Customer Reviews

Charlotte Brontė's Jane Eyre (Full Screen)

5 star:		(58)
4 star:		(26)
3 star:		(19)
2 star:		(17)
1 star:		(22)

 

 

Although I was disappointed in the short length of this adaptation (should have been a miniseries so they didn't have to cut so much out), Ciaran Hinds as Mr. Rochester made up for it!! When I read the few negative reviews by people who thought he was terrible and even some who said he was "too unattractive," I wondered if they had watched the same film I had. In less than two hours, Ciaran Hinds manages to expertly portray this complex character. Mr. Rochester is not supposed to be eye candy (although I personally thought Hinds was very handsome by the end of this film -- he made me love Mr. Rochester). Edward Rochester is not described as good looking. He is also a moody, sometimes blustery man who is haunted by pain. He truly has the capacity to love, although it is scary for him because of his past and because he's hiding something. The little glimpses of vulnerability and gentleness that he brings out in the character among all the gruff defense mechanisms really make one see why Jane could feel so drawn to him. I've seen an older film version and the live Jane Eyre musical on stage before watching the A&E version and this one has basically ruined all previous versions for me (except for the book) because nobody but Hinds will ever be up to par as Mr. Rochester for me now. He was WONDERFUL, as was Samantha Morton's portrayal of Jane. It's not only my favorite version of Jane Eyre; it's my all time favorite film!

As a huge fan of the novel, I was very excited to try and find a film that would do it justice. I had read the amazon.com reviews of this particular version, and in spite of some severely negative opinions, I decided to give it a try anyhow.
Well, let me just say to those with the poor reviews: "I concur!!"

The child actors who play young jane and young Adele are not good at all. Additionally, the character Adele - who is SUPPOSED to be 10 - looks to be at least 12 year old! It was ridiculous.
Samantha Morton who portrays our heroine, Jane, does an fair job in the role. She could have been a bit less attractive...yes, that's right, folks, just because a woman doesn't wear make-up and have a fancy hair-do doesn't necessarily make her unattractive! Her portrayal of Jane was a little too impertenant. Yes, Jane had spirit and professed her opinions honestly when asked, but the adult Jane was not openly confrontational and defiant in the way she was sometimes acted in this movie. Her character was not done justice.
Cirian Hinds physically was a good Mr. Rochester, in my opinion. He looked the part of the unattractive - even could be called ugly by some - large boned, tall man. (I have seen him in "Persuasion" where is is the dashing Captain Wentworth, and looked purty darn hot I might add! so kudos to his transforamation!) But it is a pity the likeness should end there. He was made far too mean. I don't remember him ever actually SCREAMING at Jane in the novel, yet he does it here frequently. In the scene where they first meet, and Jane startles his horse, causing him to fall (they changed the setting and dialogue greatly in this scene by the way), he begins to scream at Jane, demanding and insisting she help him although she declines.
Isn't this a bit backwards? Was Jane not the one insisting upon helping Mr. Rochester in the book??!

Anyhow, Mr. Rochester is a gruff, unpolished man towards her in the book, but they take it to extremes in the movie. He is downright, plain old mean.

Additionally, his feelings towards Adele are much different than they are supposed to be. In the book, of course, he is resentful of her presence and greatly irked by her. He sends her away at every opportunity and never bestows her any real affection. In the movie though, they have him asking for her, calling her to him, even setting her in his lap! And, remember, this girl they have playing the supposed 10 year old Adele is more like 12 or 13!! This makes for a fairly disturbing moment in itself!

They whiz through Jane's childhood with fair accuracy. Condensing her childhood to being locked in the "red room" then being shipped away to school to face typhus. It takes all of about 10 minutes for her to become 18 and leave to pursue her govenerss position. Everything flies by you. There are several scenes added in that are not in the book, but for the most part, it is done to provide the viewer background to better understand what is happening and why. These scenes are basically dialogue between secondary charcters.
There is a scene where Mr. Rochester takes Jane into town to shop for the wedding clothes, and the run into Blanche Ingram. That is the strangest addition - completely unnecessary, in my view!

Anyhow, after the wedding is called off, and Jane resigns to leave Thornfield, there is about 10 minutes of completely made-up dialogue between Jane and Mr. Rochester. He does, in the end, actually start screaming at her! He screams at her to leave!
Never - not in a million years! - would Mr. Rochester EVER tell Jane to leave!! He even throws her bag after her!

They once again whiz through her three days of homeless wandering and begging, and her year spent with the Rivers's. They completely leave out Maria Rivers's character altogether, and St. John is made a gregarious, pleasant, happy soul who smiles as he kindly asks Jane to marry him. They pack all this into about 5 minutes.

She rushes back to Mr. Rochester after hearing him call to her on the wind, and about five minutes later it's all over, folks.
As far as some critizism of Mr. Rochester's healthy appearence at this point in the film (other than his blindness and mangled left hand - which was SUPPOSED to be gone altogether!), the book specifically notes Mr. Rochester is physically as strong and robust as he ever was. Only his "countenance" has changed. He is brooding and sad. But physically, he is still strong and healthy looking. He is not supposed to look withered, sickly, and weak. In that part, they again do Mr. Rochester physical justice.

In conclusion, the film may have been better had it been longer. If they had more time to devote to the development of story lines, etc. My other HUGE gripe is that they used SO LITTLE of Bronte's actual dialogue!!! WHY???
AND they left out some VERY important scenes!
Just one example the springs to mind is the scene when Mr. Rochester is proposing to Jane. So romantic, so climactic! And yet, they not only use hardly ANY of the real dialogue, but the tree - the chestnut tree - is not struck by lightening! HELLO!! I'm not literature major here, but isn't that a prime example of what is called, 'foreshadowing'?? An indication of things to come?

They messed up one of the most romantic and climactic scenes in the entire book.

So, it's too short, hardly any dialogue is used, they change things that should not be changed, and add so many things that should not be added!
They have changed the characters' personalities and it has been for the worse. They took EXTREME artistic license in making this movie, and I DO NOT like it one bit!!

It's not even a good movie in itself. Even if you have never read the book or even heard of it...the way they rush through it all would leave a viewer completely confused. I was constantly having to explain to my husband what was happening and why.

Anyhow, I am not recommending it!

This was a well-done production in many ways. Samantha Morton is a nice combination of sweet and strong, and Ciaran Hinds is actually the most authentic Rochester I've ever seen on screen -- shaggy, bearlike, gruff, just like Mr. R. should. The passion between them is convincing and appealing.

But is this the "Jane Eyre" that Bronte wrote? Not really. Jane's spiritual journey is pretty much left out of this production, and it is a very important part of the story. Jane needs to be shown to learn (through her time at Lowood and other key moments) who she truly is and what she wants, which is really the only way her refusal to marry Rochester and St. John can be believed. As it is, we see nothing of her confrontation with the dying Mrs. Reed (which is huge in Jane's life b/c it lets her forgive Mrs. Reed and move on from her past, showing true growth and maturity), and the St. John part of the story is completely gutted: instead of it being a test of Jane's true self and true passions, it's diluted to her simply refusing to marry a nice, friendly guy.

I enjoyed this movie for its own merits, but it did not do justice to the novel in some significant ways.

QUESTION: at the end when Jane & R are shown walking with their 2 children by the stream...IS THAT SAMANTHA MORTON? It looks like a completely different actress. I'd be interested in knowing.

I thought this abridged version of Charlotte Bronte's novel was good. My favourite scene was when Jane returned from her leave of absence. It was not as written in the book, but I thought both Cieran Hines and Samantha Morton did well in this scene and it was believable. Also, Rochester's kindness to his first wife was a nice touch after the 'non-wedding'. The down side to this version is how many plot lines were missing. However, for a quick introduction into the novel, a good attempt.

I can't say that this version of Jane Eyre followed the storyline closely. Because of time constraints, large chunks of the novel had to be cut out or streamlined. This includes not only some key plot points, but a lot of the best dialogue between Jane and Mr. Rochester as their relationship develops.

That said, I still think this is an enjoyable film, so long as you enjoy it in its own right and don't compare it to the book. Both Ciaran Hinds and Samantha Morton commit to their roles with passion. Like the characters in the novel, neither is conventionally beautiful; they are riveting because of the emotional force they bring to their parts. At times, Hinds was a little too gruff as Rochester, but it never went over the top; he looked the part of Mr. Rochester and in my opinion acted it incredibly well. And Samantha Morton is luminous - she may wear plain clothing and sport a ridiculous hair style, but she shines.

...that I haven't read the novel and can't comment on the liberties that the screenwriters have taken. I can read the book or watch other film adaptations for the "real thing." Based on other's critiques, this version of Jane Eyre seems like a creative re-interpretation, which is fine by me when the end results are so powerful. Certainly a few scenes or characters could have been fleshed out more, but the electric chemistry between Jane and Rochester (as played by two of the most gifted actors on the BBC/A&E scene) makes for a powerful film.

The indoor and outdoor settings, cinematography, and lighting are superbly handled for a small-budgeted TV production, too: the imposing and creepy manor; the gloomy, wind-swept moors; a few strategic shots set in bright sunlight for dramatic contrast and symbolism--all very well done indeed.

If you want a powerful, memorable, and unusual tale of gothic romance with superb acting, do yourself a favor and give this version of Jane Eyre a try.

This is my favorite book of all time. I have seen several versions of the movie, and although some of the details from the book are missing, this is the best version out there. Cirian Hinds and Samantha Morton are just fabulous in their portrayals. If you liked the book, this is the movie version that you will enjoy most of all.

The film is great though a number of good scenes missing. Ciaran Hinds is the greatest Rochester so far. Those who think he's not attractive enough should see him in "Persussion." And Samantha Morton is excellent too. I love them both.

If you've seen the 1983 version on VHS with Timothy Dalton as Rochester (or read the book), you will be very disappointed with this version. Several crucial parts of the story are left out completely, such as Jane learning that she has been left a sizeable inheritance. Also, Rochester is overacted, and the growth of the relationship between he and Jane is unconvincing. I bought this because it was on DVD, and wish I hadn't. I'll wait for the 1983 version to be put on DVD.

Someone lent me the video of Jane Eyre. I watched it over and over, mesmerized, for weeks, sometimes several times a day. Every time I saw it I was moved anew. I've read Jane Eyre and read it again during the time I was watching the video. I agree that it would be better as a miniseries; a lot of the richness of the book is lost in this piece. However, I felt that the boiling emotions under the surface in both main characters were quite well conveyed. I thought the casting of the housekeeper was brilliant, the perfect foil for Jane and Rochester. By the time I'd memorized the video I was madly in love with Ciaran Hinds and jealous of Emma.