User reviews

Many reviewers loved this version; many hated it. And that is exactly as it should be. There are many possible interpretations of good literature, just as every person's character has many different facets. Versions of Shakespeare's plays have been enacted for hundreds of years and still every version represents something different about humankind, especially if there is innovation in the production, script or acting.

I first read Jane Eyre when I was about 8, nearly 60 years ago. It was the first book I ever cried over and it's fair to say that was part of my emotional development. I have read it many times and seen many filmed versions since - and I still love it, simply because it is fresh every time as different aspects reveal themselves - either because they are in the book or because the book resonates differently with me as I change.

So please open your mind when you watch this - and other - versions of the Bronte books. In my view it is not perfect, but few productions ever are. Even so, it was interesting, enjoyable and a joy to watch.

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.

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 .

The only thing that really recommends this movie is the scenery--it was beautifully filmed. However, the hammy acting and seemingly constant yelling of Ciarán Hinds & Samantha Morton spoil much of the beauty of the story. One of the things that attracted Mr. Rochester to Jane Eyre was her serenity. I saw none of that restful quality in this performance. This being one of my all-time favourite novels, I do enjoy watching all versions but I must admit this one was a disappointment. The British versions of the classics are usually better.

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.

So frustrating that every adaptation of a great story *almost* gets it right. This one has something that a lot of other adaptations do not have, a spirited and thinking Jane. Most other versions have Jane as a mouse who never says anything or gives looks of annoyance. This Jane, however, makes it clear that she has something going on up there in-between her dialog. This is due in part to the narration but also excellent acting where you can believe that she is thinking but at the same time not being inappropriate to the time period. I can't see much else about this version really being excellent. It is of course a large book crammed into a two hour movie. I think they do what they can. Mr. Rochester is far too severe. Other than the manipulations he plays out on Jane you wonder why or how she could possibly be attracted to him. It isn't bad, just sort of by the numbers.

This is a superb adaptation of the novel -- the leads couldn't be better cast, or better acted. Jane, who is intelligent, introspective and highly-principled, yet shy and insecure, and Mr. Rochester, who is emotionally-distant, secretive, and conflicted. Both are lonely, but they do serendipitously meet and fall in love.

Samantha Morton is the first Jane who looks, acts and speaks like the Jane I know from the novel. And Ciaran Hinds, with his awkward, gruff demeanor and off-putting behavior is perfect. The excellent production values enhance the emotion and direction of the plot. If you are as passionate about British literature as I am, this film will thrill you. Even as I write this, I am re-experiencing the very intense emotion of the scene when Jane is about to leave Rochester's estate. It is a very moving scene and I have never forgotten it.

This is the real thing.

Samantha morton stars as bronte's jane eyre, in one of the most remade stories ever. Starting as an orphan, it had been a rough life so far. Working as a teacher, things improved, and jane gets hired on as governess to adele (timia berthome). Adele's father, the eligible edward rochester (ciaran hinds), is rough around the edges, but honest and fair. And he sets jane's heart beating. You may recognize morton as one of the pre-cog see-ers in minority report. With a very different hairdo. You can see the familiar look when she stares straight ahead. This is the story of how jane and rochester's lives intertwine over the years. This was just the second role for hermione gulliford. And the only role so far for timia berthome; her bio says she is a singer. Directed by robert young. The other one. It's quite well done. Moves along a little faster than most period pieces. Good casting, good acting performances.

I've happily watched many versions, this one blew me away. The screenwriting captured the true essence of the novel, and Samantha Morton created a Jane that is believable, and will live forever in my mind as the true Jane Eyre.

This version has several things to, on the surface, recommend it - Samantha Morton, fresh from Band of Gold and before her Hollywood successes, plays Jane Eyre with sincerity and real feeling. We can understand her motivation and empathise with her position.

Even though short, this adaptation manages to stay fairly close to the book, although, like most versions, takes liberty with the dialogue and settings. Gemma Jones is a good Mrs Fairfax, and Timea Berthome is a sweet little Adele.

But ... Ciaran Hinds as Rochester! No, no, no. Aside from the Santana moustache, his acting is overplayed and just wrong for the part, proving laughable in places. The kissing scenes are too ridiculous for words and only highlight the lack of chemistry between him and Morton, far from suggesting the latent passion we should see between hero and heroine in this complicated tale.

His casting is a major misfire for me, and damages the fabric of an otherwise solid TV version. Not unwatchable, but disappointing.

I am an unforgiving purist and my favourite version of Jane Eyre has to be the BBC version with Timothy Dalton playing Rochester as an attractive, witty, sensitive, firm and fascinating man. Edward Rochester is one of fiction's greatest romantic heroes and Ciaran Hinds played him as a selfish bully to whom I had difficulty believing Jane would have been attracted. There wasn't enough time to show the development of their friendship, so Jane's love appeared unconvincing. In fact, I felt that taken at face value, this Jane would only have loved this Rochester because she had no previous experience with men and was pushed into it. The truth of their relationship as written in the novel is completely different: that of mutual respect and understanding, as two solitary people often misunderstood by others but who become soul mates. This is what draws me to the book and why I often feel dissatisfied with adaptations. The development of Jane Eyre as a person is its most important theme - she has a deprived and abused childhood and only by finding Thornfield and its inhabitants is she allowed to blossom. One important thing missing here was Jane's financial independence at the end, which emphasises her real status and voluntary return to Rochester. I also didn't like the re-writing of almost all the dialogue, because Charlotte Bronte's original text is wonderful and more evocative. I don't believe it is possible to do justice to this unique story in any adaptation of this length - only a multi-part mini series can give enough time to fill in all the important details. I look forward to the latest BBC version with Toby Stephens as Rochester!

Above all, read the book!

Admitting that Ciaran Hinds is a favorite of mine since seeing Jane Austen's "Persuasion", he is a very poignant and effective Edward Rochester. This version isn't quite as true to the novel as the Timothy Dalton/Zelah Clark version but still is a very good movie. If you are a Bronte aficionado this will be a favorite with you. If you just want a good old-fashioned English love story you'll like this movie. While Ciaran Hinds 'can' be a beautiful man, he plays Rochester with all his warts. This Jane is very believable and true to the original story as well. Of all the remakes I would rank this my second favorite and that's saying something. The other versions have been so 'Hollywooded' that you lose the essence of the novel. Buy it, rent it, borrow it, but watch it! Enjoy!

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?

"Jane Eyre" is a great romantic novel, full of passion as all the novels of the Brontë sisters, and with a terrific story to tell. This version, the third I have seen, has no passion, no mystery and apparently no direction. Robert Young has treated the Brontë world as if it were the world of Jane Austen. I recently saw the 1944 and the 1970 versions (the Robert Stevenson and the Delbert Mann ones). The Stevenson opus had the advantage of a really powerful cast. Joan Fontaine and Orson Welles understood and projected all the passion and the mystery of the novel. Besides, it had a marvelous musical score by Bernard Herrmann. The 1970 film had at least a passionate Rochester in that great actor George C.Scott. But this one! I don't believe any woman in her right mind would fall in love with the prosaic, colorless, inexpressive man that a very bad actor, Ciaran Hinds, could project.And the leading lady, Samantha Morton, is not only plain (as Jane Eyre is described in the book), but totally unattractive and only a passable actress. I felt I was not watching a film, but having the book read aloud to me. The only element that can be saved of this unfortunate "Jane Eyre" is the color photography and some natural but already hackneyed scenery. See the 1944 version and forget about the others. It is still a classic film and a clear demonstration of what can be done with a classic novel when there is talent behind and in front of the camera. Let's not forget that Aldous Huxley was a co-author of the '44 screen play. What a great film after 45 years. The responsibles for the '97 version should take cover.

When Charlotte Bronte was a young woman she experienced life as a poor governess. In actual fact she wrote a letter to her sister stating that 'being a governess is no life at all. One is constantly ignored, like you are invisible.' Gathering many materials from her life (including the real life story of a mad woman locked up in the attic), she wrote the wonderful Jane Eyre, a novel about what happens if the poor, plain ignored governess finds true love.

This adaptation of Jane Eyre shows us, not so much a Gothic horror story, but more the love shared between two totally opposite characters, a love which is forceful and all comsuming, like the moors unto which Thornfield Estate sits.

After having watched numerous adaptations of Jane Eyre, I was prepared for yet another half hearted attempt at drama, but was pleasantly surprised. Whilst the story tends to deviate away from the more depressing and theological aspects of the novel, it does however make the story flow much better.

Samantha Morton is wonderfully cast as Jane Eyre, a quite shy woman who is a product of her dreadful upbringing, but still managing to retain a sense of wellness, emphathy and the willingness to fall in love.

After having seen William Hurt in Zepprarelli's Hollywood version of Jane Eyre (which quite frankly did not reflect the true nature of the book), I was quite surprised to find Ciaran Hinds cast as Mr Rochester. but my doubts were soon pushed aside. He portrayed a more realistic Mr Rochester, one whom Charlotte Bronte probably had more in mind when she first penned Jane Eyre. He portrayed a truly tortured soul, who would have done anything to get the love of Jane, even to the point of committing bigamy.

the chemistry between Morton and Hinds is absolutely wonderful, especially when Jane and Mr Rochester part ways - in some ways it was quite mesmerising, watching the intensity of the emotions, Morton and Hinds were able to bring out. It actually reminded me of the wonderful heart wrenching melodramas Hollywood used to produce - in the vein of Gone with the Wind and Casablanca.

I have not seen a better adaptation of Jane Eyre and was only sorry that I had not seen it sooner.

This version of Jane Eyre is by far my favorite. Samantha Morton gives a compelling performance that allows the viewer to see that her depth of feeling for Mr Rochester is far more than an infatuation or obsession. She is self-possessed, yet passionately in love - mentally, spiritually, and emotionally. Ciaran Hinds gives a strong performance and demonstrates a connection that surpasses dialog when Jane returns from caring for her aunt. Their kiss could never be considered practiced - Samantha plays Jane authentically when the viewer realizes that this is not only her first kiss, but her first experience with approval from the opposite sex. Rochester is more than ardent - in many ways, this is his first kiss as well - since he loves Jane's soul as well. If the viewer takes the time to notice more than the obvious, they will be well pleased with this offering.

While this is not the worse adaptation it did have its flaws which may keep the Jane Eyre fans cringing. Although shortened, I thought that the editing was reasonable. I didn't mind most the scenes they cut. I did find the updated dialogs annoying at times, because it often obscured the real motivations for the characters actions. I think that the writers of the screenplay were a bit uncomfortable with the religious undertones to Jane's goodness and for her leaving Edward.

Now I think that Ms. Morton did not understand her character at all. She plays the scene where she first learns who Edward is in a very haughty way. She seems to think that Jane is some feminist archetype, bold and sassy...when in reality Jane, because of years of oppression at Lowood knew "her place" yet, was so good, she answered Edward's questions truthfully...even if her answers seemed bold. In a way Jane of the book was like a bird in a cage, it is only after finding that Edward wanted her to truly be free to be herself that she spoke more freely in his presence. He freed her...(not a popular modern outlook but the book was written some time ago). Jane only speaks up as the story progresses because of Edwards goading her, and her own desire to finally have a voice. Miss Morton also make some rather unusual facial expressions, she smiles when she hears she will meet the elusive Mr. Rochester...why?... just got yelled at by the man...why would she smile about the prospect of meeting him?Weird. It is like this "Jane" read the book and knew what was going to happen next.Yikes.

Hind's Rochester at first felt spot on, moody...but then he just started yelling giving it a less than nuanced delivery. I would have fled, if I were Jane, because with all that yelling I would have been afraid of a man like that. I have seen him in the film "Persuasion" and found him wonderful...so perhaps direction was the problem.

Another cloying aspect to this production is the general "lightness" of Thornfield. I guess I prefer a somewhat dark and gloomy place that hints at the horror that burdens Mr. Rochester...but on this note I will say this is a personal preference of mine. Others may find the scenery and set decoration more fitting and proper than previous versions.

Did I hate this production? No. I think it does flow nicely. It has its high point in showing the passion. I also appreciate every telling of my favorite story. I do suggest that if you want to see a dark and mysterious version...try Orson Wells, or a more accurate version try the one with Timothy Dalton.