IN: Review: Yes, this production is long (good news for Bronte fans!) and it has a somewhat dated feel, but both the casting and acting are so brilliant that you won't want to watch any other versions!

Timothy Dalton IS Edward Rochester... it's that simple. I don't care that other reviewers claim he's too handsome. Dalton is attractive, certainly, but no pretty-boy. In fact he possesses a craggy, angular dark charm that, in my mind, is quite in keeping with the mysterious, very masculine Mr R. And he takes on Rochester's sad, tortured persona so poignantly. He portrays ferocity when the scene calls for it, but also displays Rochester's tender, passionate, emotional side as well. (IMO the newer A&E production suffers in that Ciaran Hinds - whom I normally adore - seems to bluster and bully his way throughout. I've read the book many times and I never felt that Rochester was meant to be perceived as a nonstop snarling beast.)

When I reread the novel, I always see Zelah Clarke as Jane. Ms. Clarke, to me, resembles Jane as she describes herself (and is described by others). Small, childlike, fairy... though it's true the actress doesn't look 18, she portrays Jane's attributes so well. While other reviews have claimed that her acting is wooden or unemotional, one must remember that the character spent 8 years at Lowood being trained to hold her emotions and "passionate nature" in check. Her main inspiration was her childhood friend Helen, who was the picture of demure submission. Although her true nature was dissimilar, Jane learned to master her temper and appear docile, in keeping with the school's aims for its charity students who would go into 'service'. Jane becomes a governess in the household of the rich Mr. Rochester. She would certainly *not* speak to him as an equal. Even later on when she gave as well as she got, she would always be sure to remember that her station was well below that of her employer. Nevertheless, if you read the book - to which this production stays amazingly close - you can clearly see the small struggles Zelah-as-Jane endures as she subdues her emotions in order to remain mild and even-tempered.

The chemistry between Dalton and Clarke is just right, I think. No, it does not in the least resemble Hollywood (thank God! It's not a Hollywood sort of book) but theirs is a romance which is true, devoted and loyal. And for a woman like Jane, who never presumed to have *any* love come her way, it is a minor miracle.

The rest of the casting is terrific, and I love the fact that nearly every character from the book is present here. So, too, is much of the rich, poetic original dialogue. This version is the only one that I know of to include the lovely, infamous 'gypsy scene' and in general, features more humor than other versions I've seen. In particular, the mutual teasing between the lead characters comes straight from the book and is so delightful!

Jane Eyre was, in many ways, one of the first novelized feminists. She finally accepted love on her own terms and independently, and, at last, as Rochester's true equal. Just beautiful!
What is this review like?
OUT: positive

IN: Review: I saw this film prior to joining the British Army. I went through my basic training, at first difficult and then as I progressed much easier. My time was spent during the height of the troubles in NI and the cold war. There was times when I questioned myself on what I had gotten myself into, not for long, as the training would always take over and you would always react instinctively. The voice over used to display what the soldiers are thinking is spot on, though I would have added breathing and heart rate as this seems to pound in your ear drums in given situations. Some years later I was in Canada for a family get together. An Aunty of mine who lives in the USA and is a lecturer at the Columbus Uni Ohio had done a paper on the effects of the British Army in NI. She spent some time out there researching. Although an ex pat she was very anti-British. She made a bee line for me and condemned me for being a British soldier. My only answer was see the film 'A long day's dying'. It's the closest a civilian will get to realise why a soldier does what he does. The answer is right at the end.
What is this review like?
OUT: positive

IN: Review: I went to this movie expecting a concise movie relating the effect the Son of Sam had on the society. I didn't expect Spike Lee to force-feed me more garbage on racial tension, mob-justice, or the inability of the common citizen to make a choice under pressure by peers. Lee has presented an extreme opinion.

The entire movie could have been more effective if in a 90-min format with more focus, less tangential sub-plots.

Don't even bother renting the video unless you passionately enjoy Spike Lee; in such a case, the theatre is worth it. This is not an escapist movie.
What is this review like?
OUT: negative

IN: Review: This so-called "documentary" tries to tell that USA faked the moon-landing. Year right.

All those who have actually studied the case knows different.

First of all: there is definitely proof. When the astronauts was on the moon, they brought back MANY pounds of rock from the moon - for geological studies. These where spread around the world to hundreds of labs, who tested them. And they all concluded that they came from the same planet, not earth: because the inner isotopes of the basic elements are different from those found on earth, but similar to those calculated to be on the moon. I.E. the conspiracy theorists never studies anything: they only take the thing that fit into their theory and ignores the rest.

Another wrongful claim from them is that their was wind in the hangar where they shot the moon landing, I.E. the flag moves. There is a logical explanation: the astronaut moved it with his hand, so it moved. And what proves this: well, if the conspiracy theorists even studied the footage, they would see that the flag NEVER moves after the astronaut have let it be, I.E. the conspiracy theorists are bad-scientists, they cant study a subject properly, or only studies it until they have what they came for, so that they can make a lie from that, and make a profit (I.E. this so-called "documentary").

A claim says that it cant possible have been filmed on the moon because all the shadows come from different places, because there are different light-sources, the artificial lighting from the studio. Once again the conspiracy theorists are wrong (as usual), the same would happen in an earth desert at night, with no light-sources. But i doubt that any Conspiracy theorists have ever been outside their grandmothers basement for more than how many days a Star Treck-convention is held over.

The Conspiracy theorists are in denial, BIG TIME. They only see what they want to see. So they make up all these lies to seem important - that is a fact.
What is this review like?
OUT:
negative