Redwarmin This movie is the proof that the world is becoming a sick and dumb place

SeeQuant Blending excellent reporting and strong storytelling, this is a disturbing film truly stranger than fiction

PiraBit if their story seems completely bonkers, almost like a feverish work of fiction, you ain't heard nothing yet.

Kinley This movie feels like it was made purely to piss off people who want good shows

gavin6942 Jane Eyre is an orphan cast out as a young girl by her aunt, Mrs. Reed, and sent to be raised in a harsh charity school for girls. There she learns to become a teacher and eventually seeks employment outside the school. Her advertisement is answered by the housekeeper of Thornfield Hall, Mrs. Fairfax.I went in to this with no real knowledge of the story. I don't believe I ever read "Jane Eyre", and I don't recall ever seeing another film version. My suspicion is that it would be very difficult for another version to stand up. Charlotte Gainsbourg is mesmerizing and really sells the film with every frame.Some have said that the role of Rochester was miscast. Perhaps, but not necessarily. There is nothing wrong with ow he is portrayed here. Maybe you want more brooding or more introspection, but come on... this is a subtle, complex character and he is impressive in this film.

windchaser13 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.

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.