Jane Eyre (1997)

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.

To add to my collection of Jane Eyre reviews, here's a late entry. This is a heavily- edited, fast TV movie of the book. The cuts aren't bad, though the action does seem rushed to those of us used to a more leisurely unfolding of the plot. What REALLY makes it jarring is Ciaran Hinds's truly awful performance as Rochester. I usually like this actor, but NOT in this. Rochester could be gloomy and gruff, but he should still be possessed of a charm and innate kindness that would have drawn the shy Jane to him. This Rochester yells and bullies everyone - who could like him, much less love him? How could Jane (as written) love a man who seems to be on the verge of striking her at any moment? Samantha Morton is not bad as Jane, but really, I can't recommend this one at all - there are MANY better ones.

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.