Jane Eyre - Movie Reviews - Rotten Tomatoes

Jane Eyre Reviews

Page 2 of 13
March 17, 2013
Orson Welles' Edward Rochester is the essence of Bronte's character. The movie seems to roll around Orson even in the movie credits, but that doesn't taint the story. Enchanting from beginning to end.
½ February 27, 2013
Loved it! It is still before its time and surpasses all the remakes.
February 21, 2013
Jane Eyre is an amazing film. It is about an orphan (Jane Eyre) who is hired by Edward Rochester, the brooding lord of a mysterious manor house to care for his young daughter. Orson Welles and Joan Fontaine give incredible performances. The screenplay is well written. Robert Stevenson did a great job directing. I enjoyed watching this movie because of the drama and romance. Jane Eyre is a must see.
February 6, 2013
Worth watching just for Orson Welles' single raised eyebrow
January 30, 2013
A brooding,windswept moors-type film--A masterpiece!!
January 12, 2013
My absolute favorite movie in the world. Excellent story line.
December 27, 2012
This romance film is dark, superbly acted, haunting, beautiful, and absolutely superb in every way. Everything about this film is impeccably crafted and beautifully performed. The story is engaging, the acting is phenomenal from every cast member, the music is fantastic, the visuals are stunning, and it also has moments of genuine emotion and surprise. It's a film that definitely deserves to be more widely recognized because it should be considered one of the all-time best romance films because it is phenomenal. I highly recommend it.
November 10, 2012
Orson and Joan are swell, but I had no clue this director went on to direct all those Disney classics. The things you learn watching the special features.
½ October 1, 2012
A little dated. But well done.
September 2, 2012
dark classic Orson Wells
August 26, 2012
Different kind of love story
½ August 23, 2012
The 1943 version proves to be the best adaption and possibly the better than its novel (depending on who you talk to). And introduces us with some of Hollywoods greatest stars: Jane Fontaine, Elisabeth Taylor and Orson Welles.
Director Robert Stevenson and Actor Orson Welles welcomed the first of many more films together in a perfect duo-ship of successful and unforgetable film making never before seen.
August 16, 2012
Orson Wells. That French little girl was really annoying though
June 19, 2012
Welles is overwrought and the ending is irritatingly truncated, but this is as faithful a filmed adaptation as Hollywood has mustered this far. Read the book instead, though.
May 8, 2012
My mother swears by this adaptation of the famous Gothic novel, however i found it to be hackneyed and altogether rather boring. That and i just prefer Olivia De Havilland to her sister.
Super Reviewer
½ April 19, 2012
Hardly the classic I was expecting this film looks great (there is some dispute over whether Welles or Stevenson actually directed most of the film. Certainly some shots are reminisient of Kane) and the score by Herrmann is strong but Fontaine is stuck playing exactly the same role as in 'Rebecca' and Welles seems too distant and stiff most of the time. When he is more relaxed and natural the film works brilliantly but at other times he looks out of his depth and you can't help but smile at his false nose. The film is still enjoyable and the set design and direction is more imaginative than most films today but it left me slightly cold.
April 18, 2012
Very different from the book!
Super Reviewer
April 9, 2012
Jane Eyre is a widely filmed adaptation from the Charlotte Bronte book of the same name. It has a story that I can only describe as a meshing of Beauty and the Beast and Rebecca. Maybe I see these parallels because Joan Fontaine is in the principle role, as she was in Rebecca, and similarly she is the stranger in a mysterious home with a gregarious and yet handsome master of the house. The story follows the always unloved and plain Jane Eyre, who is an intelligent woman with a biting wit. Finally able to leave the awful home she was raised in as a girl and ready to make a new life for herself, she becomes a governess to a French girl at Thornfield, owned by the contemptuous Edward Rochester. The film was beautifully shot, dark and foreboding. The newest adaptation from last year had amazing art direction and some vivid and disturbing scenes, but this is far more mystifying, and grandiose in comparison. This film was made to be in black and white, made to be a Victorian romance and a deep comparison to other tragic romance stories from every era. The book itself is not timeless, but the sentiment and appeal is in every person's heart, and Jane is just as reasonably loved by her audience as ever. This adaptation does not take from the literature at all times, instead choosing the story as one of devotion from Jane, who is shown as a piteous soul who has very little in the way of gull, which contemporary films have changed. Though I didn't like Jane as such a lowly creature, in contrast Orson Welles is so brooding and such a rogue, they almost balance each other out. It's gothic and heart wrenching, mostly because many of the details are not shown, especially towards the end when the unpleasantness starts. There is so much sacrifice and inherit romance to this story so it never wanders away from being over the top or unrealistic. Yes, the ending is far too feel good and wraps itself up in too neat a bow, but that was what Hollywood called upon in its romances at that time, and I cannot fault it for that. I only took issue with the booming voice of Welles, who almost seems to be compensating for his lack of knowledge towards the character. Still, he is lively, and his presence didn't take anything away from my pleasure. One of the best adaptations I have ever seen of this source material, and certainly the darkest.
April 4, 2012
Sadistic Orson Welles!
March 23, 2012
still the best version of this though not the most faithful to the 'text' but the all star cast are the fuel that makes this version go.
Page 2 of 13