Category: DVD See more DVD releases |
|---|
Buy this DVD movie at online store in your country
Canada
Canada
Movie Reviews of Jane Eyre
Movie Review: Gothic Chill
Summary: 4 Stars
I had avoided watching this version of Jane Eyre for almost 10 years for one compelling reason: the thought of William Hurt as Rochester gave me a physical pain. I couldn't imagine a blond and pasty Rochester with a tendency to squint and whine. Mr. Hurt's American-ness also seemed like a colossal drawback in portraying a staple character of English literature, particularly as he was the only American in the cast. I had visions of another laughable outing ala Kevin Costner as Robin Hood. Having finally viewed it on a night with nothing better to do, I'm pleasantly surprised-He didn't bollocks it up! I saw the classic version long ago with Orson Welles, and while his portrayal is hazy in my memory, he remains my image of Rochester as he was physically depicted in the novel. However, with Hurt's blond hair darkened & sporting unflattering mutton-chop sideburns, he is transformed into a much rougher-looking version of his usual somewhat effete self, and so his interpretation of Rochester is not as ridiculous as first imagined. To his credit he did not attempt a British accent; Bronte's dialog is quite stilted enough in a straight reading and that would've only made things much worse. Paired with Charlotte Gainsbourg, he makes a surprisingly effective, if unconventional, Rochester. His habitual pained expression actually serves the part. Charlotte Gainsbourg steps into the part of Jane with a near-perfect fit. She embodies Bronte's heroine in every detail but one: her distinct French accent is rather jarring in this most English of English girls. She is most effective when she is still, and the camera lingers on her austere yet compelling face. She lacks the spirit of Anna Paquin as young Jane, who is excellent in her all-too-brief role, but she nails Jane's solemn watchfulness & pride. The transition between the two actresses is cleverly and plausibly handled as they suggest one another physically, even if they don't look exactly alike. Gainsbourg and Hurt manage an awkward chemistry together which is appropriate, though they fail to solve one of the greatest mysteries of English literature: Why exactly is 20-year-old Jane, whip-smart & nobody's fool, so drawn to this moody, brusque lout who is old enough to be her father? Bronte never really explains it, so a movie adaptation can hardly hope to. The movie, as the book, ends with Jane in the arms of her scarred, misanthropic boss, and we cheer, I guess . . .even though the smart move for Jane would have been to take her newly-inherited money & move to the Riviera or some other less-gloomy place. Director Zeffirelli has assembled an all-star cast of heavy hitters to lend support, including Joan Plowright as Mrs. Fairfax, John Wood as the cruel & Dickensian master of Lowood School, Geraldine Chaplin playing against type as a cruel headmistress & Maria Schneider, in a tiny & essentially non-speaking part, as the crazy wife in the attic. She is notable for just how changed she looks from her ingenue days in 'Last Tango in Paris'. Also deserving mention is the charming little French actress who plays Adele. All in all, a successful rendering, even Mr. Rochester..
Movie Review: No Film is like the Book
Summary: 4 Stars
As someone who has both read the book and also watched 4 different adaptations at this point (this one, and the Samantha Morton, Timothy Dalton, and Welles/Fontaine versions), I can say definitively than none of them is genuinely "true" to the book. But that should not be a surprise to anyone. How do you take a book that is told in the first person, with Jane as our narrator, and expect things NOT to change the moment the camera forces you to the cool distance of third-person storytelling? The Dalton version comes closest to a literal scene-by-scene reenactment, but it fails (in my opinion) largely because of the wooden performance of Zelah Clarke, who is the wall you see Timothy Dalton talking to. And how true is it to the book to have Timothy Dalton simply sitting there staring, for what seems like an eternity, at the pivotal moment his "Jane" is purportedly bearing her soul to him?
This film, like the other three non-Dalton versions, strays far from the book's storyline in at least one significant way. (I know other reviewers seem to think the characters' heights and hair colors are "significant", but personally I mean only the highly altered St. John Rivers part of the story). That story change is truly annoying just because it makes no sense--Jane wouldn't run away to Gateshead Hall, because it would be the first place Rochester would look for her. But let's remember that Bronte's actual story also strains credulity here: in the novel, Jane runs off to God-Knows-Where, and preposterously (though conveniently) ends up at her first cousins' house.
We forgive the book for that, because the point of the book lies not there, but in its dealing with the interplay between love and the social code. Morality and responsibility without love at worst results in Brocklehurst and Aunt Reed, and at best only in the cool proposals of Rivers that are based more on duty than on affection. But (the story tells us) you can't just follow love without any regard for anything else, which is what Rochester would propose. Jane's quest is to find love that does not conflict with virtue and duty, and the reason I like this film version is that I believe it best captures, in Jane's face, the perils of her quest. The beauty of this version, despite its annoying St. John Rivers' variation, lies in the chemistry between the youthful Gainsbourg and the older William Hurt. Of all the versions I've seen, this is the one where the performances come closest to evoking the characters' relationship in the novel, and the balancing act they play between their duties to others and society and their love and regard for each other. Yes, there are departures, but the emotional core is there, every time Hurt and Gainsbourg appear together on the screen. Fastforward through the Rivers portion if you must (and I do, sometimes) but don't pass this up just because of it.
Movie Review: We are truly devoted
Summary: 4 Stars
"Jane Eyre" seems like a slightly odd choice for the great Franco Zeffirelli, but he turned out a slow if excellent adaptation, full of exquisite scenery and picturesque gothic flavour. But what really makes it brilliant is a virtuoso performance by William Hurt as the tortured hero, even if his costar lacks the necessary passion.
Jane Eyre (Anna Paquin) was raised by a nasty aunt-by-marriage, and later taken to a cruel minister's boarding school for girls, where she was humiliated and treated badly. Years later, the grown Jane (Charlotte Gainsbourg) leaves the school behind, taking a job as a governess to a little French girl, at a remote Gothic castle owned by the brooding Mr. Rochester (Hurt).
But there are mysteries at the castle -- mad laughter can be heard from the upstairs, and Rochester is tormented by difficulties that have made him "hard as an India-rubber ball." Yet Jane still falls in love with her fiery, reclusive employer, and he falls in love with her strange, strong ways -- until the nastiest secret of his life comes out, and threatens to separate them forever.
Somehow I never expected this classic gothic novel to be the sort of thing Zeffirelli would have done. But he does an excellent job bringing Charlotte Bronte's story to life, and giving it an unearthly beauty -- lots of misty countrysides, sunlit graveyards, and a looming castle up on a hill like a medieval fortress.
It's rather slow-moving -- Jane's nasty childhood takes up a lot of time, for instance. But Zeffirelli builds up suspense and suppressed feeling, all of which climaxes in a literally burning finale -- a magnificently taut and terrifying scene. And he adapts Bronte's prose into intense, vivid dialogue ("Even she is better off here than she would be in a lunatic asylum, but I have spent the last fifteen years in TORMENT!").
Gainsbourg has the required unearthly plainness that Jane Eyre needs, but she lacks the essential intensity and passion that the character possesses. During the movie's most intense scenes, when Rochester's secret is revealed, she doesn't even blink -- she just stands and stares. A young Anna Paquin has a lot more hidden fire early on.
But William Hurt is simply stellar as Rochester -- he's not young or handsome, but he has the dark, sardonic, embittered, sorrowful thing down to an art. He's especially great in the final lap, where he plays Rochester with all his bitter anger and love unleashed, and Rochester after a fire ravages his home. The final scenes are absolutely exquisite.
The movie suffers from some lackluster acting at time, but Hurt's performance and Zeffirelli's direction make "Jane Eyre" an excellent, watchable adaptation. Definitely a good watch.
Movie Review: Wonderfully Made Production.......Truly a Excellent Film
Summary: 4 Stars
Now I must confess that I have never read Jane Eyre (Athought I have brought the book a few weeks ago and plan to read it soon) so I can not comment on Whether it is faithful to Charlotte Bronte novel.
Athough I have seen the 1983 BBC Production, the 1997 A&E Production (borrowed from the Library) but this 1996 Production is the one that I really enjoyed the most and the only one that I brought.
The 1983 BBC Production was in my option made on a small budget. When you are watching it, one feels like they are watching a play. I really did not enjoy it at all.
The 1997 A&E Production was an improvement on the 1983 Production however Ciaran Hinds as Mr Rochester I did not enjoy. It seemed as many other reviews have commented he spends most of the production yelling and shouting at Jane.
But on the other hand Samantha Morton as Jane Eyre was likable. I think the main reason I could'nt come to enjoy and like this version is performance by Ciaran Hinds as Mr Rochester.
Now the 1996 production I enjoyed watching it so much so that I have seen it four times already and I only got the DVD from Amazon on Friday 18th May.
Franco Zeffirelli has done a wonderful job. From the cast to the locations to the costumes to the music. Everthing in this version was first rate.
I much perfer William Hurt performance as Mr Rochester. One can see that he is not a happy man and he is diffcult to understand but he does not spend the whole production yelling or shouting.
Anna Paquin is a great talent and she is amazing as the young Jane.
Charlotte Gainsbourg plays the adult Jane. From the three versions I have seen her performance was the one I really enjoyed the most and one could sense what she is feeling.
One of many scenes that I enjoyed was when Jane goes back to see her Aunt Reed as she is dying and requested to see Jane.
Jane offers her Aunt forgivness for all that she has done to her. She pulls away from Jane. Jane then replys "Love me or Hate me as you will, you have my Full and Free Forgivness" What a prowerful message.
To the people that have not seen this movie I say make up your own mind about this Production and dont base you decision on other reviews. If I did that I would of missed out on something wonderful.
To the people that are looking for family friendly production. This is one of them but I think that your children need to be a certain age before they can watch it.
This is a clean movie about Adversaries, Love and Forgivness. I found this Production of Jane Eyre a very lovely sweet movie one that I am happy to have in my own personal collection.
I can not recommend this movie highly enough. This is a must have.
Movie Review: Zeffirelli's beautiful Jane Eyre
Summary: 4 Stars
This is a film that I continue to go back to over & over. The last time I watched it, I had just finished reading Charlotte Bronte's book (again). The movie is faithful to the *spirit* of the book - it captures the essence of Jane's upbringing, her stoicism, & the troubled romance with Mr. Rochester.
Why do I like it?
* It's a good adaptation of the book. (For Bronte fans, I stress the word adaptation.) It doesn't get bogged down representing all the details of the book (for example, St John Rivers is a minor character in the film), but does capture the spirit and the essence of the book.
* It's got a great cast. Charlotte Gainsbourg is a "dead ringer" for Jane Eyre/Charlotte Bronte - if you're a fan of the book, this is the person who is in your imagination. Geraldline Chaplin, Amanda Root, Anna Paquin (the young Jane Eyre), William Hurt and Joan Plowright are perfectly cast. Even Elle MacPherson is ably cast.
* Zeffirelli's films are a visual treat - the landscape, the costumes, the scene setting. My favorite scene is when they morph the story from young Jane to grown Jane. Another favorite is when William Hurt first sees her and falls from his horse. The sweeping shots of the countryside are breathtaking.
* The music (I think it's original) is wonderful too!
Why would anyone else like it?
* My husband & I just watched it with my mother-in-law over the holidays. My mother-in-law is a huge devotee of Jane Austen, Charlotte Bronte, and the older film versions (think Greer Garson) of their books. Despite her preference for older films, she couldn't find fault with the film (I consider this a huge victory). Even my husband liked it and he is neither a devotee of older films or classic romantic English novels. He hasn't read Jane Eyre.
* The DVD has extra features that are interesting, e.g., interviews with Joan Plowright (who grew up near the Brontes' parsonage) and with Franco Zeffirelli which provide additional background on Jane Eyre and the film.