Jane Eyre - Movie Reviews - Rotten Tomatoes

Jane Eyre Reviews

Page 2 of 13
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.
½ March 11, 2012
Orson Welles and Joan Fontaine in a gothic romance, what more do you really want? Well I'll give you bonus points like me for spotting Elizabeth Taylor but only if you're a nerd. It really is a fantastic film though, Welles appearing on horseback out of the mist and his whole performance as Rochester is down to a tee. Brilliant.
½ March 11, 2012
As a film, Jane Eyre is a triumph. As an adaptation, it lacks. There is probably far more influence from Orson Welles here than is credited for. For instance, it's based on his Mercury Theater On the Air radio show adaptation, there are frequently Kane-esque low shots, Herrmann's music when we see Thornfield Hall recalls the low and creepy tones of the opening shots of Xanadu in Citizen Kane, Agnes Moorehead plays Mrs. Reed, etc. Basically this seems to be as close to a Mercury Theater Orson Welles film without actually being one as possible. The sets are Gothic masterpieces, and remind me of Welles' Macbeth which has a similar tone. Joan Fontaine puts on an average performance that seems to downplay Jane's bite. This is more than made up for by Welles' perfect performance of Rochester, which is a role he seems to have been born for. Herrmann's score isn't quite as noticeable as Kane or Vertigo. Sometimes the score seems a bit too cinematic and sweeping for what they're actually showing, but the music still has quality. So as far as it being a movie goes, it's great and I would definitely recommend it to someone who hasn't read the book. As for being an adaptation, it was far better than for instance David Lean's Great Expectations (1946) which takes out things that are absolutely necessary in the book and bludgeons the ending. The film certainly compacts the story but it's hardly noticeable (expect for the beginning where they took out the actual text of the first page of Jane Eyre and replaced it with the screenwriters text. What were they thinking?) and actually makes the story more enjoyable and bite-sized to the average viewer than a 5 hour version would be. Of course I would highly advise you read the book, although I imagine it would be difficult to find a film adaptation more satisfying than this.
Page 2 of 13