Bronte's novel JANE EYRE has been brought to screen several times so far. This adaptation filmed by Franco Zeffirelli seems to me the most individual one. The director does not copy the book but entails his personal feelings and evaluations to the strange fate of Jane Eyre throughout the movie.

The film is made wonderfully: the cast, the music, the entire convention - It supplies the viewer with the right picture of the Victorian England. I particularly liked the scenes shot at Haddon Hall with William Hurt. He shines in his role! GREAT ACTOR! He memorably stresses Rochester's goodness combined with his boredom and fear of love, caused by his tragic life experience.

The sense of suspicion is also felt throughout. Jane (Charlotte Gainsbourg) comes to Mr Rochester's castle and hears strange laughter. It is much later when it occurs that it was Rochester's insane wife (Maria Schneider).

The way love is showed is very "Zeffirellian". He loves to show delicate love that is raising in time. There is a feeling on both sides, but it is Rochester who tries to show it first, especially because he considers Jane "an angel of happiness" that appeared in his tragic life. Jane is more "shy" but her way of dealing with Rochester changes, too.

The "Zeffirelian" way of showing love is also expressed when applied to friendship. Consider how Franco Zeffirelli shows the friendship between Helen Burns (Leanne Rowe) and Jane Eyre (Anna Paquin). One of the most touching moments of the movie is when Helen Burns dies and tells Jane that God cares for us. She was the girl that could notice everyone, even the orphan who was let down and terribly ignored by pious and pure "victorian teachers". Faith, open eyes connected with love and open heart is what Zeffirelli loved to show in most of his films.

The music is one of the best from the films I have seen so far. It's very moody but supplies the viewer with wonderful, sometimes even mystical experience. For long after seeing the film for the first time, the music, somehow unconsciously, rang in my ears. Really worth attention!

Maybe some people will treat my opinion with some irony but I must say that Zeffirelli's JANE EYRE can be watched many times and each time one can discover something new, something valuable, teaching, and moving.

TOUCHED INTO TEARS! That's what I feel whenever I watch this incredible film.

I don't like using the word "awful" to describe any work of the cinema for which a great deal of time, effort, talent and money is spent in its creation but Zefferelli's attempt to adapt Charlotte Brontë's novel 'Jane Eyre' is a total waste of time.

The script is lacking in finesse and power, everything explained to the viewer in no uncertain terms, leaving little to the imagination. The lead actors are woefully miscast, clearly hired for their star names, and the musical score drippy and dull. Charlotte Gainsbourg and William Hurt have absolutely no chemistry with one another at all. She is like a wet noodle, worse even than Joan Fontaine, who at least was capable of some modicum of emotional involvement in what should be a story of frustrated passion. And William Hurt acts the entire film on one tone and that tone is flat and devoid of energy. Of course the limp and vapid script does not aid any of these otherwise fine actors in their efforts to bring any whiff of life to this flick.

Joan Plowright's Mrs Fairfax is like some Disney creation who keeps popping up to sweeten scenes in which she would have been best left out.

There is no mystery surrounding the story of Rochester's first wife. The role of the would-be second wife, played like a Barbie Doll by Elle MacPhearson, is an empty cipher.

Fiona Shaw, a very great actress, is completely wasted as Jane's Aunt, Mrs Reed. She would have been better-cast as Mrs Fairfax. Only Amanda Root, as Jane's beloved school teacher, evokes any authentic sympathy or believability.

I saw this version of 'Jane Eyre' after viewing Robert Young's for British television, made in 1997, starring Ciaran Hinds, Samantha Morgan and Gemma Jones. There is no comparison. Young's vital, romantic and deeply moving version is like an exploding nova compared to Zefferelli's wet squib.

I will be interested now to see the 1970 version with Timothy Dalton, about which I've read some very good things on this web-site. I am amazed at how many people liked Zefferelli's Yorkshire picture book.

About all I can say good about this film is that the house is beautiful and the cinematography vividly colored, beyond that it is a complete dud.

I love the book Jane Eyre and have seen just about every film version--some I have seen several times, in fact. When it comes to the pacing, sets and script, this film is about equal to any other version. However, there is a fundamental flaw in the casting of the two central characters. Anna Paquin as Jane appears way too young for the role and her character seems a bit too sterile and cold (not that Jane is supposed to be "Ms. Excitement") and it's even harder to believe that Rochester would fall for her. Rochester, played by William Hurt, is adequate for the part, though perhaps a bit too handsome for the role--the Rochester in the book was worldly but a bit darker and more brooding as a character. The Orson Welles, and especially George C. Scott versions of Rochester seemed a little more accurate. This is not to say I disliked Hurt and he has done several WONDERFUL little films over the years.

So, my final verdict is that this is an acceptable version of a great book. You won't dislike the movie but it does nothing to make you prefer this over previous incarnations.