People are voting emotionally.

If you don't like this, we can't be friends.

If the ambition is to provide two hours of instantly forgettable, popcorn-munching escapism, it succeeds.

Although I seem to have had higher expectations than I thought, the movie is super entertaining.

The black and white cinematography of Jane Eyre is awe-inspiring. It ranks up there with night of the hunter for me, both are some of the best ever captured. It also has the same eerie factory that creeps the audience out so well. The backstory of Jane Eyre, as a young girl, played by Garner is so well done that the adult Jane does not need to show that much expression, in her acting. It also fits the plane girl character better. Orson Welles' acting on this movie was not what I would expect of him. To be he seemed slightly disinterested at times, or slightly over the top during other times. The story and script, as well as the cinematography is what makes this movie great. Acting does factor into it, but not that much.

Jane Eyre (1943) *** (out of 4)Good telling of the classic novel has the orphaned Jane Eyre (Joan Fontaine) finally escaping from a brutal school where she accepts a governess job for the mysterious Edward Rochester (Orson Welles). Once on the job Jane soon discovers that the mysteries surrounding Edward might come back to haunt both of them.JANE EYRE is an incredibly popular novel that has been turned into countless movies. While I certainly haven't seen them all, this here is considered by many experts to be one of the best versions out there. There's certainly a lot to like about this film thanks in large part to some nice direction, a terrific atmosphere and of course the legendary stars but the film is still far from perfect in a few other areas. With that said, fans of the novel or this period of Hollywood are still going to find this rewarding.Director Robert Stevenson does a pretty good job directing the film as he's able to bring some nice style as well as create a very good atmosphere. There are some fairly dark moments here that will almost remind people of what would follow in film noir but the darkness here is quite effective. The use of shadows inside the castle are also put to good use. I will say that I thought the flow of the story could have been handled better as it really did seem like a lot of stuff just happened way too fast. I say this because it just seemed the final third of the film was rushed including the ending, which is a tad bit forced. The screenplay's story structure could have also been handled better.With that said, the stars certainly shine here with Fontaine doing an excellent job in her role. I thought the actress fit the role perfectly and she also made you believe everything that this young woman was afraid of. I thought she played the scared victim quite well. As for Welles, he too comes across extremely good and especially the way he manages to be mysterious with just a few cracks of humanity, which of course is seen by Eyre. Margaret O'Brien is good in her supporting part as is John Sutton as a kind doctor and Henry Daniell as the religious nut. Peggy Ann Garner also deserves a special mention as she's terrific in the role of Eyre as a child.JANE EYRE certainly has a lot going for it even with the flaws that are scattered throughout. While the film is far from perfect, the atmosphere and the two leads make this worth watching.

"Jane Eyre" starring Orson Welles, Joan Fontaine, and Margaret O'Brien is a gret film. It is a very powerful film and shows how poorly Jane is treated her whole life. I really enjoyed the cinematography and thought that this movie displayed that pretty well.Joan Fontaine played an exceptionally well role in the movie as Jane Eyre. She played the role of a girl who was treated poorly and had a bad life because back then that's how society was. I really enjoyed this movie because at first it seemed like it was going to be a bad movie and then it becomes a sweet and romantic movie and that really surprised me.

My first impression- it was very Gothic. Quite dark and ominous with eerie music adding to the look and feel. This was quite a stark contrast to the 1934 version, that's for sure! It was much more faithful to the novel than 1934, but it still changed quite a bit as well.I found Joan Fontaine to be slightly too subdued in her performance as Jane. I know Jane is suppose to be reserved, but I think it was taken too far- almost to her having no emotions at all. Orson Welles as Rochester's performance stressed Rochester's dark and troubled side- completely ignoring the character's sense of humor. Once again, stressing the Gothic elements.Look out for a very young Elizabeth Taylor in an uncredited role as Helen Burns! This version was certainly more faithful than 1934 and much better made on the whole, yet I'm afraid I don't share the love a lot of people seem to have for it. It still changed a bit too much for me and was at times overly dark.