Rating: 
Summary: The definative Rochester
Review: I first read Jane Eyre when I was in the 5th grade (too many years to mention!)and have seen every version of film adaptions. While I will always love Timothy Dalton's impassioned plea for Jane to stay better, Ciaran Hinds gave a masterful performance as Rochester. He embodied the essence of a man torn between heartbreak and hope. I loved him in this movie and loved this video because of him. I do wish that they went more in depth in many of the plot lines, but overall, I get wracked with emotion every time Rochester comes on the screen.
Watch it for the story but re-watch for Ciaran Hinds!
Rating: 
Summary: ONE OF THE BEST
Review: THIS A&E VERSION OF JANE EYRE IS EXCELLENT. THE STORYLINE IS TRUE TO THE NOVEL, THOUGH ABBREVIATED. HINDS AS ROCHESTER IS AS GOOD AS ORSON WELLES, THOUGH NOT QUITE UP TO TIMOTHY DALTON'S PERFORMANCE. SAMANTHA MORTON IS WONDERFUL AS JANE EYRE, AT TIMES SURPASSING ZELAH CLARKE, WHO WAS NEARLY THE PERFECT JANE EYRE, AND JOAN FONTAINE, WHOSE FACIAL EXPRESSIONS ALONE WERE SUFFICIENT TELL THE STORY. IN SAMANTHA MORTON WE SEE THE YOUTH AND NAIVETÉ OF JANE, AS WELL AS THE DEVELOPING PASSION AND INNER STRENGTH. THIS VERSION TELLS THE STORY MORE COMPLETELY AND ACCURATELY THAN THE HOLLYWOOD CLASSIC, AND TELLS IT AS WELL, BUT IS NOT QUITE THE EQUAL OF THE PRODUCTION FEATURING TIMOTHY DALTON AND ZELAH CLARKE.
Rating:
Summary: EXCELLENT!!
Review: The A&E version far outshines all the other versions ever made. The characters are passionate and carry the story out beautifully & elegantly. Closest thing to the novel..LOVED IT, LOVED IT!! If your a romantic buff and adore Bronte's Jane Eyre, you have to see this it's worth every penny!
Rating:
Summary: Loved it
Review: Absolutely loved this version of Jane Eyre. The Timothy Dalton (1983) & William Hurt (1996) versions were very hard to sit through. This version was very good in conveying the chemistry between Jane Eyre & Mr. Rochester which the other two versions completely failed to portray. However this version is not faithful to the book at all. But it is forgivable considering they are trying to explain the passionate relationship of Jane & Rochester in less than 2hours.
Rating: 
Summary: Enjoyed But Looking for More
Review: I bought this DVD based on the reviews given by others, also thinking it was the one I'd seen before. It was not. This one was okay but I felt it was missing a few scenes, it just didn't seem complete. I'd seen another version a few years ago, late 90s, on TV (A&E maybe) and it left a very lasting impression in my mind. I knew right away that Ciara Hinds was not the leading man - I won't say that I didn't like him, there were things about him and his character that I did like. He was different than what I remembered, but not unliked. Nor will I criticize Jane, I think she did a wonderful job. I just felt like something was missing and I am still looking for more.
Rating:
Summary: Breathtaking
Review: I happened upon this version of Jane Eyre by accident one Saturday afternoon on A&E. It stunned me. The previous adaptation, with William Hurt, was staid and uninteresting. This version was amazing. I have since rented it twice and will buy it ASAP. Samantha Morton is the perfect Jane Eyre. Congrats to A&E for making Bronte's beloved story sexy and vibrant.
Rating:
Summary: A disappointing production
Review: I recently caught this on cable and was excited to see it; after all, "Jane Eyre" is one of my favorite books of all time.While Samantha Morton made an excellent Jane, I thought Ciaran Hinds was terrible as Mr. Rochester. He was far more blustery than smoldering, and the scene at which he screamed at Jane while she drove away disturbed me. He seemed more like an abusive boyfriend than a man overwhelmed with pain and passion. Also, some of my favorite scenes were cut. Where was the scene where Jane went home to visit her family? She left and then came back again; we saw no part of her interaction with the Reeds, which was one of the best parts in the book. She also never learned of the inheritance left to her by her uncle in Madeira. And I agree with the reviewer who said that the part with St. John and Diana might have been left out for all the weight this movie gave it. Overall, this is not an awful movie. However, it is inferior by far to other productions, notably the version with Charlotte Gainsbourg and William Hurt.
Rating:
Summary: Excellent Rendition of a Great Novel
Review: Reading all the many reviews shows just how passionately we all feel about Jane Eyre. Having read the novel many times and absorbed multiple critical editions of same, and having seen each of the movie versions, I truly feel this is the best version to date. I realize it does not and cannot conform to every aspect of the novel, no movie rendition ever can, but the compromises made are justified and effective. The sheer EMOTION of Jane is conveyed wonderfully. Bear in mind, Jane is very plain, not handsome or pretty and he IS a brooding man with a deep and haunting secret. It is well conveyed.
Rating:
Summary: This Movie Isn't the Book-- But It's Still a Good Movie
Review: Yes, I've read Jane Eyre, for the first time when I was twelve. And, yes, I liked the book. But this movie isn't the book and I liked it as well. One thing the movie did very well in the beginning was to condense years of abuse by Jane's aunt and Mr. Brocklehurst into a few key horrific scenes that also point out the affection that Jane felt for her friend Helen, the few kind teachers and later her pupils. Ciaran Hinds as the hero begins with a great deal of roaring and bluster, but here and there are hints that this is a screen he uses to protect himself from the pain of intimacy. The key to Mr. Rochester's character is in the scene in which he tells Jane about his "grand passion" and how he was betrayed by the woman he adored. Juxtapose this against the first Mrs. Rochester's passion for him that overset her reason. Samantha Morton does a lovely job of portraying an innocent who is not ignorant of the darker aspects of human nature-- Lowood School taught her more than reading, writing and geography. Her plummet into the pain of the truth and then her coming to understand the power of the passion that grips her is very well played. If I want to re-experience my version of Jane Eyre I will reread the book. That does not mean I cannot enjoy another interpretation of the story.
Rating: 
Summary: Definitely the Worst of the TV/Movie Adaptions
Review: I must fervently disagree with the many positive reviews shown here, for 2 major reasons. First, the writers took great 'liberties' with the novel that detract, rather than enhance, the characters. The best two examples involve the main characters of Mr. Rochester and Jane. In the book, Rochester is a brooding, singular figure who is very much a victim of the cruel plotting and vices of others. But in this film version, he is cruel and vindictive in and of himself. Vengeful, plotting, and profane, you have little reason to see why Jane would ever attach herself to such a worthless creature. Jane of course does fall in love with him, but because he is so repugnant, the viewer can hardly see any reason why. Thus, Jane is herself reduced greatly from a woman who loves unconditionally - -as was shown in the book- -to a strange, misguided young woman racked with a codependent psyche. The second area in which this version is inferior to the book, and the other far superior film versions (particularly the William Hurt version) is its brevity. It is only 90 minutes long. It leaves out so many of the small aspects that would normally give vitality and life to the characters. Being that it is such a poor version, this is not necessarily all that bad, but willing to give the film chance after chance to redeem itself, it falls terribly short on nearly every measure.
|
