Jane Eyre (1997)

What makes it different from others?

Excellent and certainly provocative... If nothing else, the film is a real conversation starter.

The joyful confection is coated in a sparkly gloss, bright enough to gleam from the darkest, most cynical corners.

Through painfully honest and emotional moments, the movie becomes irresistibly relatable

Samantha Morton is Jane Eyre in this nicely appointed TV adaptation of Brontë's novel, which I've never read. Morton is a winner. She exudes the dignity and purity of a young woman who has never had any but moral thoughts. Her face is pale and her limpid eyes are blue and she sweeps her hair back in some kind of bun or whatever it's called, prompting any normal male to wonder what it would be like to take a tender bite out of her cygnet neck. I can't say that Ciáran Hinds as Rochester is equally impressive. Oh, he has the requisite traits of a good husband -- immense wealth, a mansion with ramparts in the country, a dark commanding presence, and a mystery waiting to be unraveled. But he has the features of a footman not an Esquire and Hinds turns the role into a loud and unattractive irritant. If I were a woman I'd have to be pretty hard up.The story has a feisty Jane sent off to Mr. Brocklehurst's stern and religious boarding school, afterwards being hired as a governess for Rochester's young daughter. She's a nice quiet governess, and the girl likes her too. As for Mr. Rochester, it's not clear. He sends all kinds of mixed signals and the only one played without a mute is his role as master of the house, snarling, accustomed to ordering people about. Not sadistic, just accustomed to being obeyed. Is he beginning to feel warmly towards Jane? Hard to tell. He has conversations with her, asks for her advice, seems to need her around, but on the other hand he's engaged to a beautiful and sophisticated blond, who he believes is only after his money.He proposes to move Jane to a position as governess at a large farm in Ireland. "They say the people there are very friendly," he crows. The book was published in 1847. The Irish had been pummeled by the English for more than a century and were currently undergoing the Great Potato Famine that starved many of the Irish and sent the rest of them high-tailing it to Boston. (Note to Edward Rochester: Vett your sources.) Jane is of two minds about this deal. She'll miss the housemistress, the daughter, the friendly maids and -- "And who?" he asks brusquely. "And you, sir." "Yes, it's a shame. We have been good friends, haven't we." I swear, I find little admirable in this guy. But then she floods out, as Jung would have put it, and the dam of his own passions is broken. He sweeps her up and gives her a gentlemanly kiss on the lips and she seems to suffer la petite mort before he finally, finally, pops the monumental question.But wait. It's not over. It can't be over. There is still the mystery of who is running around the house at night doing crazy things like setting rooms on fire. We've got to know. Besides, the movie is only two thirds over. Everyone claims that the night-time chaos is caused by one of the maids, a Grace Poole, who drinks too much. Jane has never laid eyes on Grace Poole and when she wakes in the middle of the night to find someone tearing up her robe, the eminently practical Rochester assures her, "Why, it must have been a dream, Jane," the torn robe notwithstanding.The ending seem hurried, twisted, convulsive and rollercoasterous but satisfying in a way that Hollywood would approve of. I don't think I'll describe it. But I must say that some of the plot threads have obviously been ripped off by Daphne du Maurier in "Rebecca." Well, if it works --

For those who believe in good and doing the right thing, i recommend this movie. The evolution of the main character, Jane, is amazing: from a little girl who did not fear to speak her mind, to a terrified child in a girls school, to a later young lady who meets her love that grows her into a strong woman. There are few scenes that build up tension in emotions between the characters and you feel that you're rooting for them. The typical English subtleties are quite comfortable and the set sceneries are genuine involving the viewer in the atmosphere. I truly enjoyed watching the movie which brought such a rich story to me. I strongly recommend watching the movie.

I will aim to judge this Jane Eyre on its own terms, as no matter no poor it is as an adaptation it at least deserves that. Of the Jane Eyres I've seen, this one was my least favourite and the most disappointing(I've not yet seen the 2006 version). It is not as dull as Zeffirelli's film, but I found the 1973, 1983 and 1943 versions much better cast than this and the characters more interesting and the story much more passionate in the 1970 and 2011 films.Charlotte Bronte's novel is one of the outstanding works in literature ever, and because the story is so good and the character of Rochester so interesting it is wholly deserving of good treatment if not entire fidelity.This Jane Eyre is not a complete and utter travesty. It does look wonderful with gorgeous scenery, an evocative atmosphere though Thornfield could have been gloomier and beautifully tailored costumes. The music is good too if not as haunting and atmospheric as the 1970 and 1943 films. Of the cast, the best is Gemma Jones who is absolutely marvellous as Mrs Fairfax, one of the few characters in the adaptation that is given any degree of respect.However, the rest of the acting is disappointing. This is especially true in the case of Ciaron Hinds, whose Rochester is almost completely lacking in subtlety or complexity with no attention whatsoever to any possible nuances. Samantha Morton fares a little better, she has the delicacy of Jane to a pat and she is suitably plain, however I can't say she was any more than that because Jane is too bold and insubordinate here. Blanche, Brocklehurst and St John are also nowhere near as interesting. Blanche is nowhere near as haughty, more should have been done with the conflict between Jane and Brocklehurst and St John is too sympathetic.The direction is misguided also, not allowing the characters to be any more involving than they were. I think also that the direction was a big part of the problem with Hinds' performance, because Hinds was also in Persuasion and he was superb in that and that was because the direction and adaptation were great.Jane Eyre(1997) suffers from being too short, too rushed and too condensed. The book is a very difficult one to translate to screen, because the story and characters have so much to them and also the book is big. 2 hours in my opinion is not enough to do the story justice, at least a mini-series of about 11-12 episodes would do. Consequently, things were inevitably cut out, changed or condensed, and the things left in were not very well explored especially the attitudes of the times and characters' motivations such as Rochester's affection for Adele did not make sense.Pacing was too rushed for me, I think to make the passion believable the pace should be quite measured without being deathly slow. This adaptation suffered from moving the story on too quickly to suit the lean running time, which explains why there wasn't enough passion and chemistry between the leads and also the ending should have been much more grim and mysterious, the stilted writing stopped it from being any more than that.Speaking of the writing, that was possibly the adaptation's most disappointing asset. Everything is really stilted and updated, dialogue doesn't flow from one line to the next effectively and some unintentionally funny moments and jarring dialogue in terms of the period Jane Eyre is set in and the type of language used severely undermine the characters and their motivations. Rochester especially in the second half of the adaptation suffers from this.All in all, very disappointing, too rushed, too short, too condensed, too underdeveloped and too stilted. Thank goodness for the production values, music and Jones, the adaptation could've been worse otherwise. 4/10 Bethany Cox

I have never read the book (OK, I've read excerpts, but I've never got around to the full thing), but I will happily watch a screen adaptation.This version is enjoyable on its own merits.The scenery is often striking, although some of the scenery continuity is a bit suspect. The production is bright and colourful - possibly even a bit too bright: I think the early scenes at Thornfield Hall should be rather more grim and forbidding than they are here, so as to create a sense of foreboding. And the closing section feels rushed.But Ciaran Hinds - who would never have been my first thought for Mr Rochester - does well, and Samantha Morton is an excellent Jane.