Jane Eyre

This is probably the best treatment of Jane Eyre I've seen. A novel this rich does not adapt well to a two hour film, and this five hour production allows for a more than adequate treatment of the depth and scope of Bronte's work. The narration by Jane herself is a unique approach that I found very interesting and added to the depth of not only Jane herself but also to the other characters about whom she continually muses. Sorcha Cusack and Michael Jayston are excellently paired and are, in my opinion, the finest Jane and Rochester I've seen, both in terms of characterization and looks. Finally a Jane and Rochester who aren't too beautiful!

I have seen many versions of Jane Eyre, and this version is at the top of my list. When I get the urge for some terrific acting and a bit of romance, I pop in the videotape and sit back to enjoy. Michael Jayston gives an incredible performance as Mr. Rochester, just amazing. Sorcha Cusack and the rest of the cast turn in equally good performances, but I felt that Jayston was the best Rochester I have ever seen! It is a lengthly production, but the length is needed to tell the story--other productions, 2 hour movies, have not been able to do nearly as good a job. But again, Michael Jayston's masterful performance is the best part of this already first-rate production!

I was delighted to read the positive reviews of this wonderful adaptation of Jane Eyre. I agree wholeheartedly with all the comments listed. I remember watching this series on BBC 2 in the early 1970s and was absolutely captivated. It brought the novel to life in the most magical way. At that time I was studying Jane Eyre as a text for 'O' level English Literature and it made studying the novel a real pleasure. I have never seen a better Mr Rochester or Jane Eyre and the sexual chemistry between Michael Jayston and Sorcha Cusack was electrifying to watch. I have not seen this series since that original broadcast and to the best of my knowledge it was never repeated. It was pre video recorders in our household so we have no copy of it. I would dearly love to view it again and have tried in vain to obtain a copy. The BBC have released later and in my opinion inferior versions but apparently have no plans to release this one. It is testimony to the power of those wonderful performances of more than 30 years ago that I can still remember how superb they were. Here's hoping that the BBC have a change of heart.

I'm bursting with repletion: I don't care if they never make another version or if they make a hundred versions of "Jane Eyre." I'll watch this one for the rest of my life. I got my very own copy of it in the mail today. I'm glad I hadn't been aware of its existence until two months ago. I don't think I would have survived without it for 35 years. It is the only version that truly respects the genius in Charlotte Bronte's writing, and doesn't presume to improve or interpret it.

Other reviewers have already used the very words I wanted to use to describe this brilliant dramatization. Michael Jayston is the only actor who seems to have taken the trouble to read the book and all its finer points: his portrayal displays all the moods and traits in just the right tone and force of feeling. Sorcha Cusack is adorable and dignified; the language of her eyes is easily interpreted by Jayston's Rochester. All the other actors are also perfect impersonations. If only we could give them a charm or a philter to make them look young again - we would make them re-film the complete dialogues.

Admittedly, I didn't at first take to this version. The script is faithful to the book (as I soon found by re-reading all the scenes), but I deemed the acting too theatrical, the outdoor sets too one-dimensional; and Michael Jayston's looks were not to my taste. On second viewing I found that the acting matched exactly Charlotte Bronte's narrative. The third viewing proved that a loving eye is all the charm needed to endear Rochester's looks to me. (I have now copied a picture of Jayston's Rochester as a computer background, and I look out for his appearance in re-runs of "Darling Buds of May" and "Foyle's War.")

Most importantly, this is the effect the superb interpretation of this version had on me: it re-transformed me from India-rubber back to flesh. Over the years of my mid-life crisis I ceased to believe in any form of love. Humanity, to me, seemed one mass of bad, hard-hearted individuals. JE 73 has opened new meaning and deepened my understanding of what Charlotte Bronte had really wanted to say in her novel. I had always considered her book to be my manifesto since teenage years - now it has become a revelation to me, has opened the doors of the soul's cell.

This is a very good adaptation of Charlotte Brontes timeless classic. Even though it doesn't really work as a movie, because the dialog in the book is reproduced more or less verbatim, which is great to read but different when you watch. However, it doesn't really have any movie pretensions, so I will not judge it as a movie.

This is a very fine production and I like it very much. The dialog is kept very clean (by which I mean not mutilated or modernized) and all of the humour that Rochester and Jane share is kept in, which is something that most other adaptations tend to lose somehow. The production values aren't great, but I did not mind that too much. However, the difference in picture quality between indoor and outdoor scenes is noticeable. A couple of things however are not so good. Jane narrates the story throughout, which I usually think is very helpful for people who are unfamiliar with the book. However, Janes running commentary during scenes where she speaks is distracting at times and not really helpful at all. It's not necessary to narrate "I smiled" while you can see her smiling on screen. Also, I found it quite weird that – since Jane is supposed to be tiny – Michael Jayston who plays Rochester is just an inch or so taller than Sorcha Cusack who plays Jane… I just could not get used to that, it bothered me every time they had a scene together. Also the makeup department went rather heavy on the eyeliner. With Ms Cusack it doesn't matter so much, but on Michael Jayston it just looks ridiculous.

Michael Jayston is a brilliant Rochester. The age is right and he can work wonders with his face to express emotions. I also like Sorcha Cusack, she is suitably plain, though the acting she does is limited (however, that might be due to the running commentary). Some reviewers have commented that the actors lack chemistry and I can see what they mean. It's very subtle but I thought there was some, just enough to support the story nicely. Another thing that was wrong though was St. John Rivers. He is supposed to be 30 in the book, however the actor looks at least 45… but he is brilliantly pious and unlikeable, just as he should be. Everything else however is just right and very true to the novel which I always approve of. All in all, I enjoyed this version very much and will watch it again but I will give slight deductions for the distracting commentary and the eyeliner