Well, I must say that Ruth Wilson was a better Jane Eyre. The Series from 2006 was absolutely great! I am not as impressed by this interpretation, but it was not bad.
Hmm. The casting wasn't that bad - W. Hurt, for example, is very talented - but the script definitely was horrible and didn't do justice to the actors. The lack of long dialogues & so many other important scenes... It was hard to understand WHY Jane and mr. R. fell in love.
True (somewhat) about casting. As much as I like playboyish Stevens and aristocratic Dalton, it is Hurt who seems to be the closest to Bronte's Rochester bruised and battered by life. And Gainsbourg as Jane looks like she stepped out of the 19th c. portraits. But don't get me started on her acting!.. Yes, she is all reserve, but truly Jane has more to her than just self-composure!
Ruth Wilson's Jane is pure joy to watch: her personality has so many facets that it comes as no surprise that someone as worldly as Rochester can fall in love with her for her own sake and not out of loneliness.
Finally! A director who is brave enough to portray Rochester as maimed by the fire as described in the book! Now, if only they were to amputate the arm... just saying. Hollywood tends to gloss over the fact. =P
This version is good at plot stucture, but I prefer the 2006 version for the characters/ actors performance make me understand better about why and how they love each other
This was Jane Eyre fast forward. I really wished they had more passion and they didn't cut out St. John as being persuasive. Funny, he actually seemed to truly care for her int his one.
@johnyzero2000 I AGREE! Honestly; all the sh!t she was put through, it all makes up in the end and people are complaining about it? The difference between the miniseries and this film is because this is a MOVIE and the other is a TV SERIES. Of course they will add more to the series because they can.
I don't care what anyone says, this ending is absolutely magnificent and better than the 2006 version.
@cakehaslayers I have the book and i've seen the 2006 version. i liked it MUCH better than this butchery. it had excelent casting, real chemistry, and most importantly kept to the main line of the book.
@vintagegirl31 I agree - butchery, that is exactly what this is - loosely inspired by, they should have called it, or Jane Eyre re-written...tastes differ, I know, but how anyone can like Charlotte Gainsbourg in this is beyond me. She cannot, she does not act, she recites lines without feeling. I'm really rather abhorred. Didn't want or intend to be...no offence, just my two cents!:-)
@cakehaslayers Huh? I've read the book and I find the 2006 version to be the one that follows the story line the most. They change only a few things, and they do not cut major plots out. While this is a respectable adaptation I find the 06 more enjoyable as well as the 1997 version. I love Hurt put I find him lacking in his movie. I'm sure that is not his fault. If they allowed him to actually act like the Rochester in the book he would be amazing, but they did not allow it. This Jane was okay.
@cakehaslayers lol, but what happens if you read the book after watching THIS??? You're in for a truckload of surprises...lol, you'll have a hard time bending your brain to make sense of it all!
I did watch the 2006 version first, loved it, read the book, loved it, too, more of course, for it contains even more of the good stuff which Ruth and Toby succeeded in bringing to life...! I don't mind adaptations, just bad films like this one...;-)
this version is much nicer to Adele, I got the impression in the book Jane just switched her to a better and closer school to have the french beaten out of her.
yea but the daughter is probably going to become insaine when she is like 20 so yea haha great ending. o and what about the doctor who watched after her when she was sad i mean really wtf.
I think people are confusing "lust" and "passion." Their subtle looks and gestures afford a great amount of intimacy, especially during this era. The actress for Jane did an incredible job too I think, but, of course, we're all entitled to our own opinion. :p
~My favorite "Jane" by far, almost exactly how I pictured her when I read the book but as to "Mr. Rochester" I have to say my favorite and the one most like the book in my opinion is the one fron the 2006 BBC version.
As hard as I tried to like this version its impossible. This version is so boring compared with all the other versions, which is mainly do to the lack of passion between the two characters also the lack of any chemistry at all between the two actors didn't help either.
WOW. THIS MOVIE SUCKS MONKEY TESTICALS. I WATCHED THE ENTIRE MOVIE AND IN MY MIND, I WAS LIKE: "THIS ISN'T HOW THE BOOK GOES, JANE DOESN'T DO THIS AND THAT. WTF? WHERE'S THIS PART AND THAT? BLAH!"
MAN, I'VE NEVER BEEN SO DISAPOINTED IN A MOVIE BEFORE.
THE PERSON WHO MADE THIS MOVIE OBVIOUSLY DID NOT READ THE BOOK.
I thnk there were less emotions shown cuz the time it was written in n set in was Victorian era as my teacher said where ppl never showed emotions...very stiff ppl perhaps thts y they show such coldness here too.
I enjoyed this. However, I felt it lacked substance and passion. A good movie, but as far as the differences between it and the book, they're pretty hard to ignore.
@MoThEr04LiFe Charlotte Gainsbourg.She's not staid in real life.Her father is the most famous French singer-songwriter,poet & director Serge G.Her mother is actress Jane Birkin.
wow...this movie could not be any different than the book!! It's like they took the title "Jane Eyre" and then made their own story with the same characters. Honestly if you've ever read the book, you should be disgusted after watching this!! It seems like this is the general theme of all of the Jane Eyre movie versions I have seen. Also, Jane might be described as plain in the book, but she is not really ugly and weak. I wish they would pick better actresses to play the lead!
We all have our favourite versions, mine are the 1970 and 2006, but I still enjoyed this none the less, and there is no denying we all love the same exquisitely wonderful, timeless story. Thank you for posting.
I think the only fault in this movie was naming it Jane Eyre. If Zefirelli had changed the names of people and places, this would have been more easily accepted by audiences, and perhaps, made its way to higher acclaim.
Why can't there be movies like this, beautiful, chaste, and with genuine love?
All there is is silly teenage faces, sex, adultery and more garbage. The most beautiful thing about this movie is that the director changed the plot considerably and turned it into a masterpiece.
This is a lovely version for those who have not read the book. It deviates too much to be the best version, although I love the actors and actresses in this one. Supreme choice! Also, the music is lovely, and it helps add to the emotional tie between Edward and Jane. Thank you for uploading! :)
My favorite is the 1997 version with Samantha Morton and Ciaran Hinds. Although they do leave out the information about Jane being cousins to the Rivers', at least you see believable relationships. This was just awkward and painful to watch. The only part I enjoyed was Anna Paquin's role.
Personally I enjoyed the 2006 miniseries more than this version, mostly because the main characters in the 2006 version had chemistry. In this version I felt the two main characters could have been siblings kissing not two people who love each other.
@AntALVdream1 its true but personally i find the simplicity in romance leaves a rekindling flame it touches our hearts in a classical fashion that love is simple simple with every slight touch remark and it truly surpasses flesh i love that....what joy these classics bring to a world who searches but rarely finds such love or the meaning of such in this era...
What a beautiful movie. I cried at the beginning. I am reading that there are different versions of this, I'm very glad that I didn't know that, and I picked this one to watch (by chance).
yes its great but the end with st john is not as developed as in the book and diana is not shown. the music is good and the the acting is good also. didnt mr rochester have dark hair? and ms Ingram is not as beautiful as was in the book. I felt more sadness for bertha mason in this movie.
According to me, this is the best version of Jane Eyre.
Such great acting! Im amazed, I have watched this movie more than four times and I could watch it twice as much! This movie is a classic it is simply wonderful!
Great movie...great cast..of course it cant be the same as the book or the other versions..but it was great..Jane is like i imagined her when i first read the book wheni was 9.Love her and Rochester is great himself.I cant help my tears when i c them together.
Thank you for uploading this in it's entirety , I wanted to watch this and it was not available to watch online from netflix and I had a desire to see this film again, I think this is the best version of Jane Eyre I have seen.
No wonder we couldn't make a comment on Part 11! How rushed, and unlike the book was THAT? OMG! In 10 minutes we are done with the whole of St. John, the school she starts, the relationship with the other female, what is her name? Bah! That was a horrible condensation of the story!!!
@dcavazos53 You have to remember, this is a Zeffirelli film. And is the product of his interpretation. I feel like Jane's runaway period with the girls school and Sinjun could be a movie all by itself!
@dcavazos53 Totally agree. Plus her beggar period in an unknown town. Gateshead was NOT where St John and his sisters were, she did NOT know them previously...and this one doesn't even say they're cousins! She was so overjoyed to find family - it was a very important part of the book IMO. Plus the proposal scene with St John was so vague and showed nothing of what he was really like.
the worst version of all, not enough feeling and it strayed too far from the book. however, i do understand how difficult it would be to include everything precisely as it should be within a specified amount of time.
--the 2006 version is one of the best, & far better than this.
@AnimeNiacMayumi "Jane Eyre" is one of the best books I've ever read, and my favorite. I enjoyed this adaptation and have seen many others. However, I have yet to see any movie that can come even close to touching Bronte's characters and depth of emotion.
@AnimeNiacMayumi No it's certainly not, and this one leaves out far more than the 2006 version. I suggest you read the book, although the Zelda Clarke/Timothy Dalton version of Jane Eyre goes quite close to the book and IMHO is eminently more watchable than this.
for two hours they did a super job. And I think; for the 'fact' he'd been burnt by fire this guy is more realistic then the other versions I've seen (though I do confess the 'romantic' side of me likes some of the other versions better). Sitll, not bad for two hours.
I'm really sorry to have to say that, but this is by far the worst version of Jane Eyre I've ever seen. The version from 1983 is better, and the one from 2006 is probably the best (didn't like the one from 1997 either). Again sorry, but St. John Rivers in Gateshead?!? And the house burns down right after she leaves? Where is Diane? And why does Rochester still live in Thornfield? They should not have tried to put the whole story in just two hours. See Toby Stephens and Ruth Wilson instead.
I have not seen the 1983 version, but I think one should consider the difference between a film and a Tv adaptation. I liked the one from 2006, but the Zeffirelli film was the first one I saw, and considering they had 2 hours to tell us the story I think they did a very good job. Maybe the one I liked the most was an older film with Orson Welles as Rochester, but I was very young and I'm not sure about that.
love this so much!a truly love story...
sallysalsabila99 5 days ago
Well, I must say that Ruth Wilson was a better Jane Eyre. The Series from 2006 was absolutely great! I am not as impressed by this interpretation, but it was not bad.
Valianso 3 weeks ago
What a movie !
Balqesabdul 3 weeks ago
Thank you, I hope to find someone like Mr. Rochester in my life, I love this movie, thanks a lot.
litavidbra67 2 months ago
that's it! l'm sick of all the comparing and complaining in all the comments. l'm off the read the book to see what the fuss is about.
TheMrmi22 2 months ago
misleading ending is misleading
IronBreloom 2 months ago
This verstion is the best for me, and I love all the actors and actresses in this movie, they are amazing!
newchocoonly 3 months ago 2
Enjoyed this movie very much! Thank u OshunHH for taking the time to upload the entire movie..
dixielillian 3 months ago
AALDKDHFGAFAKDHSA
I hate reality
0purplechicken0 4 months ago
Hmm. The casting wasn't that bad - W. Hurt, for example, is very talented - but the script definitely was horrible and didn't do justice to the actors. The lack of long dialogues & so many other important scenes... It was hard to understand WHY Jane and mr. R. fell in love.
fakesmile90 6 months ago 6
@fakesmile90
True (somewhat) about casting. As much as I like playboyish Stevens and aristocratic Dalton, it is Hurt who seems to be the closest to Bronte's Rochester bruised and battered by life. And Gainsbourg as Jane looks like she stepped out of the 19th c. portraits. But don't get me started on her acting!.. Yes, she is all reserve, but truly Jane has more to her than just self-composure!
zxaddictxz 3 weeks ago
@zxaddictxz
Ruth Wilson's Jane is pure joy to watch: her personality has so many facets that it comes as no surprise that someone as worldly as Rochester can fall in love with her for her own sake and not out of loneliness.
zxaddictxz 3 weeks ago
ohh i luv this movie
msiluvsnickerz 6 months ago
Beautiful! I love this version!
FootStepsOfAngels 6 months ago 2
the movie was a great in its special way ^^
thefatima555 7 months ago 4
it is bad adaptation, why everythin is not like in book?!
katarzynameisner 8 months ago 2
Finally! A director who is brave enough to portray Rochester as maimed by the fire as described in the book! Now, if only they were to amputate the arm... just saying. Hollywood tends to gloss over the fact. =P
Brilliant adaptation, btw. :)
murderoticaa 8 months ago 7
should a good love story
Peinlover07 8 months ago
This version is good at plot stucture, but I prefer the 2006 version for the characters/ actors performance make me understand better about why and how they love each other
MsGEOLOVER 9 months ago
Wow.
Supernova5390 9 months ago
This was Jane Eyre fast forward. I really wished they had more passion and they didn't cut out St. John as being persuasive. Funny, he actually seemed to truly care for her int his one.
SnapeHermioneshipper 10 months ago 14
This ending always makes me cry! Fuck those who call this a sentimentalized version since when is having warmth and heart a bad thing?
johnyzero2000 10 months ago 5
@johnyzero2000 I AGREE! Honestly; all the sh!t she was put through, it all makes up in the end and people are complaining about it? The difference between the miniseries and this film is because this is a MOVIE and the other is a TV SERIES. Of course they will add more to the series because they can.
I don't care what anyone says, this ending is absolutely magnificent and better than the 2006 version.
ghezalA 10 months ago
it makes me cry as well....
anjasingt 8 months ago
Well so far the 2006 version with Ruth Wilson is still the best in my opinion.
2011Shelbie 11 months ago
Well so far the 2006 version with Ruth Wilson is still the best in my opinion.
2011Shelbie 11 months ago
I absolutely LOVE this version! So sweet and gentle. Well done, a Classic! Thanks for posting!
Supernova51280 11 months ago 2
THIS IS ONE OF MY FAVORITE MOVIES. i LOVE ENGLISH SET MOVIES. WILLIAM HURT IS A GREAT ACTOR.
yackelyn01 11 months ago
Anyone who likes the 2006 version best is going to be sorely disappointed if they ever read the actual book.
cakehaslayers 11 months ago 5
@cakehaslayers I have the book and i've seen the 2006 version. i liked it MUCH better than this butchery. it had excelent casting, real chemistry, and most importantly kept to the main line of the book.
vintagegirl31 11 months ago
@vintagegirl31 I agree - butchery, that is exactly what this is - loosely inspired by, they should have called it, or Jane Eyre re-written...tastes differ, I know, but how anyone can like Charlotte Gainsbourg in this is beyond me. She cannot, she does not act, she recites lines without feeling. I'm really rather abhorred. Didn't want or intend to be...no offence, just my two cents!:-)
HermioneNo1 8 months ago 4
@cakehaslayers Huh? I've read the book and I find the 2006 version to be the one that follows the story line the most. They change only a few things, and they do not cut major plots out. While this is a respectable adaptation I find the 06 more enjoyable as well as the 1997 version. I love Hurt put I find him lacking in his movie. I'm sure that is not his fault. If they allowed him to actually act like the Rochester in the book he would be amazing, but they did not allow it. This Jane was okay.
SnapeHermioneshipper 10 months ago
@cakehaslayers lol, but what happens if you read the book after watching THIS??? You're in for a truckload of surprises...lol, you'll have a hard time bending your brain to make sense of it all!
I did watch the 2006 version first, loved it, read the book, loved it, too, more of course, for it contains even more of the good stuff which Ruth and Toby succeeded in bringing to life...! I don't mind adaptations, just bad films like this one...;-)
HermioneNo1 8 months ago 6
Anyone who likes the 2006 version best is going to be sorely disappointed if they every read the actual book.
cakehaslayers 11 months ago
This is true love, not the way tv wants us to think, but pure and sincere.
Neidytrozeski 11 months ago
this version is much nicer to Adele, I got the impression in the book Jane just switched her to a better and closer school to have the french beaten out of her.
fudgyvmp 11 months ago
yea but the daughter is probably going to become insaine when she is like 20 so yea haha great ending. o and what about the doctor who watched after her when she was sad i mean really wtf.
moomoomoo7 1 year ago
@moomoomoo7 Adele's mother was not the crazy chick. And the doctor never loved her, he just liked her and was very practical about life.
AnkokuEvangeline 11 months ago
I think people are confusing "lust" and "passion." Their subtle looks and gestures afford a great amount of intimacy, especially during this era. The actress for Jane did an incredible job too I think, but, of course, we're all entitled to our own opinion. :p
BlueDragoness58 1 year ago
thanks for the uploads :)
Captaincorez 1 year ago
~My favorite "Jane" by far, almost exactly how I pictured her when I read the book but as to "Mr. Rochester" I have to say my favorite and the one most like the book in my opinion is the one fron the 2006 BBC version.
eternalstormy 1 year ago 2
incredible story...i love the simplicity of their passion.... im tired of watching lustful love.
333Sana333 1 year ago 4
As hard as I tried to like this version its impossible. This version is so boring compared with all the other versions, which is mainly do to the lack of passion between the two characters also the lack of any chemistry at all between the two actors didn't help either.
BillieJoesGirl06 1 year ago 3
ugh. i don't feel it. there's no chemistry. it's like watching a father and daughter kiss!
jadeyes914 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
WOW. THIS MOVIE SUCKS MONKEY TESTICALS. I WATCHED THE ENTIRE MOVIE AND IN MY MIND, I WAS LIKE: "THIS ISN'T HOW THE BOOK GOES, JANE DOESN'T DO THIS AND THAT. WTF? WHERE'S THIS PART AND THAT? BLAH!"
MAN, I'VE NEVER BEEN SO DISAPOINTED IN A MOVIE BEFORE.
THE PERSON WHO MADE THIS MOVIE OBVIOUSLY DID NOT READ THE BOOK.
wilsonshatred 1 year ago
Comment removed
wilsonshatred 1 year ago
no passion at all between main charakters
zahhiva 1 year ago 2
I thnk there were less emotions shown cuz the time it was written in n set in was Victorian era as my teacher said where ppl never showed emotions...very stiff ppl perhaps thts y they show such coldness here too.
arsah786 1 year ago 2
no heart. cold. BAD version.
BBC is the BEST (2006)
woodyaan 1 year ago 3
the perfect Jane
yt1account 1 year ago 2
I enjoyed this. However, I felt it lacked substance and passion. A good movie, but as far as the differences between it and the book, they're pretty hard to ignore.
dearjenny684 1 year ago
Wonderful movie :0)
MaikaDee 1 year ago
who was the young lady who played jane
MoThEr04LiFe 1 year ago
@MoThEr04LiFe Charlotte Gainsbourg.She's not staid in real life.Her father is the most famous French singer-songwriter,poet & director Serge G.Her mother is actress Jane Birkin.
RasMajnouni 1 year ago
I always wondered was Mrs. Fairfax blind as well I love this version of the film
ronssexybikerbae 1 year ago
Best Jane ever. And Zefirelli...
Petrushkata 1 year ago 2
wow...this movie could not be any different than the book!! It's like they took the title "Jane Eyre" and then made their own story with the same characters. Honestly if you've ever read the book, you should be disgusted after watching this!! It seems like this is the general theme of all of the Jane Eyre movie versions I have seen. Also, Jane might be described as plain in the book, but she is not really ugly and weak. I wish they would pick better actresses to play the lead!
akkeigher 1 year ago
We all have our favourite versions, mine are the 1970 and 2006, but I still enjoyed this none the less, and there is no denying we all love the same exquisitely wonderful, timeless story. Thank you for posting.
islandsylph 1 year ago
there is no passion in this movie! come on film makers....the entire book was passion. stand by 2006 is waaaayyyy better!
aksxncs 1 year ago 3
the actors are excellent but there is a lack of passion through out the movie, the new series is more Jane Eyre
megg85 1 year ago 3
I think the only fault in this movie was naming it Jane Eyre. If Zefirelli had changed the names of people and places, this would have been more easily accepted by audiences, and perhaps, made its way to higher acclaim.
contrerados 1 year ago
@contrerados
yea your right, such a pity for it is well made
canndc 1 year ago
one of my favorite books but this not a good movie adaption
ChildOfTheFlower 1 year ago
Why can't there be movies like this, beautiful, chaste, and with genuine love?
All there is is silly teenage faces, sex, adultery and more garbage. The most beautiful thing about this movie is that the director changed the plot considerably and turned it into a masterpiece.
contrerados 1 year ago 5
I love Jane Eyre, she really shows how falling in love can make a person fill so complete and happy! How that other person is a part of you.
TsukiHana146 1 year ago
Ok, if you're gonna have the dang voiceover why change the famous line, to "and so I married him!" I guess because you're not reading. Gah.
Jennytheshipper 1 year ago
This is an excellent version, but my favorite will always be the 1997 version.
Words cannot express my love for this story.<3
extremeXjapanophile 1 year ago
I think the actors were very well chosen, but the script is poorly created and lacking.
I never saw a movie that I would say is a good adaptation of this book.
denchiC 1 year ago 4
Oh this is so wonderful... this is my favourite adaptation, no matter what... I wish for such deep love in our world...
fodorzsuzsi 1 year ago
jane has long nake
TheKasukabesan 1 year ago
@TheKasukabesan Neck*
ops xD
TheKasukabesan 1 year ago
@TheKasukabesan lol
GeishaSakura313 1 year ago
This is a lovely version for those who have not read the book. It deviates too much to be the best version, although I love the actors and actresses in this one. Supreme choice! Also, the music is lovely, and it helps add to the emotional tie between Edward and Jane. Thank you for uploading! :)
gabbsaton 1 year ago
My favorite is the 1997 version with Samantha Morton and Ciaran Hinds. Although they do leave out the information about Jane being cousins to the Rivers', at least you see believable relationships. This was just awkward and painful to watch. The only part I enjoyed was Anna Paquin's role.
Mamooshka220 1 year ago 2
What's that nonsense of them knowing her from the beginning and not being her cousins?
Such gross alterations ruin movies
giliellthesecond 1 year ago 5
Well that was a pretty lame adaptation.
imasinnerimasaint 1 year ago
Personally I enjoyed the 2006 miniseries more than this version, mostly because the main characters in the 2006 version had chemistry. In this version I felt the two main characters could have been siblings kissing not two people who love each other.
AntALVdream1 2 years ago 63
i agree with u. and this version takes so many liberties.
LaiLerd 1 year ago
@AntALVdream1 its true but personally i find the simplicity in romance leaves a rekindling flame it touches our hearts in a classical fashion that love is simple simple with every slight touch remark and it truly surpasses flesh i love that....what joy these classics bring to a world who searches but rarely finds such love or the meaning of such in this era...
floeticlove 1 year ago
i love the book dearly nd this movie, its just....im not big on William Hurt being the actor for Mr.Rochester.
naomileilanii 2 years ago 2
What a beautiful movie. I cried at the beginning. I am reading that there are different versions of this, I'm very glad that I didn't know that, and I picked this one to watch (by chance).
RisaLovelyComplex 2 years ago
i will always love this version more than the others!!!!.... this one really makes me cry!!! it's really beautiful
tatimon87 2 years ago
its actually great! very beautiful love story
superangel898 2 years ago
yes its great but the end with st john is not as developed as in the book and diana is not shown. the music is good and the the acting is good also. didnt mr rochester have dark hair? and ms Ingram is not as beautiful as was in the book. I felt more sadness for bertha mason in this movie.
lunalunita08 2 years ago
oh, and they dont even show her being st john's cousin.
lunalunita08 2 years ago
I know, how could they leave that out....
thejanefactor 1 year ago
This is my favorite Version. the characters are much more true to the book compared to 06. Love it!
o0GloryFades0o 2 years ago
not true.
LaiLerd 1 year ago
Version 2006 is the best!
RojoMinerva 2 years ago 3
According to me, this is the best version of Jane Eyre.
Such great acting! Im amazed, I have watched this movie more than four times and I could watch it twice as much! This movie is a classic it is simply wonderful!
Vladica99 2 years ago 4
Great movie...great cast..of course it cant be the same as the book or the other versions..but it was great..Jane is like i imagined her when i first read the book wheni was 9.Love her and Rochester is great himself.I cant help my tears when i c them together.
mukikforu 2 years ago
didn't like the jane or the rochester in this movie. the 2006 version was much better and so was the 1970 version.
KicksCutie 2 years ago
love it
latinrosetje 2 years ago 2
excellent movie, the actress who plays jane is incredible
sdhfasdk 2 years ago 68
charlotte gainsbourg she is good and very controversial with her other work but my favorite version is the 1997 version. I find it much more moving.
cymbeli 2 years ago
thank you i think ill watch that version.
sdhfasdk 2 years ago
I agree
RisaLovelyComplex 2 years ago
@sdhfasdk
@sdhfasdk it is charlotte gainsbourg - the daughter of famous french singer / composer serge gainsbourg and model / actress jane birkin.
5Heliotrope 1 year ago
@sdhfasdk i know, right? Jane eyre "reincarnated" :)
shineyourlight55 10 months ago
yes she is amazing!!!! so beautiful!!! and expressive!!!
anjasingt 8 months ago
What's the song at the end?
shoppinggirl125 2 years ago
he really does have some pretty brilliant eyes.
bright, bright blue 8)
JoDeveau 2 years ago 3
I haven't read the book but I think this was a really nice film. Interesting adaptation, very understated. Sort of believable.
missbabyice 2 years ago 2
Thank you for uploading this in it's entirety , I wanted to watch this and it was not available to watch online from netflix and I had a desire to see this film again, I think this is the best version of Jane Eyre I have seen.
tweeters1720 2 years ago 4
i think this is a really good version
JonnyTTV 2 years ago 2
It moves relatively quickly though, so it doesn't include all that happens in the book. I do like the actors that were picked for the parts, however.
abigailm32 2 years ago
omg ya <3333
psychsg 2 years ago
i do too..i was so pleasantly suprised
ukgirlonce 2 years ago
No wonder we couldn't make a comment on Part 11! How rushed, and unlike the book was THAT? OMG! In 10 minutes we are done with the whole of St. John, the school she starts, the relationship with the other female, what is her name? Bah! That was a horrible condensation of the story!!!
dcavazos53 2 years ago 3
@dcavazos53 You have to remember, this is a Zeffirelli film. And is the product of his interpretation. I feel like Jane's runaway period with the girls school and Sinjun could be a movie all by itself!
lavadalareine 2 years ago 2
mmhmm i totally agree
psychsg 2 years ago
@dcavazos53 Totally agree. Plus her beggar period in an unknown town. Gateshead was NOT where St John and his sisters were, she did NOT know them previously...and this one doesn't even say they're cousins! She was so overjoyed to find family - it was a very important part of the book IMO. Plus the proposal scene with St John was so vague and showed nothing of what he was really like.
imasinnerimasaint 1 year ago 3
the worst version of all, not enough feeling and it strayed too far from the book. however, i do understand how difficult it would be to include everything precisely as it should be within a specified amount of time.
--the 2006 version is one of the best, & far better than this.
nyxluxnyx 2 years ago
thank u very much for uploading i like this version the most.
anitasalvador 2 years ago
Does this one actually end? lol the 2006 version leaves so much unanswered!! Is that how the book is? 0_0
AnimeNiacMayumi 2 years ago
This movie is not like the book at all.
mizlust 2 years ago 4
@AnimeNiacMayumi "Jane Eyre" is one of the best books I've ever read, and my favorite. I enjoyed this adaptation and have seen many others. However, I have yet to see any movie that can come even close to touching Bronte's characters and depth of emotion.
lavadalareine 2 years ago
@AnimeNiacMayumi No it's certainly not, and this one leaves out far more than the 2006 version. I suggest you read the book, although the Zelda Clarke/Timothy Dalton version of Jane Eyre goes quite close to the book and IMHO is eminently more watchable than this.
imasinnerimasaint 1 year ago
thank you for uploading it was realy a good film xx
stoneoffarel 2 years ago
for two hours they did a super job. And I think; for the 'fact' he'd been burnt by fire this guy is more realistic then the other versions I've seen (though I do confess the 'romantic' side of me likes some of the other versions better). Sitll, not bad for two hours.
Dreamcatcherwrites 2 years ago 2
Thank you so much for uploading this! I've wanted to see this version for awhile.
emmers591 2 years ago
conky!
ugandancaucasian 2 years ago
THE MUSIC IS SIMPLY EXQUISITE.
rosdal90 2 years ago 7
couldnt agree more :D
lauraingallsfan79 2 years ago
Thanks, I have added this to my classic literature playlists!
ClassicLiterature 2 years ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
But I have to admit the music is absolutely wonderful and they have the most adorable little Adèle.
C2407C 2 years ago 2
Comment removed
C2407C 2 years ago
I'm really sorry to have to say that, but this is by far the worst version of Jane Eyre I've ever seen. The version from 1983 is better, and the one from 2006 is probably the best (didn't like the one from 1997 either). Again sorry, but St. John Rivers in Gateshead?!? And the house burns down right after she leaves? Where is Diane? And why does Rochester still live in Thornfield? They should not have tried to put the whole story in just two hours. See Toby Stephens and Ruth Wilson instead.
C2407C 2 years ago 4
I have not seen the 1983 version, but I think one should consider the difference between a film and a Tv adaptation. I liked the one from 2006, but the Zeffirelli film was the first one I saw, and considering they had 2 hours to tell us the story I think they did a very good job. Maybe the one I liked the most was an older film with Orson Welles as Rochester, but I was very young and I'm not sure about that.
medusasmile81 2 years ago 4
Orson Welles was the 1944 adaptation of Jane Eyre. You can see this version on youtube and it is definitely my favorite!
EbonySlade19 2 years ago
I had not thanked u yet for this information. I'll do it now :) . Thanx a lot!
medusasmile81 2 years ago
I tried to find one iwth Orson Wells and I can't seem to find it; if you do please give me a holler. okay??
Dreamcatcherwrites 2 years ago 2
Dreamcatcherwrites,
if you have not found 1944's with Fontaine/Welles yet, you can check my playlists. I have collected some Jane Eyre-adaptations there.
domramalaja 2 years ago
I love this film, I think it's the best version :)
tonigirl92 2 years ago 3
thanks for this gift it has youch my heart one of my favorite book and this version of the movie a love.
girlituri 2 years ago 3
the music is beautiful but melanchony, like the music score of BRAVEHEART.
missyadams 3 years ago
what a pleasure - thanks for posting
erikg1 3 years ago
such a beautiful film. thanks for posting it.
hevybrothmeister 3 years ago
thanks for posting this version lvd it lolxxxx
arabbint 3 years ago
it may not be the best version but it will always have the best music
Maksimfan 3 years ago 3