Problem: Write a positive movie review.

Answer: 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!

Problem: Write a negative movie review.

Answer: I will never forget the night I saw this movie. We were on a submarine on patrol in the North Atlantic and this was the scheduled movie of the evening. We ALL gave up after the second reel. They did not even try to show it at the mid-night showing. Opting for a rerun instead...... This is all I really have to say but they have this stupid rule that my comment must contain ten lines. I'm not supposed to pad the comment with random words so I will just continue to ramble until I get my ten lines of BS. I could not find George Goble listed in the credits but I remember him in the movie. The sining was terrible and the songs even worse.

Problem: Write a negative movie review.

Answer: *Can anybody tell me WHERE is the COMEDY ??!!

*(Charlie Sheen) is a very weak comedian, (Thomas Haden Church) is looking so feeble (with him !), and the whole thing is so thickheaded !

*They tried to make a live comic book which turned out to be super bloody comic nightmare and it wasn't even funny? Like the plan's scene in the bathroom; it was so good with its cinematic imagination but there is nothing more.. except PAIN !

*Donald Sutherland ??! His relationship with his daughter ??!

*This is actually a kind of work which they made it just to made it and earn some money from it , but it became such a crime when THIS money would be robbed from the very us whom got deceived by so low art work and an entertainment had absolutely no entertainment AT ALL !

*Well, it would've been uglier if it was big production and starring Brando in his golden years with a REAL star.

*The Sheen's family in here. Just be aware of that !

*Anyone who found themselves admiring this movie or -God Forbid- loving it ! Then you must go directly to therapy before you become more dangerous and hurt anybody else !

*(Brando) undoubtedly is a genius but the movie isn't ! And he wasn't intending to be one in here after reading this for sure !! But the main big problem is that no one else ever worked in this thing trying, or wanting, to be a small time smart or even good !!! (Sorry I'm crying now ! The movie's torturing is unbelievable !).

*There is a scene where (Brando) hitting (Mira Sorvino) by her shoes ! That was so realistic !? Maybe he was seeing himself in her so he was punishing himself for being in such a crap !

*For the milliard time : This one could've been better (or less worse !). The script, till the train's heist, was nice and I just imagined that they'd escape to have some chase like it's another (Smokey and the Bandit) but with (Brando) as the sheriff. In fact any of those chimeras was much merciful than what I've watched !

*Why this masterpiece didn't receive any Razzie award ?! You want to make me believe that there was lower movie than THIS ? I do not think so ! It's a situation where the Razzie's supervisor must himself win one for his negligence !!

*Martin Sheen is here also as a guest star maybe for supporting his failure son but ironically the father was as failure as his son ! and why is that ?! Well ! Because I hate Martin Sheen maybe more than I hate comic movies weren't as good as its ambition !

*It's not a comedy movie, NO.. It's a horror one !, and I just hate horror movies especially those which have been propagandized as comic ones !

*Name good thing about it? Hmmm ! Well, this one compared to another Marlon Brando's monster movie (The Island of Dr. Moreau - 1996) would be close to (Casablanca) !!

P.S : if you still want to know what are or who are precisely the bad, the ugly and the very ugly in this movie.. Just pray your last prayers and go watch it.. May God Help You !

Problem: Write a negative movie review.

Answer:
Honestly I can't understand why this movie rates so well here, nor why Bakshi himself thought it was his finest film. I'm a huge fan of Bakshi's earlier work - particularly 'Heavy Traffic' and 'Wizards', but frankly 'Wizards' (1977) was the last good film he made. After that he turned to the mainstream, beginning with the diabolical 'Lord of the Rings' and then knuckling down with sword and sorcery heavyweight Frank Frazetta, for 'Fire and Ice'.

What can I say? The story is puerile, the animation is TV quality - I insist that it's considerably worse than his 70's stuff - and whereas 'Wizards' had real imagination, quirkiness, some gorgeous background art, and an underground, adult sensibility, 'Fire and Ice' is just designed for 14 year old boys, and has the intellectual clout of Robinson Crusoe on Mars.

Yes, if you liked the Gor books, you might like this. In my view though, this was just another blip in the slide in quality after 'Wizards' from which Bakshi never recovered (though he's done some decent TV stuff fairly recently)

4.5 out of 10