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 usually like Samantha Morton, but her blankness didn't serve her well as Jane Eyre. She seemed too passive as well. Hinds just overwhelmed her (and maybe that was their point because the character does do that in the book ...at first).

I really thought they lacked any kind of sexual energy however and Hinds was generally too gruff and wild. Of course I've just seen him in Rome. He's an amazing actor and able to play "big" very well. But when you play a romantic lead, it's the little details that count. He came off more as a bully than a man desperate to find love and redemption.

Of course, any performance is better than William Hurt's! Shudder. Rochester should never, ever be played by a fair-haired man. Unless Daniel Craig decides to play him. Against Keira Knightly! Just teasing.

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?

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.

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.