Jane Eyre

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.

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.

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 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?