Rating: 
Summary: Somewhat Shameful
Review: I am a firm believer that one should not judge a movie too harshly based on the book from which it came. I fully understand that it is very difficult to fit a 400 page book into a 2-hour slot. Plot adjustments will always have to be made. One thing that I cannot stand, however, is misrepresentation of characters. While this version (A&E's) of "Jane Eyre" sticks to the basic plot, much better than the William Hurt version does, the screenwriters got the characters all wrong. In this version, Jane is much too forceful; she never would have spoken rudely to her employer as she does in this movie. She could barely look him in the eye, much less call him a liar to his face, as she basically does.
After seeing A&E's "Pride and Prejudice," which was absolutley wonderful, I really would have expected more from them. Shame on you, A&E!
Rating: 
Summary: Marvellous acting!
Review: Ciarin Hinds did the best portrayal of Rochester that I have seen...he somehow managed to capture the passion of the character, without making him into a depressed milksop (if you want that kind of thing see the version with William Hurt). In this portrayal Rochester is vigorous and abrupt and changeful but with a deep and tender heart. The movie, while not correct in all the particulars of Bronte's book, somehow manages to capture the spirit of it. The necessary omissions aren't quite so glaring as they are in other versions where character development is totally lacking. On the down side, Jane could have been a little better, but on the whole this a great movie!
Rating: 
Summary: Disappointing
Review: I love this story but this version is my least favorite. Mr. Rochester is so unappealing in every way. Forget this and see the version with Timothy Dalton. It is far better!
Rating: 
Summary: Beautiful version but too short
Review: Great version, I loved Samantha Morton and Ciaran Hinds together. Great chemistry. Too short though, I wanted more, more, more! The book is mammoth, they should have put more into this one. Nonetheless this is my second favorite version. (BBC starring T. Dalton is best). Get this one for sure!
Rating: 
Summary: The second worse verse of Jane Eyre
Review: I am a Jane Eyre fanatic, so it is with experience that I can say. . . this movie is not worth the time. I own the BBC and 1997 verse and those are the only two I could ever recommend(the BBC verse is the best). There is NOTHING about Mr Rochester's character that is appealing. In fact, they make him far to angry and unpleasent than he should be. The book portrays a broken man. For that reason, women are drawn to him. Not even in the most climaxtic scene am I convinced that he is truely in need of love. The whole movie felt cold and unfeeling!
Rating:
Summary: don't bother
Review: okay, I an a blatant anglophile with a particular addiction to Austen/Bronte, etc. film. But this movie, it sucked big time! While I appreciated that the movie didn't get ridiculously beautiful people to portray the characters, Mr. Rochester was disgusting. Then, when Jane and him profess their love for each other, I think that was the most disgusting onscreen kiss that I've ever seen (with the exception of anytime that Kevin Costner kisses). The acting was so overdramatized at that point that I had to turn it off b/c I felt like gagging. Go for the older version of this film, it's much more gripping and enjoyable. When compared to such masterpieces as Pride and Prejudice and Wives and Daughters, it's almost laughable. Those are the great movies, more should be made like them!
Rating:
Summary: Yes & No
Review: I chose this version to see the portrayal of Mr Rochester by Mr Hinds & in that I was pleased. I think Mr Hinds did an excellent job despite all the shouting and there were several times in the film when he was able to bring out Mr Rochester's more tender side & this all seemed to work well for the character. I was very disappointed in the way Jane seemed unable, for all her passionate words to actually kiss the man. I have seen Samantha Morton in other films & have liked her work immensely. In much of the dialog she shows true passion in her speaking but it seems that she could never really bring herself to kiss Mr Rochester on the lips, cheek-yes, lips-no, not really. If they weren't meant to kiss then the film could have done without the close-up camera views that made this so obvious to me. It seemed, to me, that a real kiss was avoided at every embrace. Even near the end of the movie when they were reunited with no impediments between them, professing their undying love, there was not one real kiss. The book was not portrayed true to form which so often happens when novels are made into movies but if you are going to film a passionate embrace & kiss to demonstrate a passionate love, shouldn't it be a real kiss?
Rating:
Summary: The best version of Jane and Rochester, period!
Review: I've seen four film versions of this wonderfully romantic story and have read the book, but until Ciaran Hinds and Samantha Morton fleshed the characters so perfectly I've been very disappointed in the cardboard-surface interpretations of these two fated lovers. This is the only version I've seen that had ANY sort of passion - the kind of passionate love that must be fulfilled regardless of any obstacle. That's what the story is about isn't it? The passion shown by these two actors, as they become two of the most famous characters in literature, fairly flew off the screen and into my heart. Of course, I first saw the stone-faced Orson Welles - Joan Fontain version - a really insipid Jane, but I loved her until Samantha came along - an impish Jane with spirited opinions she endeavors to hide - but fails. Her beauty shines through the plain-Jane hair and make-up and you know why Edward Rochester is willing to risk all to be with her. The other actress-Janes I won't bother to comment on! Ciaran Hinds is an elusive blend of understanding tenderness and explosive passion - of course Rochester would be full of pent-up passions just waiting to be unleashed - with the kind of past he's led. And Ciaran certainly lets us feel what is in his heart and soul. I absolutely love the little-boy glimpse you get of Rochester as he confronts Jane in the driveway after she returns from the visit to her aunt. As to the parts of the novel that were omitted, yes there were some - most of them cluttered the story - in my opinion. All right to read about but slowed the pace as too much extraneous padding in other film versions. A little editing after 150 years isn't always a bad thing! I greatly admire actors who can portray their thoughts through the expressions that flit across their face. Most of this cast does this very well. Mrs. Fairfax - Gemma - is priceless and she is also the best-cast of any I've seen. I've watched this version of Jane Eyre dozens of times. Ciaran Hinds was wonderful in "Persuasion" but, Oh My! he really shows his passionate Irish heritage in this film! I love it!
Rating:
Summary: The Bigger Mystery than the Madwoman in the Attic is....
Review: why the screenwriter decided to ditch all the most famous dialogue and many of the most pivotal scenes in this extremely pedestrian "Jane Eyre". All lost are the Aunt's deathbed confession to Jane, the buddha-like teachings of Helen in the hellish Lowood school, the gypsy fortune telling scene that infuriates Blanche Ingram, and even the chestnut tree cleft in half as a manifestation of God's displeasure! No sign either of "He saw that the boy had inherited his own eyes as they once were: large, brilliant, and black"--that's one of the most famous lines in English literature, for crying out loud!! I was more disappointed than I can say to see that Ciaran Hinds, so wonderful in "Persuasion", was so terrible in this. And Samantha Morton as Jane was even worse. There wasn't a hint that she had lived through the childhood Jane Eyre had to become the governess Rochester encounters in the mist. Please, if you have never seen "Jane Eyre", don't make this sorry mess your introduction to that magnificient novel. Orson Welles and Joan Fontaine did such a better job of it!
Rating:
Summary: Good but had its flaws
Review: Having only seen the Timothy Dalton and William Hurt versions also, this is decidedly my favourite adaptation of the novel so far. Although the Dalton and Clarke version is the most faithful rendition of the novel, I still can not help liking this adaptation more. Dalton's performance as Mr Rochester is superb and flawless but he is far too handsome for my liking. Clarke is just satisfactory - her Jane is too weak and bland. With respect to the Hurt and Gainsbourgh rendition, I was unfortunately quite bored after Anna Paquin departed from the screen. However, this was mainly attributed to improper screenplay and direction and the lack of chemistry between the two lead characters. After seeing Ciaran Hinds' brilliant performance in `Ivanhoe' and `Persuasion', I had to watch this version. However, I was quite disppointed as he portrays a rather savage, arrogant and simple Mr Rochester and fails to depict the absolute complexity and glamour of Bronte's character as others have mentioned in their reviews. For this I solely blame the directors though, for Hinds' undoubtedly has the capacity to provoke the audience in the same manner that Bronte's Mr Rochester does the reader ( - evidence from his numerous awesome performances clearly suggest so). Samantha Morton is undeniably my favourite Jane though. She is far more vivacious and yet more solemn than Zelah Clarke and exudes much more passion than Charlotte Gainsbourgh (but for that I also blame misguided direction & screenplay engineered by Zeffirelly & Whitemore). Morton is perfect for the part and Hinds would be to if only proper direction was given and pivotal dialogue was included. Nevertheless, apart from these failures I still enjoyed this film. Thus, if you want to see a good film, I definitely recommend this, but if you want to watch a totally true adaptation of Bronte's novel then it is better to see the Dalton and Clarke rendition.
|
