Jane Eyre (1997)

Just perfect...

Excellent, Without a doubt!!

Wow! What a bizarre film! Unfortunately the few funny moments there were were quite overshadowed by it's completely weird and random vibe throughout.

By the time the dramatic fireworks start popping off, each one feels earned.

I can't believe this adaptation of Jane Eyre has a 7,2 stars on IMDb. They completely disregarded plot and character. Hinds portrayed a rough, despotic, volatile Mr. Rochester that no woman could love and Morton's Jane had nothing of the dignified, quite Jane Eyre who is proper and civil but would never tolerate any abuse. Hinds and Morton's portrayal of Mr. Rochester and Jane Eyre respectively make their relationship look frivolous, unrealistic and nearly abusive, and that's a shame because Ciarán Hinds looks the part more than anyone before or after him. They also took far too many liberties with the plot, they've ruined the very soul of the story.

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.

I like this Ciarian Hinds/Samantha Morton version better than the 96 version with William Hurt as Mr. Rochester.Now...the book is LONG...so every movie has to leave out lots of the story...I have't seen a Jane Eyre series, but, like the Pride & Prejudice series (versus P&P movies) it would cover Jane Eyre's story much better.That said, I like Ciaran Hinds as the edgy, volatile Mr. Rochester in this version. William Hurt is a bit too tame and too "nice". The Jane Eyre character is tough. She can deal with a few raw edges in her boss/love interest. After handling all the abuse in her childhood, she has incredible inner strength, which we usually see in Morton's performance. And I unfairly didn't think Samantha Morton could play Jane Eyre, simply because she plays a bland young woman in "Emma". (Her character in EMMA, however, is SUPPOSED to be a bit bland and dull...). Morton does not quite match Hinds' intensity till the end...when I do believe her "Jane Eyre" character's refusal to go.Mr. Hinds is top rate Mr. Rochester all the way through...and Ms. Morton grows stronger as she goes along...It's a good version of the book to find and watch.

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.