Jane Eyre (1997 TV Movie) User Reviews

So many reviews miss the point

[barbara-76 · 8/10 · 23 December 2013]

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.

Easy Watching, they miss a load from the book though....

[cyanidebaby · 8/10 · 24 September 2006]

This 'Jane Eyre' on the whole is quite a good adaptation for those who do not fuss if a few chapters are missed out. Samantha Morton's sweet voice is perfect for innocent Jane, yet she is slightly to pretty for her in my opinion. Her acting is on the whole is great though the kiss scene with Rochester should be avoided when you have just eaten because some might find it a put off to see to people literally chomping on each other's faces.

Hinds gives quite a strong performance until the last hour or so, the only problem I have with him is that when he is unsure of how to deliver a line he just shouts it.

Overall I think it is relaxed viewing for those who have not read the novel and it is quite a charming version...

What a come-down from the earlier versions!!!

[linken · 6/10 · 4 January 2001]

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.

Chopped parts but very true to the book

[daria84 · 9/10 · 16 December 2012]

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.

beautiful

[Kirpianuscus · 10 December 2022]

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 .

Wasted potential, but not a waste of time

[MissSimonetta · 7/10 · 25 March 2020]

Unlike a lot of other reviewers on here, I actually thought Hinds and Morton shared a great deal of chemistry. They seemed right about ready to get all over each other several times. I also think both were well-cast: Morton, while a bit too pretty and self-righteous at times, captures Jane's passion and elfin ways well, while Hinds projects vulnerability along with pride and bitterness, even if he's made to shout and bark way too much (also, thank God, we have a Rochester that doesn't look like a hunk).

The big problem with this version of JANE EYRE is the screenplay: it condenses and cuts way too much. I do not say this as a purist-- as someone who likes a good deal of WUTHERING HEIGHTS adaptations, even though precious few capture what was brilliant about the book, I am no purist-- but as someone who expects a movie to be coherent. The scene transitions are jarring and awkward. Character development for Jane is largely non-existent: instead of growing into her own, she largely stays the same and just has to wait for Bertha to turn Thornfield into an inferno and die. The Lowood scenes are so rushed that they could have easily cut them with no detriment whatsoever.

It's a shame because this is otherwise a decent movie with some nice romantic scenes and creepy gothic moments.

A wonderful, if short, adaptation

[defenestrated- · 9/10 · 7 February 2003]

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.

Notable for a spirited Jane

[LukeCustomer2 · 6/10 · 18 January 2020]

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.

A superb adaptation of the novel

[MissRosa · 9/10 · 3 March 2000]

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.

True Love is a Great Deal of Trouble.

[rmax304823 · 6/10 · 16 November 2017]

Samantha Morton is Jane Eyre in this nicely appointed TV adaptation of Brontë's novel, which I've never read. Morton is a winner. She exudes the dignity and purity of a young woman who has never had any but moral thoughts. Her face is pale and her limpid eyes are blue and she sweeps her hair back in some kind of bun or whatever it's called, prompting any normal male to wonder what it would be like to take a tender bite out of her cygnet neck. I can't say that Ciáran Hinds as Rochester is equally impressive. Oh, he has the requisite traits of a good husband -- immense wealth, a mansion with ramparts in the country, a dark commanding presence, and a mystery waiting to be unraveled. But he has the features of a footman not an Esquire and Hinds turns the role into a loud and unattractive irritant. If I were a woman I'd have to be pretty hard up.

The story has a feisty Jane sent off to Mr. Brocklehurst's stern and religious boarding school, afterwards being hired as a governess for Rochester's young daughter. She's a nice quiet governess, and the girl likes her too. As for Mr. Rochester, it's not clear. He sends all kinds of mixed signals and the only one played without a mute is his role as master of the house, snarling, accustomed to ordering people about. Not sadistic, just accustomed to being obeyed. Is he beginning to feel warmly towards Jane? Hard to tell. He has conversations with her, asks for her advice, seems to need her around, but on the other hand he's engaged to a beautiful and sophisticated blond, who he believes is only after his money.

He proposes to move Jane to a position as governess at a large farm in Ireland. "They say the people there are very friendly," he crows. The book was published in 1847. The Irish had been pummeled by the English for more than a century and were currently undergoing the Great Potato Famine that starved many of the Irish and sent the rest of them high-tailing it to Boston. (Note to Edward Rochester: Vett your sources.) Jane is of two minds about this deal. She'll miss the housemistress, the daughter, the friendly maids and -- "And who?" he asks brusquely. "And you, sir." "Yes, it's a shame. We have been good friends, haven't we." I swear, I find little admirable in this guy. But then she floods out, as Jung would have put it, and the dam of his own passions is broken. He sweeps her up and gives her a gentlemanly kiss on the lips and she seems to suffer la petite mort before he finally, finally, pops the monumental question.

But wait. It's not over. It can't be over. There is still the mystery of who is running around the house at night doing crazy things like setting rooms on fire. We've got to know. Besides, the movie is only two thirds over. Everyone claims that the night-time chaos is caused by one of the maids, a Grace Poole, who drinks too much. Jane has never laid eyes on Grace Poole and when she wakes in the middle of the night to find someone tearing up her robe, the eminently practical Rochester assures her, "Why, it must have been a dream, Jane," the torn robe notwithstanding.

The ending seem hurried, twisted, convulsive and rollercoasterous but satisfying in a way that Hollywood would approve of. I don't think I'll describe it. But I must say that some of the plot threads have obviously been ripped off by Daphne du Maurier in "Rebecca." Well, if it works --

At least they got Pilot right!

[jback-5 · 2/10 · 9 January 2008]

This 1997 TV production is called "Jane Eyre", but except for a similarity to the plot of the novel there is preciously little in this film to remind you that you are indeed watching an adaptation of Charlotte Brontë's literary masterpiece. How they managed to get every single character of the novel wrong - except for Pilot, who is well cast - is a complete mystery to me, but they did. This is the more a pity because with Samantha Morton and Ciaràn Hinds they had two good actors, who even physically fit their roles well, but, alas, the greatest talent is of no avail when the concept of the characters is as wrong as in this adaptation. Samantha Morton - young, delicate and plain enough - looks like Jane Eyre, but does not play Jane Eyre. Her Jane is far too bold, even disrespectful at times, self-confident and self-satisfied, bossy and pert. Gone is the interesting duality of Jane's character in the novel, her outward shyness, guardedness and modesty on the one hand and her fire and passion on the other. Morton's Jane speaks her mind boldly right from the beginning and never stops doing so throughout the film. There is no subtlety in her performance, her Jane undergoes no change and no development. The same is sadly also true for the character of Mr. Rochester. Believe it or not, but they indeed managed to turn one of the most interesting and complex figures of English literature into a brute and a bully. Luckily Ciaràn Hinds possesses some charisma, but otherwise nothing links him to the eloquent and fascinating character of the novel. Not the slightest attempt was made to explore the depths of Rochester's character, his many contradicting facets, his moodiness, his inner struggle, his humour and his tenderness. The Rochester of the novel is admittedly insolent and harsh at times, but never the unrefined, snarling brute Ciaràn Hinds makes him. Yet Hinds is even worse at playing the loving Rochester, and the only feeling he manages to convey is lust.

Unfortunately the misrepresentation of the characters is not limited to the leading roles: Blanche, besides being blonde, is not in the least haughty enough, not to mention the fact that she is nice to Adèle, St. John is all smiles and kindness, and the role of Mrs. Fairfax has been unnecessarily puffed up, probably due to the fact that she is played by dear Gemma Jones. Yet some scenes less with Mrs. Fairfax fussing around and some scenes more between Jane and Rochester would have been very helpful to make the audience understand why the two latter fall in love in the first place.

As far as language is concerned this production is another victim of the delusion of some scriptwriters who either think that they can improve on Charlotte Brontë's brilliant language or that her 19th century English has to be simplified to become digestible for a modern audience. The result is that the dialogues are severely changed or replaced by the scriptwriter's own banal lines. In either case they have lost all the charm, sparkle and brilliance of the dialogues in the novel. Poor misguided scriptwriter Richard Hawley even deemed it necessary to make Rochester introduce one of his most famous lines - the line about the string that inextricably binds Jane and him together - with the words: "I know it may sound silly but...." No, Mr. Hawley, if somebody sounds silly here, it is definitely NOT Charlotte Brontë! Another capital error of judgement - and unfortunately also an insult to good taste - is the way they rewrote the farewell scene between Jane and Rochester after the aborted wedding, a scene, by the by, which in all the modern adaptations has received a particularly brutal treatment. Whereas in the latest Jane Eyre production of 2006 that scene was an outrage to Charlotte Brontë's Jane, the way the scene is handled in this adaptation is an outrage to Charlotte Brontë's Rochester. What? Rochester insulting Jane when she intends to leave him, bullying her, throwing her suitcase over the banister and telling her to go if she does not love him enough to stay? Absolutely ridiculous! It is hard to imagine what has gotten into the filmmakers to produce such rubbish as this.

This is the worst, but there are many others scenes which are similarly absurd and ludicrous: the first scene of Rochester galloping in slow motion through the mist before he falls into a brook, Grace Poole coming out of the lunatic's room to sniff at Mason's wounds like a wild beast, Rochester sitting on the top of an archway of Thornfield as if he were the court jester and Mason jumping on horseback over the church fence to prevent a marriage of which he has heard only heavens knows how.

Equally lamentable is the filmmakers' inability to represent the correct social behaviour of the 1850ies. Rochester and Jane are far too disrespectful to each other at first and later far too hot. Sentences like "I feel that your passions are aroused" are appropriate for "Sex in the City", but not for a costume drama, let alone Jane Eyre. Obviously the filmmakers decided not to bother at all - neither about being true to the novel, nor about portraying the novel's era accurately. The result is a sad failure - both as a film and an adaptation of Jane Eyre. The only fact with which the makers of this Jane Eyre can console themselves is that the BBC failed even worse in the subsequent production of Jane Eyre in 2006.

Samantha Morton Shines

[bluelight-69188 · 10/10 · 17 January 2020]

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.

The worst of all possible jane eyres.

[piapia · 6/10 · 10 August 1999]

"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.

Too rushed, too much missing, characterisation didn't fit the book.

[jhsteel · 5/10 · 20 September 2006]

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!

Liking this movie version (only a miniseries can cover the whole book) Hinds...a great brooding Rochester!

[movie-viking · 8/10 · 23 September 2013]

I like this Ciarian Hinds/Samantha Morton version better than the 96 version with William Hurt as Mr. Rochester.

Now...the book is LONG...so every movie has to leave out lots of the story...I have't seen a Jane Eyre series, but, like the Pride & Prejudice series (versus P&P movies) it would cover Jane Eyre's story much better.

That said, I like Ciaran Hinds as the edgy, volatile Mr. Rochester in this version. William Hurt is a bit too tame and too "nice". The Jane Eyre character is tough. She can deal with a few raw edges in her boss/love interest. After handling all the abuse in her childhood, she has incredible inner strength, which we usually see in Morton's performance.

And I unfairly didn't think Samantha Morton could play Jane Eyre, simply because she plays a bland young woman in "Emma". (Her character in EMMA, however, is SUPPOSED to be a bit bland and dull...). Morton does not quite match Hinds' intensity till the end...when I do believe her "Jane Eyre" character's refusal to go.

Mr. Hinds is top rate Mr. Rochester all the way through...and Ms. Morton grows stronger as she goes along...It's a good version of the book to find and watch.

Disappointment

[nickedemus · 26 October 2002]

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?

bronte's j eyre, in another remake

[ksf-2 · 7/10 · 3 February 2022]

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.

A beautiful color version with a very modern take on the women.

[DAHLRUSSELL · 10/10 · 23 July 2006]

I will start by saying BEST ROCHESTER EVER. Cirian Hinds rules this version of JANE EYRE. He is commanding and rude, used to having his own way. He is attractive by force of personality, but not by physical charms. He is also shown to be selfish, and that is an essential element of his character. It takes the combination of script, Director and actor to make the role really become the character described in the book, and Cirian Hinds is it. He IS Bronte's Rochester. (We also find that when the mystery woman is revealed, that she too is one of the best castings of this role in any version. She is painfully sad in her reality.) I wish I could say the same for Samantha Morton, a fine, talented actress, who has the strange non traditional beauty to look this role wonderfully, but is not the Jane of the book (inside, where it matters, as she keeps telling us). The major problem is that this Jane is not at all in awe of this world or Rochester. Worse yet, she is sexually aware and even knowing, confident of herself. It is really an odd juxtaposition that she seems so sensual and cocky with Rochester. It makes this performance fascinating to watch, probably more appealing to modern girls, but definitely not the Jane of the book.

This version is more modern in the interpretation of women, and their place in society. While Bronte did mine the theme of mutual respect, it had a different meaning in that society. Visually, we often see overviews of the house as it functions, a Jane's-eye view with an appreciation of her "sisters." But this house is not the desolate house of the book. There is little Gothic isolation here. A prime example and oddity of this production is Gemma Jones as Mrs. Fairfax. She yells, she orders, she pushes people around. All correct for the head of a large household, but not the Mrs. Fairfax of the book who is much more congenial and benign. In the book you wonder how she could run the house, being so lackadaisical, but Jones' Fairfax could command a regiment.

Worst of this production is the casting of Rochester's fiancée. She is entirely too modern in every respect, with the television "lollipop" body, big head, tiny body, and a face definitely not beautiful like a doll. She is pretty like a cheerleader or tanned girl's hockey team player. The book is very specific about the description of this character. Young Vivian Leigh would be the ideal Blanche Ingram. Dark hair, light eyes, striking, doll like, and will a will of iron. This actress gives a very good modern performance, we even like her a bit, but again, simply… not like the book.

Adele also is not doll like, and older than one envisions from the book, but I do like this Adele. The benefit of choosing a slightly older girl is this much better performance. Watching many versions of JANE ERYE, I find that the casting of the fiancée and Adele tell us a tremendous amount about the tastes of the times in which the version was made. So, we have a very modern take on this story, an updated version told through modern eyes. It stands very well in that light, but this is called "Charlotte Bronte's JANE EYRE, " and THAT it is definitely not.

In the book, Rochester has perhaps the most romantic declaration of love ever. This film, more than any other, had the perfect location and moment to use those exact lines. Instead, they opted to echo the lines used in the 1944 version. What a loss. I have not yet seen any version to use his line, and it is a declaration that would indeed echo across time and miles. This version does manage to squeeze in a scene or two of the second half of the story – usually cut from the shorter films.

What this version does have, aside from Mr. Hinds, is gorgeous locations, indoor and outdoor, fantastic crystal clear cinematography, and magnificent use of color. The saturated blues through the first half of the film are luminous and beautiful, and augment the beautiful eyes of both young Jane, and Ms. Morton. She really is a beautiful Jane, and this is a beautiful cinematic color version. If you have not read the book, and you're under 30, this is the version for you. (But stretch yourself and see the 1944 version, too.)

Excellent Jane but overall, disappointing

[didi-5 · 6/10 · 21 September 2006]

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.

Almost the best

[merri488 · 9/10 · 4 April 2005]

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!

OK with a rushed ending

[neil-476 · 7/10 · 27 June 2010]

I have never read the book (OK, I've read excerpts, but I've never got around to the full thing), but I will happily watch a screen adaptation.

This version is enjoyable on its own merits.

The scenery is often striking, although some of the scenery continuity is a bit suspect. The production is bright and colourful - possibly even a bit too bright: I think the early scenes at Thornfield Hall should be rather more grim and forbidding than they are here, so as to create a sense of foreboding. And the closing section feels rushed.

But Ciaran Hinds - who would never have been my first thought for Mr Rochester - does well, and Samantha Morton is an excellent Jane.

Did they actually read the book?

[mynameisdumbnuts · 1/10 · 31 July 2008]

The people who wrote this miniseries clearly read the Cliff's Notes instead of the book. I've read "Jane Eyre" half a dozen times; I turned this movie off maybe halfway through. I spent most of the time marveling at how the producers skipped over classic lines and moments from the book to invent dialogue.

They glossed over Jane's early days -- her childhood and time at school -- and then rewrote the love story. The way Jane meets Rochester is wrong. His feelings about his French ward and the story behind her are wrong. The interactions among characters are wrong.

See, what the filmmakers forgot is that the characters in this book have a strong sense of propriety. They are formal. Ranks mattered, and people behaved accordingly -- the passionate yet meek Jane and the moody yet tractable Mr. Rochester never forget their stations, and that influences their interactions. Samantha Morton's Jane is outrageously insubordinate and demanding from the moment she formally meets Rochester. It's simply out of character. Ciaran Hinds plays a decent Mr. Rochester, but he lays on the Grade-A jerk too heavily. Rochester isn't mean to Jane even if he is a bit gruff. Even the minor characters don't look the part. The best casting is Gemma Jones as kindly Mrs. Fairfax; she does a great job.

I've always believed that film adaptations of books should honor the originals and follow them as closely as possible. You shouldn't take the characters and alter them to fit your audience, you shouldn't invent parts just to suit your needs, and you shouldn't cut parts for the same reason. This book has endured for more than a hundred years; it clearly has something going for it. Why mess with that? If you have read "Jane Eyre," this movie is extremely disappointing. If you haven't read the book, it's not much better. The filmmakers get to the love story as quickly as possible, but Morton and Hinds lack chemistry, and their scenes of passion are actually quite funny.

Give this one a miss.

The Only Version That Gets The Book Right

[JCR_In_Jersey · 10/10 · 6 June 2004]

This book was an enormous success, not because it's a great love story, although it is, but because it was a story about a strong woman triumphing over a man in a man's world. All other versions of this film concentrate only on the love story aspect and miss the empowered woman aspect. Everyone always raved to me about the Joan Fontaine/Orson Welles version, but in that one, just as Jane is at her lowest point with no hope in sight, Mr. Rochester saves her. In the book and this A&E version, Jane is in a self-sufficient position with other prospects of love when SHE decides to return to Mr. Rochester. I also have to say that the humor in this film is done in exactly the correct way to endear us to the main characters.

Watchable though condensed romance

[Hallelujah289 · 6/10 · 8 November 2021]

Jane Eyre seems to be a book that is difficult to adapt to the screen because the language is so heightened that it can seem over the top when spoken, while the manners of the time dictate a tremendous amount of reserve leading to a dilemma of which to actually be faithful to and still engage a modern audience. Added to that is a morose tone and the plain style the protagonist (a governess) wears and you have a recipe for angst, bleakness and sentimentalism.

This particular adaptation avoids some pitfalls while veering into others. The Mr Rochester of this adaption while others here describe as mean I think of as rather boisterous but open hearted and even near playful. This Mr Rochester lacks the tight lipped bitterness of other portrayals and is much more ready to smile. With that there's a likability that actually makes the Jane Eyre of this adaptation appear more strict as if she is reacting to a sharpness that probably was in the novel but not in the actor playing her opposite. So the romance that ensues while tender appears to have missing parts in its progression, much more implied than actually encountered.

Certain areas of the Jane Eyre's unfair upbringing doesn't quite make it to the screen such as her time with her aunt and her horrid cousins. However being at the poor children school was illustrated more so than in other adaptions. To be honest I don't quite know what was added or left out of the movie from the book as well as others here seem to.

At any rate Jane Eyre succeeds as a unique but somewhat barebones retelling of the book's story. It also includes parts of the ending that I do remember from the book which is left out of other adaptations. If you can forgive a stern performance from the female lead you can watch the unfolding of some tender moments that at times does connect even while at other times is overshadowed by many oaths and declarations we just have to trust makes sense.

A bit off...

[mrwiseman · 4/10 · 20 December 2006]

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.