Watch Jane Eyre For Free

Very very predictable, including the post credit scene !!!

not horrible nor great

From my favorite movies..

This is a small, humorous movie in some ways, but it has a huge heart. What a nice experience.

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.

I have loved the A&E version of Jane Eyre since I was a child. The story always spoke to me. I very recently finally read the book and was even more blown away and in awe. It is brilliant, fiction at it's finest! After finishing the book I re-watched the A&E version, the newest version with Mia Wasikowska, and the BBC version. All of which are quite brilliant! I was going through netflix and saw this. I got excited that there was a version I had yet to see and I watched it. It didn't take me long to realize it was ridiculous. The plot strays from the book far too much. The writing of the script was terrible. The acting was terrible. Both Jane and Edward are very passionate people. Jane is rather subdued, but still, when reading the novel and in the other film adaptions, you can catch glimpses of her true character. Both of them in this film were like wooden dolls. So lacking in feeling or conviction. And St. John was shoved in here like an afterthought. His part was nothing like how it was supposed to be and his proposal was mind numbingly, hilariously out of character! I laughed through a great deal of this film. And I don't even feel bad saying that.

This movie is really just not very good. The story was largely rushed and truncated- especially the ending. I know things have to be cut to fit it into such a short time frame (less than two hours) but I feel it was just handled clumsily. The first two thirds of the movie were just mediocre, nothing to write home about, but the last part was just a mess. The acting was nothing special either. Those who were good were wasted in their too-small roles. Those who were featured more were not very good. The two words that appear most in my notes are "flat" and "emotionless." It was an all around disappointment, devoid of all of the passion and fire of the book.Fiona Shaw was very good, but was entirely wasted as Mrs. Reed, in her very limited screen time. Gateshead was way too rushed. Anna Paquin is very good as Jane, but the character is even more feisty than in the book. Even though she was near 25, Charlotte Gainsbourg did look the right age for Jane and they did a pretty good job making her look plain. She was way too tall though (with an very long neck) and although she had everything to make a good Jane, she was pretty dull actually. She was even more reserved and quiet than the book Jane, which, given how passionate her younger self was in this, was especially jarring.If I thought Gainsbourg's Jane was lackluster, that was nothing compared to William Hurt's Rochester. My original feelings on him were "block of wood" and my opinion remains unchanged upon the latest viewing. My above mentioned "flat" and "emotionless" apply to him more than anyone or anything else in this film. Not only did he and Jane not have any chemistry (I'm unsure how they even fell in love in this, since they have so few scenes together), he just didn't seem to care at all. He was so dull! The proposal scene was so passionless, and even their kissing looked staged (i.e. their lips did not really touch). He did not show Rochester's brooding/angry side or the humorous side. He just played a block of wood.

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.