Jane Eyre

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!

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 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.

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.