cheilith Not bad, definitely a step up from 1934 but that's not saying much. I've heard good reviews for this one, so much so that for some this is the best version. I can see how they could see that and for the time period, absolutely. However, years later Jane Eyre has been adapted in ways that succeed this one for a number of reasons.Story wise, the first half was really well done. Elizabeth Taylor was a surprise, she played Helen. The second half took a good chunk of film time before Rochester even proposed so I kept wondering how it was going to fit everything left in. The answer was to keep all the scenes short and deviate the story when Jane leaves. Instead of going to the moors she goes to Gateshead, for the first time in years. I was told Mr. Rochester would come in and rescue her in the 1944 adaptation but was glad to see that wasn't true, she came back to him as written. Performances were both well done. Orson Welles isn't my favorite Rochester but did a decent job. For me, he was just too shadowy without being light-hearted enough. Joan was very good, even with the 1944 constraints she pulled it off to fit the best of both worlds, staying true to Jane's character with Hollywood acting thrown in.

anthonydavid-25706 Jane Eyre is another master piece from the great American film actor, writer, and director Orson Wells. The film stars both Orson wells and Joan Fontaine, both who give great performances. Awe a predecessor to Well's Citizen Kane, at times this film felt very Kane- esque, which is not necessarily a bad thing. The lighting is quite spectacular, with deep darks and shadows. However, it is really the acting that most stands out in this film. Fontaine really shines, as she gives her best performance.There is chemistry between both Fontaine and Wells, and it keeps you invested. I enjoyed this film, but not as much as Citizen Kane.

Michael_Elliott Jane Eyre (1943) *** (out of 4)Good telling of the classic novel has the orphaned Jane Eyre (Joan Fontaine) finally escaping from a brutal school where she accepts a governess job for the mysterious Edward Rochester (Orson Welles). Once on the job Jane soon discovers that the mysteries surrounding Edward might come back to haunt both of them.JANE EYRE is an incredibly popular novel that has been turned into countless movies. While I certainly haven't seen them all, this here is considered by many experts to be one of the best versions out there. There's certainly a lot to like about this film thanks in large part to some nice direction, a terrific atmosphere and of course the legendary stars but the film is still far from perfect in a few other areas. With that said, fans of the novel or this period of Hollywood are still going to find this rewarding.Director Robert Stevenson does a pretty good job directing the film as he's able to bring some nice style as well as create a very good atmosphere. There are some fairly dark moments here that will almost remind people of what would follow in film noir but the darkness here is quite effective. The use of shadows inside the castle are also put to good use. I will say that I thought the flow of the story could have been handled better as it really did seem like a lot of stuff just happened way too fast. I say this because it just seemed the final third of the film was rushed including the ending, which is a tad bit forced. The screenplay's story structure could have also been handled better.With that said, the stars certainly shine here with Fontaine doing an excellent job in her role. I thought the actress fit the role perfectly and she also made you believe everything that this young woman was afraid of. I thought she played the scared victim quite well. As for Welles, he too comes across extremely good and especially the way he manages to be mysterious with just a few cracks of humanity, which of course is seen by Eyre. Margaret O'Brien is good in her supporting part as is John Sutton as a kind doctor and Henry Daniell as the religious nut. Peggy Ann Garner also deserves a special mention as she's terrific in the role of Eyre as a child.JANE EYRE certainly has a lot going for it even with the flaws that are scattered throughout. While the film is far from perfect, the atmosphere and the two leads make this worth watching.

TxMike I found this movie on Netflix streaming movies. The novel of the same title has been popular for a long time and there have been a number of movie adaptations. I don't read much fiction and have not read this, but it seems that it must follow the book fairly closely because at various points we see part of a page of the novel.Jane Eyre is an orphan in 1820s England and has the misfortune of being taken in by her mean aunt, her deceased father's sister. At about 10 she is sent to an orphanage and school for trouble children. But she has a good spirit, she will not be broken, and she learns well. Enough that she is asked to be a teacher when she was about 20. An interesting small part is Jane's new friend Helen, who gets sick and dies. That part is played by 10-yr-old Elizabeth Taylor, only about a year before she hit it big in National Velvet.The young adult Jane is played by Joan Fontaine. She refuses the teaching job at the oppressive orphanage and goes out on her own, finding a job as a governess for a wealthy widow. He is Orson Welles as Edward Rochester. He is supposed to be maybe 15 years older than she, but in fact the two actors are only two years apart, but Welles always did look older than his chronological age.It is the traditional story, playboy Edward comes and goes, has a very rough exterior, but Jane sees something in him that captivates her heart. She would love to be his bride but it seems doomed when it is revealed he is already married, his wife went crazy and is kept in a barricaded room in his castle-like mansion.The film being 1943 is a throwback to the black and white days when inventive lighting and camera angles heightened the drama and punctuated the suspense. Both Welles and Fontaine are super in their roles. Welles of course is mostly known for his Citizen Kane but this is an opportunity to see him as an actor and he is quite something to watch.