Reviews

If you've read all the other reviews, you know what the story line is so I won't go into that.

What I will say is that the production and writing of the movie itself were excellent--I didn't realize CourtTV made such high quality productions. The family dialog seemed genuine---no sugar coating to make an idyllic family, and they seemed like 'regular' people. The actors were excellent--I was pleasantly surprised. I expected as much out of Ally Sheedy, but the boy who played Michael deserves all the kudos he has been earning. The supporting characters were also very good.

This movie should be viewed by aspiring law students and probably anyone who is interested in personal freedom!

I love Jane Eyre and have seen all of the English-speaking versions of it, I think.

So, we watched the 2011 one. It got excellent reviews here except for a few who felt the way I did. These are my opinions, and I totally respect the opinions of those who loved this version.

Pros:

--Jane looked good. Very plain.

--Scenery was good.

--Many of the lines were directly from the book.

--Adele is played by a petite young girl (as opposed to the Ciaran Hinds version where Adele is almost taller than Jane).

Cons:

--Boring. It was my husband's first exposure to Jane Eyre, and probably his last. He was bored, and he usually likes British stuff, even Jane Austin or Bronte. He won't watch that genre more than one time, but at least he'll watch it that one time. In this case, he had a problem keeping up with this particular movie. (See my next comment.)

--In the beginning, they go back and forth between her childhood and present day. For him, that was confusing--and it would have been for me as well if I didn't know the story backwards and forwards.

--Rochester isn't "ugly" enough (Ciaran Hinds was perfect for it, Timothy Dalton wasn't -- even though his version is one of my favorites). That's not a major issue, but I don't think he was suitable for this movie. (I love Ciaran Hinds' looks, by the way, so I'm not knocking him!)

--Not good character development. I don't know how it's possible, but they really didn't develop the characters well. We didn't know or care about St. John or his sisters. The most 'thorough' J.E. is the Timothy Dalton one, and it's very long. But even the shorter ones still are able to develop characters. This one didn't. I found it almost a chore to watch. I didn't care all about Rochester and Jane.

--They didn't include some key lines between Rochester and Jane which would have really helped show that Jane was strong.

Ironically, I watched the deleted scenes, and probably half of them would have made the movie better.

I actually rented this movie years and years ago thinking it might be good. Wrong! The acting, direction, plot, story, dialog, cinematography, etc. etc. were horrible. From then on it went down. I'm trying to remember some of the plot so as to give a summary, but there's not much worth remembering. The "crippled" boy doesn't always remember which leg is crippled, and it's pretty evident that the actors don't remember the plot (if it really had one).

The only redeeming part of this movie is that it's so bad it's laughable, which is why I rated it a "2" instead of a "1." I'm surprised Mystery Science Theater didn't find it.

Only waste your money on it as a joke. I actually did hunt it down to buy as a joke for my husband. We tried to watch it again, but failed.

I can't add much to what others have said, but this is a wonderful film. From the very beginning (the credits are done extremely well, especially considering it was made about 70 years ago!) to the end, this is one funny/sad/satirical movie. The sets are obviously from the 30's, but the dialogue is still relevant. We have watched it four times and still catch new things. Don't miss 'minor' characters during the show--check out their facial expressions and their actions (especially Carlo).

Some versions have outtakes and other features. The outtakes aren't G-rated, so this isn't for children (who have probably heard much worse anyway, unfortunately)--but most kids might not be able to keep up with the fast-paced dialogue anyway.

Fortunately, I have only seen the edited version of this. I paid to have all the gratuitous sex cut out of it, which lopped off 40 minutes! The movie stood by itself very well without all the garbage. From people I know who have seen it unedited, it is not the sweet movie which I saw.

The movie shows parallel love stories of different couples. Some end up happily, but some do not. The part we liked best was Colin Firth and his Portuguese girlfriend.

I do not recommend this movie in its natural state. No, I haven't seen it that way, but I won't recommend movies with smut for smut's sake. On the other hand, without all that, the movie was quite pleasant.

I went to the movie expecting to be disappointed after all the hype it has received.

I wasn't.

Literally speechless for hours after the movie, I still find that descriptive words about it fail me. For most believers, this film will add to their infinitesimal comprehension of what our Lord suffered for the world. For non-believing searchers of the truth, it may cause a deeper investigation into what Jesus is all about. For atheists (many of whom wouldn't go anyway), perhaps it will cause some soul searching.

As a person of mixed Jewish heritage, I was not offended at all. Knowing Biblical history, I knew that God was, and had to be, ultimately responsible for Jesus' death. If I hadn't known that, the movie still didn't give the impression that any one group of people "killed" Y'shua.

This movie set out to condense the last 12 hours of Jesus into 2+ hours. It did just that. It made Him very real--as He should be. Artistically, Gibson did it right. The actors played their parts perfectly (I was glad to see that Aramaic, Latin, and Hebrew were spoken well--no obvious American or Italian accents). Even though I don't speak those languages, I can recognize when a foreign language is poorly pronounced. I am very glad Mel chose not to put anything in English--it would have ruined the attempt at authenticity. I am also glad that many times he didn't put subtitles in the parts where we could easily figure out the gist of what was being said.

To paraphrase a famous quote: For believers, no amount of negative hype will destroy their appreciation of this film. For determined skeptics, no amount of positive hype will be sufficient. Let's hope those in the middle will give this movie a chance.

Having taught illegal immigrants for decades, this movie intrigued me. From what I have been told by the parents of my students, this movie correctly depicts the lives of many of people who struggle to get to this country. I also know from working with older students, that the life shown in the movie in Southern California is also accurate.

When I taught college sociology classes, I made this movie mandatory viewing (along with "Emerald Forest" and "Belzaire the Cajun." Don't expect a 'feel-good' movie--it's not this one. Do expect to get a glimpse into the lives of millions of people who now live in the United States, and what it took to get here.

PS--Much of this movie is in the Spanish and South American Indian language (with subtitles). Block out the bottom of the screen if you want to practice your español. ¡Qué bueno! (Si, yo hablo español.)

I came upon this miniseries by accident, and I am glad I did. I'd never heard of it, but it sounded interesting. It really does a good job of portraying what London and medicine probably were like back in the 1800's. Though not an overtly feminist piece, it does depict what women doctors had to go through to gain a bit of respect. The story line might be considered thin for four videos, but it held my interest enough so that I purchased it. If medicine, Merry Olde England, or good acting is of interest to the viewer, this is well worth watching.

As some have mentioned, this is not for the purist. The Dalton version follows the book much better. However, it's almost laughable to think of Timothy Dalton has hideous (though he does a good job in the part). I prefer Ciaran Hinds' dramatization of Mr. Rochester. In both adaptations, there is good chemistry between Jane and Mr. Rochester, so I advise people who like Jane Eyre to see both.

Not much has been written about Adele, but she really bothered me in this version. She was almost as tall as Jane and much too old (or big) for her part.

I like to think of this version as "Jane Eyre-Lite." When a Jane Eyre devotee needs a quick fix, choose this video/DVD. If you need the real thing, go for the longer Timothy Dalton one. Both have their strong and weak points (though the Dalton version is probably the one by which to judge others), but both are satisfying.

I love the book, "Jane Eyre" and have seen many versions of it. All have their strong points and their faults. However, this was one of the worst I have seen. I didn't care about Jane or Mr. Rochester. Charlotte Gainsbourg (Jane) was almost tolerable and certainly looked the plain part, but she had no emotion in any of her lines. I couldn't imagine what Mr. Rochester saw in her.

That brings us to Mr. Rochester. William Hurt had even less emotion than Jane, if that were possible. How two such insipid people could fall in love is a mystery, but it certainly didn't hold my attention. Perhaps the director (Zeffrelli) fell asleep during the production.

The Timothy Dalton (too handsome for Mr. Rochester!) version is far more faithful to the book, but Ciaran Hinds plays the perfect Mr. Rochester in the 1997 A/E version (which is NOT all that true to the book).

Trying to find something positive about this movie: Geraldine Chaplain was perfect in her role.

Lush scenery, great acting, and a good adaptation of the classic book all combine to make this movie a real 'sleeper.' I'd never heard of it before, but was glad to have discovered it by accident. Somewhat predictable, it is still thoroughly enjoyable. The musical score, while not available separately, is really beautiful. Even my husband enjoyed the movie (of course, the leading actress may have been the reason for that!).

This is a delightful version of Scarlet Pimpernel. Despite being made in the early 1980's, it doesn't show its age the way many older films do. Anthony Andrews makes it perfect with his incredible character development (lacking in other versions). Jane Seymour is pretty to look at, but the show belongs to Andrews. Fun to watch, and may encourage people to look at French history.

I turned this on only to have something to watch while exercising. Although my routine ended before the movie did, I taped it to watch later. I was very surprised at how well-made and interesting it turned out to be. I can't add much to the other excellent reviews but it's definitely worth viewing if a person is even vaguely interested in the subject matter.

I don't know that much about Luther, but this movie makes me want to know more. I only wish it could have been longer and gone into even more detail. It was professionally produced (good editing, good acting, good filming, etc.). It is great to see a movie for adults without profanity or the usual gratuitous sexual situations.

If you are looking for a phony Hollywood action movie, this won't be one for you. If the Truth is what you seek, rent or buy this. From a true story, the movie attempts to capture the heart of what was/is happening in South Africa (and many other places).

For historical knowledge, this rates up there with stories such as "The Pianist," "Schindler's List" or "Nuremberg." Millions of people today have no clue what apartheid is or that it even exists. This movie may help them learn, and may even help them dig deeper.

For those who 'enjoy' Gettysburg (the movie and the battle), this should be an interesting addition to your film library. Actually, if you can rent it, just do that. It's a good introduction to Gettysburg for those who aren't familiar with the battle, but I think it helps to know something about the Civil War in order to appreciate the battle/movie.

We have seen the movie twice, and this video doesn't offer much as to the actual 'making' of the movie, but it is still shows unique perspectives of the movie (as seen from historians, Ken Burns, re-enactors, etc.).

Those who aren't deeply moved by Gettysburg might not find this worth watching. If that's the case, you probably wouldn't even be reading this review anyway. :-)

As a history buff, I was eager to see this video. I really wanted to see it so I could laugh at how phony "The Fighting Sullivans" (the 1940's version) was. Imagine my surprise when I found out that Hollywood was actually pretty accurate this time.

This History Channel video makes a great companion to the Hollywood version. There are old stills and even the only recording of the Sullivans singing together. Be prepared for a interesting glimpse into the past with this movie, but don't forget to check out the Hollywood one as well.

This is a beautiful story, intricately woven, and well worth watching. Of all the versions I have seen, this is by far the best one. The actors have a real chemistry, and the authenticity of the movie make it that much better. This is a movie worth watching several times (a year?). A & E has done it again.

This is one of the best movies/videos/miniseries/etc. ever produced. Everything about it is outstanding. We own two copies of the video set and one of the DVD "just to be sure" to always have at least one that is in working order. :-) Everyone connected with this production has gone the extra mile (or kilometre, since this is in England) to make sure of the authenticity of the production. It follows the book very well, and I believe Ms. Austen would be very pleased.

I love Jane Eyre, and was so pleased that a relatively older video could have replicated it so well. Generally, I don't care for late '70's or early 80's BBC-type movies (they seem so dated). This one, thankfully, doesn't fit that bill at all. With the exception of outside scenes being filmed differently from the inside shots, this is a timeless video (well worth owning). It follows the book better than most versions. Although Timothy Dalton is too good-looking for the part, he acts so well that it's easy to forget that.

Definitely rates a ten in my book.