movie-viking 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.

nikkinaboo I have watched a fair few adaptations of Jane Eyre as it is one of my favourite books. Sadly, I found this version very disappointing. A strong cast was hampered by a poor script. When you have such rich source material, why tamper with it? I felt like I was watching a dumbed down Hollywood romance, full of clichéd lines and looks of longing.I agree wholeheartedly with Rita Raftis in her description of Rochester and Jane. Both were portrayed contrary to the book. I usually enjoy the work of Ciaran Hinds and Samantha Morton, both strong actors, but if this was the first time I had seen either acting I would not search out any more of their work.I also agree that the 1980s version starring Timothy Dalton is by far the most faithful adaptation I have seen. The interiors are obviously filmed in a studio and the age of some of the actors may be a little wrong but with regards to story and dialogue it is wonderful.

jeansheridan I usually like Samantha Morton, but her blankness didn't serve her well as Jane Eyre. She seemed too passive as well. Hinds just overwhelmed her (and maybe that was their point because the character does do that in the book ...at first).I really thought they lacked any kind of sexual energy however and Hinds was generally too gruff and wild. Of course I've just seen him in Rome. He's an amazing actor and able to play "big" very well. But when you play a romantic lead, it's the little details that count. He came off more as a bully than a man desperate to find love and redemption.Of course, any performance is better than William Hurt's! Shudder. Rochester should never, ever be played by a fair-haired man. Unless Daniel Craig decides to play him. Against Keira Knightly! Just teasing.

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.