Jane Eyre

A beautiful version. Beautiful for inspired traits of Jane Eyre offered by young Laura Harling and by Samantha Morton. For the fair portrait of Mrs Fairfax ( indeed, not the most remarkable , of great Gema Jones ) and for , maybe, the best option for Pilot.

Samantha Morton is Jane Eyre and this is the precious virtue of film. But only phzsical because she seems lost, in few scenes, in the webs of her character. Faithful to novel ? Not exactly , but this is the consequence of too short duration. In compensation, solutions for cover, few new details, a good scene of the room of Bertha Rochester in the moment of revelation.

Ciaran Hinds ? Is he a decent Edward Rochester ? I suppose. He is not the master of Thornfield who I imagine reading the novel. But his effort to create a reasonable Rochester, from nuances of bitterness and forms of cruelty to intensity of love are not so bad and just meritous.

The huge enigma is St. John because the demand of marriage is so hurried, the character becomes so kind, good looking ( more like the Greek god proposed by the lines of novel ), than the refuse of Jane Eyre becomes...absurd.

A beautiful version. This is my opinion, not ignoring the so many expectations about adaptation of a masterpiece .

I think that Samantha Morton's Jane Eyre in Robert Young's 1997 TV adaptation of the great novel, could've been the best screen Jane ever. Morton was 20 years old and the closest in age to the young orphaned governess, childlike in the appearance but strong willed, serene yet very intelligent with acute sense of right or wrong. Two years prior to her Oscar nominated role as a mute girl in Woody Allen's "Sweet and Lowdown", Morton proved that she could say a lot by the mere look at her face, by her impressive and speaking eyes alone. It is sad that the film took too many liberties with the book and not only in omitting many important plot lines in order to fit in its 108 minutes length, but with too many changes to the very nature of the novel's two main characters and their relationship. Jane in the scenes with her employer is sometimes too demanding and not as tactful as she is in the book. The changes are especially obvious in Mr. Edward Rochester as he was played by Ciaran Hinds. Hinds is a talented, intense actor but I can't agree or like his reading and interpreting of Mr. Rochester's character. Some his scenes in the film made me cringe. Mr. Edward Rochester of the novel was not yelling or rather barking brute - it was difficult for me to believe that Jane Eyre would come to love so much. I also was unpleasantly surprised with Mr. Rochester openly displaying his affection for Adele. This manifestation was against the logic of his character.

I'll start by saying this was the first version I've ever seen, and after watching it, I decided to read the book (not the other way around).

When I first watched it, I really had no idea what the story was about so I wasn't on my guard, and some scenes really stroke me in an emotional level I didn't believe it when I first started watching it. Samantha Morton as Jane was very convincing, not a beauty, not ugly, then I found out that was how Brontë described her in the book. Jane was well mannered, sweet and tender, but with iron will and fire in her soul, it was a perfect combination of a heroin in the book who had to endure a lot of things during her life.

As for Mr. Rochester, well I'm a big CIaran Hinds so I may not be completely objective in reviewing his acting, but for me, he was PERFECT. Yes he yelled, he was too proud, sarcastic, but his raw passion and angst was right there you feel it, and specially in the parts where he seemed to touch heaven, and the other part where hell was right before him (those who read the book or watched the movie will know what parts those are).

The chemistry between Morton and Hinds is amazing, when they are talking under the tree, I really began to cry and felt overwhelmed by the intense emotion flooding my screen, and then in the same tree after the "event", I cried some more because I could feel the despair from Rochester and Jane's sorrow but determination. And finally, in the end, I cried more and more with the strong performance from the two of them.

I read the book afterwards, and yes many scenes are left out (gipsy, Jane's aunt dying, Jane's dreams, the tale of Bertha Mason, Jane's new found fortune, etc...) but considering they had only 1 hour 40 minutes to consolidate an 800 pages book, I believed they did a pretty good job.

I read some comments about people who disliked Hinds performance as Rochester, saying he screams too much, well personally I didn't think he "screamed", he raised his voice and Rochester does that a lot in the book. I watched another version with Michael Fassbender, and it lacked the passion this Rochester has, it actually made me yawn.

I highly recommend this version, the casting is great, overall the movie is very true to the book, and the strong performances given by Morton as Jane, and Hinds as Rochester, is really something not to be missed. If you imagined Mr. Rochester as a handsome, well mannered, with integrity, soft spoken and tender man (in other words, a Jane Austen hero, I can't imagine why somebody would imagine him like that), you will hate Hind's Rochester, but if you imagined as a non-attractive man in a conventional way, sarcastic, snappish, moody, witty, intense, rough, tough, passionate, angry but tender when he must and overall, a tortured soul who finds redemption through pure love, you will not be disappointed with him.

The latest A&E production of Jane Eyre was short but satisfying. While it might have benefited from being longer, they managed to tell the basic story and retain the emotional impact. Unless you're an unforgiving purist, the cuts shouldn't detract from your appreciation of the movie. And if you are an unforgiving purist (there is nothing wrong with that), go find a copy of the Timothy Dalton '83 adaptation.

The biggest point of contention seems to be the performance styles. Peoples' takes on the way Mr. Rochester should be played tend to vary. I've seen the productions with William Hurt and George C. Scott criticized for having a Rochester who was so restrained he might as well have been the heroine in a Jane Austin novel. These people felt Rochester should be played passionately and with fire. After all, he's a manipulative would-be bigamist. Then there are people who feel Hinds was too wild in his portrayal of Rochester and a more restrained, subtle approach was warranted.

If you want a restrained, subtle Rochester, don't watch this version or the Timothy Dalton BBC production from '83. Go for the William Hurt or George C. Scott adaptations of Jane Eyre. If you're like me and you'd prefer a wilder Rochester, you'll probably enjoy both the '97 A&E and '83 BBC productions.

This movie is a watered-down and anemic portrayal of the novel, Jane Eyre.

Ironically, I read "Jane Eyre" because I caught PART of this movie on A&E one morning & thought that it looked good. I'm really glad that I didn't stay to watch the whole movie. If I did, I may never have read the book.

I finished the book today, and enjoyed it completely. I ran around all day looking for this movie, hoping to see a powerful and moving enactment of the beautiful, slightly supernatural tale. I am really glad I was able to rent it. If I'd bought it, I would be quite irritated right now.

I think that most of the problems with this movie lay in the writing. It seems to me that the screenwriter(s) sacrificed the best parts of the book in order to make the movie less than two hours. All of the things that I looked forward to seeing were gone or changed.

For the most part, I think the acting was good. But what was up with those kissing scenes? Jane looked pretty uncomfortable. Why didn't the director orchestrate the scene so that we did not have to see the actual 'kissing?' Clearly, the actors were not as passionate about each other as the characters were, but did we really have to see that?