Jane Eyre

A cheerful Rochester? A beautiful Jane Eyre? A slapstick Adelle? Oy, what's the point of adapting a classic novel if you're gonna change every character!

I suppose the film has a certain appeal anyway; it's pleasantly ancient and strange, and it's nice to see Colin "Dr. Frankenstein" Clive in another role. But, to true devotees of the original novel, this is a real butcher job.

This version of the classic story should move like the wind at 62 minutes, instead its slow and talky and not very good. I'm not certain how much is the result of too much time having passed since this film was made, 70 odd years ago and counting, but this is a movie to a avoid simply because time has not been kind to it. The film feels more like a filmed stage play than a movie as there is never any sense place beyond what we would see if it were on a stage. The performances are okay but there are times one wonders if they were aware of that film acting for sound had advanced from the overdone to a more naturalistic style. I don't think it would be fair to comment on the additions and subtractions from the book, especially in light of the fact that they use chapter headings from the book to advance the plot that gallop from one to ten and onward. Not something to watch unless you love the story or hate yourself enough to watch a film thats almost too painful to get through.

For the most part this is a fairly weak Monogram (read budget with a capital B) adaptation of the Bronte classic. Colin Clive is woefully miscast as Edward Rochester, a character so complex and filled with such passionate brooding that it takes the likes of an Orson Welles or a George C.Scott to really pull it off. Instead Clive plays the master of Thornfield like he is just some normal single dad on the make who just happens to have his unbalanced first wife locked up in the attic.Maybe director Cabanne thought that this interpretation would make the character seem more suspicious to the audiences of 1934. Unfortunately this reviewer writing in 2002 finds Clive's Rochester about as suspicious as a stained glass window. In a Lutheran church.Virginia Bruce is adequate as the title character but unfortunately her best lines are undermined by unnecessary stock music pulled from Monogram's Oliver Twist (released the previous year). However horror fans especially those who feel at home with the jump-out-of-your-skin style of Sam Raimi of Evil Dead fame should see this film for the well-timed SHREIKS emanating from that attic. Claire DuBrey's banshee routine is enough to make your heart jump out of your mouth and do the macarena on top of the TV. So see this Eyre for the Screamer not for Ward Cleaver.

According to the Internet Movie Database there are 22 versions of the famous Charlotte Bronte novel Jane Eyre done, counting both silent screen and small screen adaptions all the way to the present time. I never realized how popular a property Jane Eyre was for dramatization. I doubt very much if anyone would ever consider this 1934 version starring Virginia Bruce and Colin Clive as the best of them.

Still in reviewing this movie you have to take into account that this was done for Monogram Pictures on a shoestring budget. Bruce and Clive were borrowed from MGM and Universal respectively and neither was exactly a box office name. The running time is only 63 minutes so like every other work of literature there will always be stuff left out unless it's a TV mini-series and you have several hours to play with.

One criticism I will agree with. Jane Eyre in fact is a plain Jane and the glamorous blond Virginia Bruce just isn't right for the part. Joan Fontaine was far closer to Charlotte Bronte's idea of Jane Eyre in her version with Orson Welles on a much bigger budget with MGM.

It's definitely a subpar version of the novel, but be a bit more charitable to this Jane Eyre considering the circumstances of its creation.

I totally agree with reviewer of May 2003. This film is a travesty of a wonderful classic novel.

The entire film is made up..there are characters that do not even exist in the book and ones that are pivotal to the story were left out.

But the best mess was "Rochester's wife". Where did they dig her up? She was suppose to be insane not ugly and look like a witch.

Don't even bother to waste your time watching this turkey.Another case of "Did anybody bother to read the book"..

The Timothy Dalton version for the BBC is best and I also liked the Welles/Fontaine version in 1944 as well as the one with George C. Scott in 1970....all the newer ones are mediocre, at best.