Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive positive
=++++=
Answer: Before all, I'd like to point out that I have not read the book, so there was no chance I'd be disappointed in that aspect. The major flaw I spotted was historical detail, with several cars, trains, clothes, etc. I think don't belong at that time.

***Possible spoiler*****

The technical aspect of the film is ok, nothing to brag about. But the acting, I think, was terrific. I don't have no experience in acting, still I can't believe how people can consider this terrible! Maybe they've only seen two movies (ever), and the other one must have been very good indeed!

I specially liked Jeremy Irons, and really understood his character, someone who crawled up the social ladder with very hard work, then fights against those who would take his life's work from him, only he gets so involved in this fight, he doesn't realize reason is no longer at his side, and he ends up a beaten, disappointed man. Irons made this so believable, I sympathized with the character despite his brutality.

After Jeremy Irons, Winona Ryder is also wonderful as a romantic young women, who is drawn into the revolutionary ideals by her boyfriend (Banderas, he had an under-developed part, I think), and Glenn Close was also very good. Meryl Streep had an average performance, it was not bad, just not up to the standards of the other actors. Watch out for Miguel Guilherme, a fine Portuguese actor, between so many stars.

In contrast to today's movies, here only the interpretations, only people matter, but at the same time, it is not a pretensious film, too worried trying to be intellectual. The best proof I really liked it, I'm writing a review 7 years later.

Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive negative
=++++=
Answer: I watched this film, along with every other adaptation I could get my hands on- including seeing plays- in preparation for some academic research. The cinematography is very moving, as is the music. Unfortunately all of the life was taken out of the story. I have never seen such an awful portrayal of Mr. Rochester. All of his most fundamental traits are gone. Where is his wit? Where is his passion? Scott's Rochester more closely resembles Rochester's foil, St.John, than the character from the novel. In fact, the actor playing St.John in this adaptation played a passionate St.John while Scott is content to smash things or just stare at the ceiling (which he does all the time). I have no idea what they were thinking. I would like to give this film a slightly higher vote based on the wonderful music and cinematography but I honestly can't bear to see this film for too long because of George C. Scott's performance.

Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive negative
=++++=
Answer:
When HEY ARNOLD! first came on the air in 1996, I watched it. It was one of my favorite shows. Then the same episodes started getting shown over and over again so I got tired of waiting for new episodes and stopped watching it. I was sort of surprised when I heard about HEY ARNOLD! THE MOVIE since it doesn't seem to be nearly as popular as some of the other Nickelodeon cartoons like SPONGEBOB SQUAREPANTS. Nevertheless, having nothing better to do, I went to see the movie anyway. Going into the theater, I wasn't expecting much. I was just expecting it to be a dumb movie version of a childrens' cartoon like the RECESS movie was. I guess I got what I expected. It was a dumb kiddie movie and nothing more. There were some good parts here and there, but for the most part, the movie was a stinker. Simply for kids.