Tina Willis I have seen many of the adaptations of "Jane Eyre" I like the original book so much that in each adaptation I usually find redeeming qualities as well as the opposite. Even with the most recent 2006 film.It must be very difficult to translate this story to film, since even with the many mini series, that have plenty of time to include aspects in the book, that two hour movies cannot, still seem rather lacking one way or another.Every one seems to have their favorite adaptation, and this one appears to be less often among them, with even harsh criticism of William Hurt in the role of Rochester.For me, although he does not have the dark hair and eyes Hurt's demeanor is more like the Rochester I grew fond of from the novel. I don't think it was the perfect representation, but He is my favorite, by far.Again physically, Jane Eyre was described differently in the novel, but just like Hurt, had the essence of the Jane from the novel.Most of the flaws I saw, were directorial and screenplay originated, and very much not the acting or the interpretations of the characters by the actors. And that the novel has too much information to squeeze in the many important aspects of it, into a two hour movie. Or even a mini series...obviously.This is still my favorite adaptation, but enjoy all of them, for the parts that the others don't have.I will continue to hope that one day, someone will come along, and follow the book onto the screen.

Claudio Carvalho The orphan girl Jane Eyre (Anna Paquin) is sent by her aunt Mrs. Reed to Lowood Institution, a charity school for orphans directed by the religious and harsh Mr. Henry Brocklehurst (John Wood). Jane has a tough childhood without love in the boarding school, where she loses her best friend Helen Burns. When Jane (Charlotte Gainsbourg) reaches adulthood, she is hired by Mrs. Fairfax (Joan Plowright) as the governess of Adele, a young French girl that is raised by master of Thornfield Edward Rochester (William Hurt), and leaves Lowood. Jane moves to the manor and sooner she feels an unrequited love by her master. Sooner Edward falls in love for Jane, but he is haunted by a gloomy secret from his past. "Jane Eyre" by Franco Zeffirelli is so far, the weakest adaptation of the classic romance by Charlotte Brontë. I have watched the 1943 and 1970 versions and it is inevitable the comparison between these three films. The 1943 version by Robert Stevenson is unbeatable, and the atmosphere in black and white of the film is impressive and fits to the Gothic fiction of the novel. Further, the powerful performance of Orson Welles is incomparable in the role of Edward Rochester. Despite the great cast in Zeffirelli's version, with names like Charlotte Gainsbourg, Geraldine Chaplin, Joan Plowright, Fiona Shaw and Anna Paquin, the performance of William Hurt is very disappointing in the role of Edward Rochester. My vote is five.Title (Brazil): "Jane Eyre"

springm I didn't have high expectation for yet another adaptation of this novel. But this one really reaches me in a surprising way when every other screen version of Jane Eyre I've seen try to connect the audience to the characters by casting way-too-attractive actors. Admittedly, it's pretty enjoyable to watch two beautiful people fall in love in a fairy tale way. But I couldn't believe for one moment that they're real human beings under those harsh circumstances.Too often Jane Eyre has been portrayed as inexplicably attractive and Mr. Rochester charismatically mysterious. It's refreshing to see an actually plain Jane and a deeply flawed Mr. Rochester. They're not attractive people in general. They're just attractive to each other in their own way. Their bonding doesn't come from their physical presences but from the pain, the unfair fate, and the harsh past they've both endured and survived. On this note, I think this version is by far the most authentic adaptation I've seen.The only complain I have also comes from the major characters - their lack of chemistry in later scenes. It would be more believable if the two actors had shown more genuine emotions for each other. The script, though adequately written, also failed to give them enough space to embody their change of mind states towards the end.Nonetheless, it's a must-see for any classic literature fans. You'll be pleasantly surprised by their different approach to casting and acting, if nothing else.

jhsteel Being a Jane Eyre fan and a bit of a purist as well, this wasn't for me. It is a shame that no one seems to be able to produce a really good film version of this complex story, but this one failed in many ways. The best versions of Jane Eyre are all BBC mini-series: Michael Jayston- Sorcha Cusack, Timothy Dalton-Zelah Clarke (the best of the lot) and Toby Stephens-Ruth Wilson. These each had enough running time to do justice to the story, which has many aspects, and all these aspects are needed to explain Jane's character and her relationship with Rochester. The outstanding dialogue of the novel also needs to be included to greater or lesser extent, and all the BBC versions achieve this. This version seemed to leave out the most important exchanges and change all the dialogue - possibly this was Zefirelli's interpretation of the story, but it was frustrating. This version is very European in appearance, even though set in Yorkshire. I didn't warm to Charlotte Gainsbourg unfortunately, and although I am usually a William Hurt fan, he wasn't right for this part. I agree with the person who suggested Alan Rickman - that would be worth seeing, although he is too old now. Rochester needs to look fierce and not very good looking - also needs to be about 37 years old, to Jane's 19. I won't attempt to spell out all the gaps in the plot, or the way that events that were far apart in the novel occurred next to each other in the film. For a viewer who has never seen another version nor read the book, this might be acceptable as a starter, but I would recommend going straight to Timothy Dalton's wonderful portrayal of one of the most charismatic figures in English literature.