daria84
I'll start by saying this was the first version I've ever seen, and after watching it, I decided to read the book (not the other way around).When I first watched it, I really had no idea what the story was about so I wasn't on my guard, and some scenes really stroke me in an emotional level I didn't believe it when I first started watching it. Samantha Morton as Jane was very convincing, not a beauty, not ugly, then I found out that was how Brontë described her in the book. Jane was well mannered, sweet and tender, but with iron will and fire in her soul, it was a perfect combination of a heroin in the book who had to endure a lot of things during her life.As for Mr. Rochester, well I'm a big CIaran Hinds so I may not be completely objective in reviewing his acting, but for me, he was PERFECT. Yes he yelled, he was too proud, sarcastic, but his raw passion and angst was right there you feel it, and specially in the parts where he seemed to touch heaven, and the other part where hell was right before him (those who read the book or watched the movie will know what parts those are).The chemistry between Morton and Hinds is amazing, when they are talking under the tree, I really began to cry and felt overwhelmed by the intense emotion flooding my screen, and then in the same tree after the "event", I cried some more because I could feel the despair from Rochester and Jane's sorrow but determination. And finally, in the end, I cried more and more with the strong performance from the two of them.I read the book afterwards, and yes many scenes are left out (gipsy, Jane's aunt dying, Jane's dreams, the tale of Bertha Mason, Jane's new found fortune, etc...) but considering they had only 1 hour 40 minutes to consolidate an 800 pages book, I believed they did a pretty good job.I read some comments about people who disliked Hinds performance as Rochester, saying he screams too much, well personally I didn't think he "screamed", he raised his voice and Rochester does that a lot in the book. I watched another version with Michael Fassbender, and it lacked the passion this Rochester has, it actually made me yawn.I highly recommend this version, the casting is great, overall the movie is very true to the book, and the strong performances given by Morton as Jane, and Hinds as Rochester, is really something not to be missed. If you imagined Mr. Rochester as a handsome, well mannered, with integrity, soft spoken and tender man (in other words, a Jane Austen hero, I can't imagine why somebody would imagine him like that), you will hate Hind's Rochester, but if you imagined as a non-attractive man in a conventional way, sarcastic, snappish, moody, witty, intense, rough, tough, passionate, angry but tender when he must and overall, a tortured soul who finds redemption through pure love, you will not be disappointed with him.
drarthurwells
Too short (overly abridged) and Ciaran Hinds' depiction of Rochester fails to show his periods of torment and dysphoric mood. These shortcomings are better overcome in the 2006 version with Ruth Wilson and Toby Stephens, which perhaps remains as the best.However, this 1997 version is quite excellent in the acting accomplished by Samantha Morton and Ciaran Hinds, particularly in portraying their mutual declaration of their love for one another cumulating that had been long suppressed. As mentioned, the faults in their relationship presentation is with Rochester, as played by Hinds(and as restricted by the director and not Hinds). Rochester should be depicted as a man in turmoil, with periodic irritability and depression, because of the strain of his life (revealed in the last part of the movie). Rochester's immediate attraction to Jane, and his growing love of Jane over the time of their relationship, serves as much to exacerbate his conflict as it does to fulfill his longing for love. The 2006 version with Toby Stephens does a better job of this than the 1997 version with Hinds, but with better direction Hinds could have been the best at showing this conflict.Also, though Morton does a real good job of showing her deep and growing love for Rochester in the 1997 version, more so than any other version, Hinds is too restrained (again by the director) in showing his deep and growing love for Jane. Now some restraint here is needed, as sourced in in Rochester's secret underlying his conflict in loving Jane. This secret is the source of Rochester's conflict in restraining his love for Jane on the one hand and and declaring this love on the other. Hinds' displays this restraint, but only weakly hints at his underlying love for Jane, where the hints of his love should have been stronger and more definite. Again the director's fault and not Hinds'.Keep in mind that both Jane and Rochester are in conflict over their growing love - Jane because she feels she is inferior (a "plain Jane" as she describes herself, and of lower station to boot) and Rochester because of his "secret" that inhibits his love expression toward Jane. The conflict is shown equally well in both the 1997 and 2006 versions but as mentioned Hinds 1997 depiction is too inhibited in showing his love (except toward the end when it is magnificently displayed). If this 1997 version had been more completely developed at a more relaxed pace, like the 2006, 1903, and 1973 versions, and if Hinds had been allowed to show more turmoil and conflict in his developing love of Jane, while also more clearly and certainly showing signs of his developing love for Jane at times (to where the viewer would wonder why he doesn't just come out and declare his strong love for Jane, even though he doesn't for reasons explained later), this 1997 version could have been the best Jane Eyre yet. In some ways it is, but is still edged out by the 1983, 1973 (my favorite) and 2006 versions. Please see my reviews of five other versions of Jane Eyre.
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.
