Jane Eyre (1997)

I love this movie so much

Good start, but then it gets ruined

Better Late Then Never

I like movies that are aware of what they are selling... without [any] greater aspirations than to make people laugh and that's it.

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 --

Many reviewers loved this version; many hated it. And that is exactly as it should be. There are many possible interpretations of good literature, just as every person's character has many different facets. Versions of Shakespeare's plays have been enacted for hundreds of years and still every version represents something different about humankind, especially if there is innovation in the production, script or acting.I first read Jane Eyre when I was about 8, nearly 60 years ago. It was the first book I ever cried over and it's fair to say that was part of my emotional development. I have read it many times and seen many filmed versions since - and I still love it, simply because it is fresh every time as different aspects reveal themselves - either because they are in the book or because the book resonates differently with me as I change. So please open your mind when you watch this - and other - versions of the Bronte books. In my view it is not perfect, but few productions ever are. Even so, it was interesting, enjoyable and a joy to watch.

Jane Eyre has been filmed many times with many results from the silent days to the latest theatrical adaptation. This version, apparently originally made for British TV and presented in this country by A&E is a lavishly filmed and dramatically fine adaptation. The cast is uniformly good and the attention to detail is excellent. Samantha Morton hits just the right note in her performance as Jane. More than in the other versions i've seen, the feminist angle of Jane wanting to be respected as well as loved is highlighted here. Ciaran Hinds is firey and passionate as Mr. Rochester, And the color and glowing photography give a luxurious look to this fine adaptation.

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.