Rating: 
Summary: Worth Watching
Review: At first I was disappointed with this movie, but, on second viewing, and second thought, it is rather good. You see, to do Jane Eyre justice, to capture the struggles of her life, the experiences that made her into the strong-willed, enduring woman that she became, you would have to do a mini-series. That was attempted with the Timothy Dalton/Zelah Clarke version, which was tolerable, but lacked passion. I would say that this adaptation of Jane Eyre, though in some ways lacking, is worth watching, if for no other reason, for the passionate acting on the part of the leading man and lady. Both Ciaran Hinds, and Samantha Morton, played very emotional, believable, and forceful roles, and though not as deeply moving and memorable as the characters in the book, they do well considering that an unbelievably grand story is being told in 2 hours or so. To get to the bottom-line, I would certainly say that this adaptation is enjoyable, IF, you are not a stickler for exact representations. Many important details of Jane's life are excluded, but, it is still worth watching... I have it in my collection! :-)
Rating: 
Summary: Ciaran Hinds is great!
Review: Wonderful movie. Great cast. Ciaran Hinds is fabulous!
Rating: 
Summary: A real disappointment
Review: This adaptation of the marvelous novel "Jane Eyre" was an absolute punishment to watch. Such artistic liberties were taken with the characters in this film as to render them virtually unrecognizable. I can't recall any of the dialogue that was actually true to the book, and this was very disappointing as the strength of the story lies in the voices of the characters. I have no doubt that Samantha Morton and Ciaran Hinds would have done a marvelous job in their roles, were it not for the horrid writing and equally horrid direction. Mr. Rochester is so continually flying into a rage over something or other, that one wonders how Jane ever could have tolerated his company. And Jane speaks her mind in a much more opinionated and argumentative way then Charlotte Bronte ever allowed her to in the book. I also wonder why some of the most important scenes were completely ignored. Basically all of Jane's childhood is passed over in about 5 minutes, and thus the foundation of Jane's character cannot be truly understood. Also, the deathbed scene of Aunt Reed, and all the particulars of that family were passed over. And the scene where Mr. Rochester disguises himself as a gypsy, one of the most revealing and pivotal scenes in the story, was completely excluded. I would not recommend this film to anyone who has never read the book, as it simply does not do it justice. I also would not recommend it to any true lovers of this tale, as it is more likely to frustrate than to entertain.
Rating:
Summary: Not completely true to the book, yet it captures essence.
Review: Well, I just watched this movie today again after not seeing it for a couple of years and again I loved it.No, it is not as true to the book as some other versions, but it captures the spirit and tells the story in a very compelling, moving-it-along way. I enjoyed the rapid transitions, cut-aways and voice overs. It tells the story of the novel in a most interesting way. I think Samantha Morton makes an excellent Jane Eyre. She really captures Jane's innocent yet vibrantly alive spirit. Morton exudes the very fairy-like, impish qualities that Mr. Rochester is always describing her as having in the book. I think she is the best Jane I have see portrayed although I do enjoy Charlotte Gainesborough's and Joan Fontaine's work as Jane as well. Ciran Hinds did equally as well. I think the two actors really displayed the chemistry that existed potently between Jane and Rochester. This kiss under the tree was remarkable! The settings and lighting in this version are much better than in the 1983 Timothy Dalton version. And although Hinds is quite handsome in Persuasion, he actually becomes the more unattractive Rochester in this movie. Dalton, although a powerful performance in the miniseries in which he played Mr. Rochester, could never really be considered "ugly." Hinds is a more credible Rochester and very true to Charlotte Bronte's novel. I highly recommend and enjoy this version of Jane Eyre. Although not as true to the book as other versions, I think it included the most crucial scenes in a most convincing way. It was truly a fresh look at a classic and timeless novel.
Rating: 
Summary: Just a quick thought...
Review: I haven't seen this movie, but I have read the book. I'd just like to say, for those who complain that Jane wasn't "beautiful" in the movie and those that say "How could Rochester fall in love with her?", that Bronte's whole point was that neither Jane nor Rochester were beautiful. Both were plain and some could say that Rochester was even ugly. The point is that their love was based on something higher and less superficial than beauty alone. Those who think that you have to be beautiful for someone to love you are just downright shallow.
Rating: 
Summary: How could any Jane Eyre fan love this movie??!!
Review: I've read the book (10 times) and seen all the movie versions. The "Jane" in this video was unbelievably haughty and unattractive. How in the world did Rochester ever fall in love with her? When they kiss in the movie there is the "chemistry" (mentioned in other reviews), but lust isn't what the book is all about. All my favorite passages were cut out or adulterated beyond recognition. This would be a terrific disappointment to any one who really loves the book.
Rating:
Summary: Wonderfully emotional
Review: A notion that a movie should be true to its literary predecessor is often unnecessarily emphasized. Some degree of creative freedom should be tolerated, especially if the result is as moving as this one. The omission of some significant points does not bother me, because the core of the interplay between the two main characters is sustained. The film doesn't deal with the heroine's spiritual developement; it is concentrated upon one, albeit the most important, aspect - her relationship with Rochester, and in that respect it is extremely successful. Chemistry between the leading actors is undeniable, and the developement of their characters' mutual affection is smooth, easy and beliveable, although it takes place within only a couple of scenes. Morton is a personification of the literary Jane - reserved yet emotional, insecure but brave. She makes her 'small Quaker-like' heroine as 'plain' as she possibly could. Since many of Charlotte's allusions to Jane's independence were omitted, it was necessary to make her more outspoken so that her true nature could be perceived. In the 'first-encounter scene' literary Jane is more assertive and thus sets the tone for her future relationship with Rochester. This blunder is remedied soon afterwards as the characters' verbal intercourse becomes more spicy and direct. Mistical connotations in the aforementioned filmed scene follow the surrealism of the novel, otherwise almost completely overlooked in the film. Hinds is a true Rochester, both physically and spiritually. He dominates the screen with his powerful personality: the original character is not at all handsome, he's often emotionally abusive, but still manages to be fascinatingly charismatic and sexually desireable. Hinds is a perfect image of a dangerous, romantic, imposing Byronic 'doomed hero', a rake eventually tamed and redeemed by marital love. Furtermore, this Rochester is even more understanding than his literary counterpart in relation to his mad, imprisoned wife. Regrettably, Blanche Ingram is (again!) blond and sophisticated, while she is supposed to be 'dark and majestic' - a beauty prototype which should remind us of Bertha Mason's former self. I welcome the omission of the gipsy scene; it is, after all, Charlotte's overly romantic and highly unbelievable diversion. The kiss, on the other hand, is a major disappointment - in this modernized and not at all timid version this climactic profession of love should have been rendered more realistically. It would have been the perfect icing on this romantic cake.
Rating:
Summary: An incurable romantic's view
Review: ...
I happened to like this version very, very much. I hope that by stating why, people will have a clearer idea of what to expect.
I love Austen and Bronte adaptations, but do not get bent out of shape if the movie isn't rigorously faithful to the book. This version is forced by time constraints to cut out details some readers may be sorry to see gone, and feel are integral to understanding the character of the heroine. You will not see too much of Jane's childhood, and the whole plot concerning Mrs. Reed's concealment of Jane's wealthy uncle, or the fortuitous familial connection that Jane, St. John and Diana have. That was all either tossed away (as in the first case), or edited into something simpler (second instance).
If you think you would be upset to see the story edited, then this is not a version you would enjoy.
This is a version that focuses primarily on a young woman who is hungry for love, and who is intelligent and sensitive. However, she is a strong person- she has had to be to survive through all her suffering at the Institute. I was surprised to see a Jane who talked back more than I had anticipated she would, and expressed her feelings so openly to a man who was her employer. At first I was taken aback, but then I realized what was happening here- the movie, not having the benefit of time and help of the reader's imagination, has had to vividly reveal (since she cannot do it directly for two hours, as is the privildege of knowing her mind in the book), Jane's intense emotions her passionate nature in a more perceptive, visual way, or risk presenting to the viewer a very cold Jane. So she is more lively, more daring in some ways- but this makes sense to me because it agrees with the spirit of the character. If you find this ridiculous, then again, this is not the version for you.
Another complaint found among reviewers here was how Ciaran Hinds looked homely in this movie. I happen to think he is fabulous. I loved him in Persuasion with Amanda Root. ... No, he's not a handsome man like Colin Firth in Pride and Prejudice, but he's attractive in a different way- very masculine- his eyes are magnetic. Besides, anyone obsessing about whether or not he's eye candy is missing the point that Jane so eloquently makes: she does not care for his appearance. She loves him as the person he is. Mr. Hinds has the ability to give his characters that larger than life feel- His voice is thundering, his gestures are sweeping, but he does not overact. Plus, the chemistry he has with Samantha Morton is incredible. You can feel the tension and sensuality flowing between them, even when all they're doing is shaking hands.
What I really thought was nice about this version was how it focused on Jane's dilemma- can she stay by Rochester's side for love, regardless of propriety, her own innocence and faith? Or would the dishonesty eat away at her and corrupt their love? It's heart wrenching- you can see how much these two love each other, are kindred spirits, and- why not?- are terriby attracted to each other- and the problem of bigamy is tragically unsurmountable.
I thought the scene, in which Jane has to weigh the marriage proposal she gets from St.John against her feelings for Rochester, superb. It's a duel of the heart versus the mind- and even knowing the book well, I caught myself thinking: "Oh,Jane! Don't do it, Jane!"
I also thought it was wonderful that Rochester was so kind to his poor mad wife. He holds her family accountable, and despite the trap he finds himself in, is not devoid of compassion for her. I liked that a whole lot and it gave Rochester more depth of character in only minutes.
This is a very moving version- I have watched it several times and it always sets off the right triggers each time. The actors were delightful- Gemma Jones, of Sense and Sensibility and the Diary of Bridget Jones fame is terrific. It has some suspense, mystery, lots of romance, humor (scene when she returns from the Reeds is wonderful! Rochester's indignation at not receiving a letter while she'd been away was delightful!)and the scenery is gorgeous.
It's a story well told, if you can forgive the fact it isn't a literal reproduction of the original.
Rating:
Summary: Hands down the worst version of Jane Eyre
Review: I have seen every version of Jane Eyre that has been produced, and there have been many versions. This 1997 cinematic production is so far off the mark that it shouldn't even receive a single star. I don't know why anyone would like this movie at all. If you have seen any of the other versions, you would automatically find this the absolute worst. If you read the novel, you would find this version offensive, and certainly a slap in the face to Charlotte Bronte. The acting is foul and gross in nature, the plot line is disjointed and patchy, the dialogue is laughable and all together wrong. If you want a good production, get either the Welles version (well done) or the BBC version starring Timothy Dalton and Zelah Clarke (my personal favorite), but from this production flee now and flee far. However, I do have one good thing to say about this movie. I teach Jane Eyre (the novel) at the High School level. I have found that this version is useful for showing students just how far off a film production can be in comparison with the novel. When I showed a clip of this version to my students after having them read chapter 12 (R-- falls off horse), the students began shaking with convulsive laughter, followed by a hailstorm of derisive remarks that peaked into a cumulative "that's not how it is in the novel--that's awful!"
Rating:
Summary: best one ive seen
Review: i went searching round for more ciaran hinds films after stumbling on the wonderful gem that is persuasion
so initailly i was dumb struck at the relative ugliness of mr hinds in this role as mr rochester. i liked the film...loved jane at the first viewing, could absolutely see the character as real....but i was left glimpsing for those beautiful moments with ciaran hinds.
i then went back to the book and realsied just how often jane, in serious comment and in jest refers to him as ugly.....and came to the conclusion that this book is in essence(please excuse me avid bronte fans) beauty and the beast.
seen in this light ciaran plays the character and visual sense of mr rochester perfectly in my opinion.
the more you watch the film, the more you are drawn into their journey and the depth of their character and passion.
i found myself only actually wanting to see the scenes with samantha morton and ciaran hinds interacting, and although i appreciate the loss of some of the plot, they would all have been scenes that frankly i would probably have fast forwarded through after the first couple of viewings.
i think there was an element of speed to the making of this production....it was made for tv not a big budget movie....but i will never forget the scene where jane returns to mr rochester, and as the film drove me to re read the book anyway i feel like i got the best of both worlds.
it took my breath away, and if not definitive it is certainly addictive.
|
