Pluskylang
Great Film overall
Matrixiole
Simple and well acted, it has tension enough to knot the stomach.
Philippa
All of these films share one commonality, that being a kind of emotional center that humanizes a cast of monsters.
danavenell
How does the scoring system work when this seems so disliked but still ends up with 7.1? Anyway, what a mess. Mr Rochester especially, what should be a mysterious, sexy, grumpy, deep character is an annoying shouty needy idiot. He's scary, and not in a good way. If you saw this you would never read the book or see any other adaptations, you'd think anyone who liked it must be a moron.Need to write a few more lines. Don't watch this adaptation whatever you do. Avoid. Watch something else.Mock anyone who says its good. Complain to any TV station that shows it. You will notice the actor who shouted his way through his performance was never in anything else again. Well, if you do such a terrible Mr Rochester and that's what you deserve.
Rena Smith
This is the first Jane Eyre adaptation I could not bring myself to finish watching (and I've seen most of them). It's a very short adaptation, so I didn't expect much, but on the whole, I thought it was decently scripted if a little mutilated. They cleverly employed Jane as narrator to comment on things so they could condense the story without someone not familiar with the book missing vital information (an idea they nicked from the 1944 adaptation with Orson Welles). What ruined the whole thing for me was Ciaran Hinds godawful Rochester. I have absolutely no clue what went wrong there because I know he would have been capable of doing well (I say him in Persuasion and his Captain Wentworth kept me at constant smoulder alert so it can't have been lack of acting skill). Either he was really really angry to be in this film or the direction was bad. Whatever the reason, his Rochester is rude, belligerent and cannot speak without starting to yell at some point. It irritated me so badly I just couldn't finish watching the movie so I switched it off after three quarters (but getting that far even was torture) I'm not a fan of Samantha Mortons Jane either, she is too rude as well, and in the situations were she isn't rude she just stares blankly into the distance. And her make up is awful, I know Jane is supposed to be pale but her looks are so pasty she looks like she had some dodgy fish for dinner and might throw up any second. And what's with that "pressing-gawping-fish-mouth-to-face" excuse for a passionate kiss??? I laughed out loud and that is not what's supposed to happen to the viewer during the proposal scene. Another reviewer stated Hinds made a terrible Rochester but not as bad as William Hurts. Though I agree that William Hurts Rochester is not great I much prefer his rendition of Rochester to this unendurable tripe.
drarthurwells
Too short (overly abridged) and Ciaran Hinds' depiction of Rochester fails to show his periods of torment and dysphoric mood. These shortcomings are better overcome in the 2006 version with Ruth Wilson and Toby Stephens, which perhaps remains as the best.However, this 1997 version is quite excellent in the acting accomplished by Samantha Morton and Ciaran Hinds, particularly in portraying their mutual declaration of their love for one another cumulating that had been long suppressed. As mentioned, the faults in their relationship presentation is with Rochester, as played by Hinds(and as restricted by the director and not Hinds). Rochester should be depicted as a man in turmoil, with periodic irritability and depression, because of the strain of his life (revealed in the last part of the movie). Rochester's immediate attraction to Jane, and his growing love of Jane over the time of their relationship, serves as much to exacerbate his conflict as it does to fulfill his longing for love. The 2006 version with Toby Stephens does a better job of this than the 1997 version with Hinds, but with better direction Hinds could have been the best at showing this conflict.Also, though Morton does a real good job of showing her deep and growing love for Rochester in the 1997 version, more so than any other version, Hinds is too restrained (again by the director) in showing his deep and growing love for Jane. Now some restraint here is needed, as sourced in in Rochester's secret underlying his conflict in loving Jane. This secret is the source of Rochester's conflict in restraining his love for Jane on the one hand and and declaring this love on the other. Hinds' displays this restraint, but only weakly hints at his underlying love for Jane, where the hints of his love should have been stronger and more definite. Again the director's fault and not Hinds'.Keep in mind that both Jane and Rochester are in conflict over their growing love - Jane because she feels she is inferior (a "plain Jane" as she describes herself, and of lower station to boot) and Rochester because of his "secret" that inhibits his love expression toward Jane. The conflict is shown equally well in both the 1997 and 2006 versions but as mentioned Hinds 1997 depiction is too inhibited in showing his love (except toward the end when it is magnificently displayed). If this 1997 version had been more completely developed at a more relaxed pace, like the 2006, 1903, and 1973 versions, and if Hinds had been allowed to show more turmoil and conflict in his developing love of Jane, while also more clearly and certainly showing signs of his developing love for Jane at times (to where the viewer would wonder why he doesn't just come out and declare his strong love for Jane, even though he doesn't for reasons explained later), this 1997 version could have been the best Jane Eyre yet. In some ways it is, but is still edged out by the 1983, 1973 (my favorite) and 2006 versions. Please see my reviews of five other versions of Jane Eyre.
mrwiseman
While this is not the worse adaptation it did have its flaws which may keep the Jane Eyre fans cringing. Although shortened, I thought that the editing was reasonable. I didn't mind most the scenes they cut. I did find the updated dialogs annoying at times, because it often obscured the real motivations for the characters actions. I think that the writers of the screenplay were a bit uncomfortable with the religious undertones to Jane's goodness and for her leaving Edward. Now I think that Ms. Morton did not understand her character at all. She plays the scene where she first learns who Edward is in a very haughty way. She seems to think that Jane is some feminist archetype, bold and sassy...when in reality Jane, because of years of oppression at Lowood knew "her place" yet, was so good, she answered Edward's questions truthfully...even if her answers seemed bold. In a way Jane of the book was like a bird in a cage, it is only after finding that Edward wanted her to truly be free to be herself that she spoke more freely in his presence. He freed her...(not a popular modern outlook but the book was written some time ago). Jane only speaks up as the story progresses because of Edwards goading her, and her own desire to finally have a voice. Miss Morton also make some rather unusual facial expressions, she smiles when she hears she will meet the elusive Mr. Rochester...why?... just got yelled at by the man...why would she smile about the prospect of meeting him?Weird. It is like this "Jane" read the book and knew what was going to happen next.Yikes.Hind's Rochester at first felt spot on, moody...but then he just started yelling giving it a less than nuanced delivery. I would have fled, if I were Jane, because with all that yelling I would have been afraid of a man like that. I have seen him in the film "Persuasion" and found him wonderful...so perhaps direction was the problem.Another cloying aspect to this production is the general "lightness" of Thornfield. I guess I prefer a somewhat dark and gloomy place that hints at the horror that burdens Mr. Rochester...but on this note I will say this is a personal preference of mine. Others may find the scenery and set decoration more fitting and proper than previous versions.Did I hate this production? No. I think it does flow nicely. It has its high point in showing the passion. I also appreciate every telling of my favorite story. I do suggest that if you want to see a dark and mysterious version...try Orson Wells, or a more accurate version try the one with Timothy Dalton.
