Jane Eyre (1996) Franco Zeffirelli Trailer

[annetekoul]

WILLIAM HURT MAKES A VERY BORING ROCHESTER AND HIS ACCENT IS NOT BRITISH AT ALL

[annetekoul]

@themeem888 The best version is the 1983 version starring Timothy Dalton and Zelah Clarke.If you are a Jane Eyre fan you'll love it!

[themeem888]

pleas some one tell me wich version is closer to the booke events the old one or the new one .

[ibadui1]

I'm in love with 1996 version, I've seen all the others but this is the one!

[ibadui1]

Loved 1996 Jane Eyre, is the best of all seen!

[CompletlyBunned]

The decor is much, much better than that of the newer version, but Jane is too pretty and I don't like Rochester in this one.

[fakmemeen]

i like 2011 version better, the actors show stronger performance etc.

[ruttieb]

and of course, above all, the main actors and everything that they bring along to their performance. Clearly, so much more and beyond their periodical costumes n makeup; It's this actually inexplicable "charm in the air" that characterizes every truly excellent work of art, films especially.....and this having been said, we're all free (luckily so!!) to choose "our liking", haha haha (: Enjoy that which you enjoy the most, and don't let anyone rob you of your joys nor of your personal taste(:

[PrincipessaNutellosa]

@ruttieb I don't think so :)

[ruttieb]

The whole "complex" ot the 1983 BBC production makes it so unique. A film need not be 100% faithful to the novel in order to be EXCELLENT. This "faithfulness" to the novel cannot be and isn't the only or most important criterion. THere are so many others: the choice of scenery, the music selected to accompany the scenes, the selected  "chain of episodes" elected from the novel in order to make a story that delivers the spirit of the novel, the cast, the whole of it, let alone the main roles

[ruttieb]

No one is supposed to go "against" mainstream opinion as far as works of art are concerned.......there are more rigid "professional" criteria for judging such works, and, then there's the personal sensation, one's "inner voice". I, personally, am IN LOVE with the 1983 version, and I've seen ALL VERSIONS, but, as I've said, it's more than anything else, a matter of personal taste. It's either you find one or another version more or less "mesmerizing"....&4me it's Timothy Dalton & Zelah Clarke(:

[TolkienGoonieGirl]

How I love this version!!! *.* even though it's not faithful to the book, it's a piece of really really good cinema.

[chefchick1]

This version is like cardboard... Stiff, weak, and flat.

[GemmaMayes]

the young jane eyre looks like the chick from True Blood

[rociocc88]

@GemmaMayes it is the same from true blood, Anna Paquin

[buzzlolyear]

@GemmaMayes it is her

[19franctireur93]

sooo i know im probably supposed to go against the whole mainstream thing and say the 1983 one is the best, but i just saw the michael fassbender/ mia wasikowska version and i have to say that it's hands down the best.

[JollyGoodEh]

my favourite. :)

[Jessicaisrealawesome]

"what's the matter? ;D You're shivering ;D *wink wink*" ..."I'm cold. :|"

[Silthrith]

I hate it when watching an old trailer like this you learn about the whole story..

[Wolfen443]

The new version cuts out her farewell and the fire scene, but is just as powerful too. 

[ElvenDeath]

Worst version? Couldn't agree less.

Mr Rochester looks much older than her, rude, misterious, and it's hard to say if you like him or not. Jane is not pretty, she looks naive, insignificant, but she has something that catches your attention. The chemistry between the characters is perfect, plus the dialogs are almost the same that the ones in the book.

[TolkienGoonieGirl]

@ElvenDeath I agree with you! In Zeffirelli's version a big part of the book is missing (when Jane goes away etc...) but I still think it's the best movie version, I simply adore the interpretation of the two protagonists! I saw the BBC latest version but I didn't like it very much... maybe more complete but with no doubt less artistic! This is cinema!!!

[hihosilverlining2]

oh cool. He is a good choice! rather handsom too :-) But I still really like the direction and the artistry and the humour and chemistry of the 2006 characters....will be a tough act to beat...

[waterforpeople]

Disagree.

[hihosilverlining2]

this is the WORST version I have seen. The casting was terrible and the relationship was not at all seen in growth...the 2006 tv version was the very best I think.

[KellyGreen5555]

@hihosilverlining2 Agreed. Lousy casting. William Hurt is all wrong for the part, and Charlotte Gainsbourg has a head like a peanut. I like Charlotte fine, but strictly with her hair done, please.

I look forward to the new release with Michael Fassbender (Thank God!) as Rochester.

[hihosilverlining2]

@KellyGreen5555 - lol wow, how many times can you release the same story lol...going to go and look up who Michael Fassbender is....

[KellyGreen5555]

@hihosilverlining2 Curious what you think of this ongoing argument regarding casting actors in romantic leads...Are there requisites?

[kathykisslight]

@KellyGreen5555 : I`m sorry for you that you judge someone`s acting ability according to what they look like. Why would the main characters have to look like Hollywood sex symbols?? It`s brilliant that Jane is played by a plain-looking actress: at least it`s like the book. The new version looks extremely American style and it is undeniable. Pretty actresses like Keira Knightley..Jeez, she probably had the worst ever performance in the history of period dramas. She couldn`t do the accent either

[KellyGreen5555]

@kathykisslight You are not understanding my point clearly. William Hurt is a fine actor, just not for a romantic leading role. It's tantamount to casting Kathy Bates as Juliet. The actor must accomplish some roles physically as well.

There are terrible actors who look beautiful and terrible actors who are nondescript. Ditto the great actors.

BTW, Keira actually received a Best Actress nomination for that "worst ever performance in the history of period dramas."

[kathykisslight]

@KellyGreen5555 : Hahaha, how typically American of you! Someone playing a romantic role in a period drama doesn`t have to look like a male stripper. English lords were often very plain and definitely lacked the Hollywood look. That you don`t fancy William Hurt, it doesn`t mean he is not a handsome man. Nothing like Colin Firth but handsome enough. As for Keira, that anorexic locust is so over-rated, I can never see why. Anyway, if Natalie Portman gets an Oscar, now nothing can surprise me..Pfff

[KellyGreen5555]

@kathykisslight Natalie Portman isn't a very good actor.

I never stated anything about looking like "a male stripper."

"Anorexic locust" is very mean spirited and immature. Shame on you. What are you, 8?

You do not know if I'm American or not. It's wise to assume nothing...especially regarding strangers in the Youtube comments section.

[kathykisslight]

@KellyGreen5555 : And how old are you? 3? You don`t know that you have your own profile/account on Youtube? Ok, I am outta here. This conversation is pointless. It is like trying to discuss world politics with a kindergarten kid. Goodbye!