Painful, ruined largely by William Hurt's bizarrely misguided turn as Rochester. Hurt mumbles his way through the role and seems to be suffering from a severe speech impediment and heavy narcolepsy at the same time.
Not enough flow between the scenes that needed more explanation and resolution. Charlotte Gainsbourg gave a sweet performance, but it wasn't Jane Eyre; nor were her acting counterparts up to par. Sadly, I felt no chemistry between Jane and Rochester, but have yet to decide if that was the directing or acting. Overall, I get what Zeffirelli was doing with the long drawn out shots but there was something off about it.
Once again, two good actors supported by a classy period piece cast. A little too predictably mainstream in its design and script (and direction), it's somewhat saved by a typically good performance by Gainbourg. This, when you're in the mood for dependable classic literature that was once-upon-a-time profound, and still could be if it were treated like art instead of product.
As I just finished the book,I could say that this wasn't all that bad but not remarkable either. It seemed so plain,so conventional and overly romanticized as if the director wanted to copy the book exactly without putting his own trademark upon the film nor at least emphasizing its bleaker aspects
Not a 'bad' movie but rather classic, I prefer by far the one of 1944 starring Orson Welles, darker and more powerful. The cast is alright here, but the performances of the other, as well as the staging, seem more daring to me. Orson Welles gave to Rochester an entirely different stature, way more charismatic.