Rating: 
Summary: Passionate adaption of Jane Eyre!
Review: okay, this adaptation leaves out a lot of the plot. However, this means that the focus is generally on Rochester and Jane, so all the more fun! Samantha Morton is absolutely perfect as Jane Eyre! Ciaran Hinds' acting takes a while to get used to, but once you do, he is an amazing Rochester. I can no longer think of Jane and Rochester as any one else besides Morton and Hinds. The chemistry between Jane and Rochester is overwhelming. ( much much more than the dalton or hurt versions) I have seen quite a few film versions of Jane Eyre, and I have never seen better acting or chemistry between the characters. Every time I watch this movie I fall more in love with it. The romantic seens are overflowing with passion and without doubt make me cry every time. If you are at all a fan of Jane Eyre you will respect and enjoy the exqusite acting and the immensive bredth of feeling and emotion that this film pours out.
Rating: 
Summary: Not worth buying on DVD
Review: If you liked this version so much, you're better off with the VHS. The video transfer on DVD is VERY bad, like seeing it on television, minus the clarity of cable tv. So far I haven't seen a movie that really did justice to Bronte's Jane Eyre. Ciaran Hinds' portrayal of Rochester was too caustic and gruff, even for Bronte's version, and the playful relationship he had with little Adele was not true to the book. Ciaran was at his best in Jane Austen's Persuasion, which I recommend to anyone who liked this movie. The BEST Rochester was probably Orson Welles' portrayal. Unlike Welles' movie, this version included Jane's interaction with St. John, which was a bonus. Best to rent this first for yourself before buying it.
Rating: 
Summary: Nothing compared to the Orson Wells version
Review: This was a drab, nothing little piece of a movie. Why even try to capture the beauty of the original when you can do it so boringly in color? Yuck.
Rating:
Summary: A wonderful adaptation
Review: This is a wonderful adaptation of a great book. The actors are amazing and the story is one of the best ever written. This is a story about passion, love conquering all, and is full of strong, well-developed, and wonderful characters. Watching it feels like you are a part of the story, and it is a masterpiece.
Rating: 
Summary: Very Good But I Prefer Orson Welles As Rochester
Review: Welles did such a definitive Rochester for me, exactly as my mind's eye saw him in the novel, that it is hard for me to appreciate anyone else in that role. However, George C. Scott did a very good, very restrained Rochester in his later version and this version presents a very good Rochester as well. Morton as Jane Eyre confirms my earlier opinion from her performance in "Sweet And Low Down" that she is an actress to watch. As far as faithfulness to the novel, I really don't demand that from films which are a very different creative medium from novels. The basic story has become a timeless classic, often copied but never equaled. Jane is a poor orphan who becomes a governess for Rochester's ward. He is a wealthy man with a beautiful estate. They fall in love but a horrible dilemma from his past comes forth to haunt them both.
Rating:
Summary: Inaccurate but mildly enjoyable
Review: More Harlequin romance than Charlotte Bronte novel, this is an agreeable enough production. The acting is decent but the script! Trite and overly dramatic, it made me wince every time. By all means get this for the light romance but don't mistake this for anything even close to Bronte's vision. The last two versions were much better.
Rating:
Summary: Good chemistry between Jane and Mr. Rochester
Review: I have now viewed this version and the Dalton/Clarke version, and base my comments on that experience only. While the Dalton/Clarke is a good, LONGER version that includes details absent from the Morton/Hinds version being reviewed here, Samantha Morton and Ciaran Hinds have created something DEEPER, in their portrail of Jane and Mr. Rochester. It is an EXCELLENT (!!) film -- one that is wrenching to watch; I was emotionally drained by it -- not just the first time I watched it, but each time! I did not have the same depth of reaction to the Dalton/Clarke. version. The difference can be attributed to the depth of the connection one senses between Jane and Mr. Rochester. I highly recommend this version.
Rating:
Summary: Excellent Chemistry!
Review: I started reading this book last week and decided to rent the movie. They only had this version of Jane Eyre and was hesitant to watch it because I had never heard of the actors before. As the movie started I noticed that it skipped the beginning of the book (began at the red-room incident)and spent more time towards Jane Eyre as an adult. When I first saw Ciaran Hinds (Mr. Rochester) I thought - this man isn't very attractive and he is really mean! Jane Eyre will never fall for him! But, Mr. Hinds played the role wonderfully and even I looked beyond his roughness and fell inlove with the character! Samantha Morton played a wonderful Jane Eyre and I really felt the chemistry between the two throughout the movie. I think my favorite scene was when he was waiting for Jane to get back from preparing for her aunts funeral and was very jealous. And the ending made me cry! I later rented a different version of Jane Eyre with William Hurt in it, and disliked it very much. There was no chemistry between the lead actors and I was glad that I rented this version first!
Rating: 
Summary: A disappointment....
Review: Jane Eyre is one of my all-time favorite stories, so I have leapt at the chance to see every version ever filmed. I was particularly anxious to see this one, produced by A&E, because, in my mind, they have a deserved reputation for accuracy and for quality productions. I have to say, though, that this version was a terrible disappointment, not only because of the time-constrained abridgement of the text, but because of the portrayals of the lead characters. In particular, the actor playing Mr. Rochester portrayed him as a TOO angry, sneering, ranting, bellicose, offensive man. (I don't know whether I should blame the actor or the director). It was just asking too much of the viewer to believe that Jane could find any redeeming qualities in him at all, let alone fall hopelessly in love with him! The most accurate and well-acted version of this wonderful book, in my opinion, is the Timothy Dalton/Zelah Clarke version. (It AMAZED me that someone actually found fault with this production because that viewer thought that they took TOO MUCH script, verbatim, from the book)! One of the most positive attributes of the Dalton/Clarke version is that they remained true to Miss Bronte's "script," and the performances, right down through the supporting cast, were absolutely superb! It is the ONLY version which I've purchased for my collection; I have also purchased three other copies to give as gifts to friends for their viewing pleasure, and they agree that Dalton and Clarke ARE Rochester and Jane!
Rating:
Summary: Lots of versions--take your pick.
Review: I first read the book in 10th grade as part of a class assignment, my mother keeping secret the fact that Rochester had a mad wife in his attic until I rushed in one evening from school and told her! I remember seeing the George C. Scott version when I was in about 12th grade. The book calls Rochester SHORT and Vulcan-like and he was that embittered character to a T. I also saw the Orson Welles version about that time and was very enamored with him, but thinking back, he seemed really bored with the whole affair, had to wear a corset, and Jane (Joan Fontaine) seemed so wispy and not at all the stand-up-for yourself, tempered heroine of the book. She just played her typical silent wraith type character.) The Timothy Dalton-Zelah Clarke version is excellent because they are both wonderful actors. Here Rochester is more handsome and dashing; it seems as if he would have the cunning and guts to survive if she left him, and Zelah plays it almost comically or at least assuredly at most times--I think she was almost too old for the role--this was, remember, a raw schoolgirl and she would have been YOUNG and otherworldly from living at disease-ridden Lowood. Zelah seems at ease with the world; Jane would not have been. His Rochester seems to play with her like a cat at her mouse hole, playing it to the hilt with glittering eyes when he tells her about the family of Dionysius O'Gall in Ireland--conjuring up images of a drunken sot of a master who will gall her---but would he gall her anymore than Rochester will, with his terrible secret? The William Hurt version largely stunk. Hurt seemed to be so disconnected from his role--better that he had ranted and raved rather than appearing so wooden. What was he trying to imitate? What ws he trying to express with his empty looks and expressions? Jane's presence seemed to bring him no joy. And Charlotte G's accent in the movie was French. Although Jane spoke French to Adele, should she not have been English? Weird, uncompelling version. Amanda Root was wasted as Miss Temple. I even wondered why Jane bothered to return to Hurt at the end--he had no warmth. Now to the Hinds-Morton version. I like this one because Hinds explores the motivations Rochester had for his character moreso than the others--Rochester's selfishness in lying to Jane about his wife versus his fear that she would leave him bereft forever--he makes us feel that he is truly jaded and feels forgotten by kindness and love. Absolutely hopeless just living from day to day with no joy. And then comes along this petite young woman who nevertheless has an obdurate moral heart when it comes to Rochester's suggesting they live together on the Continent. How far and how much will he lie in order to keep her and not risk losing her? The scene where he practically rips her down the stairs is a good one. He is so angry, but not at her, really, but at himself--his plan is falling apart! He is desperate. I liked the representation of the mad wife's attic-- old feather ticks line the walls so she will not hurt herself--he really does take care of her as well as he can and is loyal in an admirable way, although she is so disgusting in her filthy clothes and unkempt hair--one can easily imagine the smell of her! Hinds is a great actor who can cry on cue at the drop of a hat--if you've seen any of his other films. This makes the ending very tender. When Jane tells him that, "you are not your wounds," it gives all of us hope that our wounds need not prevent us from living fully.. I thought his portrayal was even more interesting than Dalton's, yet I adore them all except the Hurt version. Why not watch them all and enjoy them all as differing attempts to define "Jane Eyre"?
|
