Rickting Jane Eyre is a great book and its themes are still relevant today. This is one of many, many film versions. This particular film is made for TV and aired in 1997. This hits and misses in almost equal measure. It gets the relationship between Jane and Mr Rochester fairly right, and the chemistry between them mirrors the novel. Some of the Gothic bits are frightening in a restrained way and Helen Burns is handled well too. It's fairly well acted, although whoever played Mr Rochester needs some anger management lessons. The script has some intelligence and translates some of the themes of the book, but not all. Bertha is mishandled, Mr Rochester overacts, Jane is not as strong as the character in the book, the first 10 chapters are rushed and the film fails to reach the emotional heights of the novel thanks to rushed writing. Seeing it aside from the novel, it's a decently written but blandly filmed drama movie which you may not remember you even saw. So, a mixed bag without a doubt. Overall.... I wouldn't bother.6/10

Rena Smith This is the first Jane Eyre adaptation I could not bring myself to finish watching (and I've seen most of them). It's a very short adaptation, so I didn't expect much, but on the whole, I thought it was decently scripted if a little mutilated. They cleverly employed Jane as narrator to comment on things so they could condense the story without someone not familiar with the book missing vital information (an idea they nicked from the 1944 adaptation with Orson Welles). What ruined the whole thing for me was Ciaran Hinds godawful Rochester. I have absolutely no clue what went wrong there because I know he would have been capable of doing well (I say him in Persuasion and his Captain Wentworth kept me at constant smoulder alert so it can't have been lack of acting skill). Either he was really really angry to be in this film or the direction was bad. Whatever the reason, his Rochester is rude, belligerent and cannot speak without starting to yell at some point. It irritated me so badly I just couldn't finish watching the movie so I switched it off after three quarters (but getting that far even was torture) I'm not a fan of Samantha Mortons Jane either, she is too rude as well, and in the situations were she isn't rude she just stares blankly into the distance. And her make up is awful, I know Jane is supposed to be pale but her looks are so pasty she looks like she had some dodgy fish for dinner and might throw up any second. And what's with that "pressing-gawping-fish-mouth-to-face" excuse for a passionate kiss??? I laughed out loud and that is not what's supposed to happen to the viewer during the proposal scene. Another reviewer stated Hinds made a terrible Rochester but not as bad as William Hurts. Though I agree that William Hurts Rochester is not great I much prefer his rendition of Rochester to this unendurable tripe.

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.

tedg I love watching films that exist in many incarnations, because often you can get more out of every version. There's a sort of circumlocution of the narrative that you can achieve with multiple versions. That's true even if the film itself is horrible. This one is. Its bad because the book depends on accretive structure. Its all about symmetries. Jane's character and all her desires are shaped by what we see early on, so we can understand the love we encounter toward the end. If you toss out all that structure, essentially you make Jane inhuman. You might get the message somehow that the love is intense, but you will not experience it, internalize it.Its also wrong because of all the shouting. Everyone shouts, including the housekeeper! This is not the character of the times, nor the language, which is distinctly modern. I wonder what they were thinking, that there was a tradeoff of charm for understanding or familiarity?It seems that most commentors focus on the nature of Rochester, how he played, whether as a broken man who is a pushy bully, or whether as a haunted, quiet basket case. If you're on Bronte's side, you'll prefer the more complex basket case. What works is that their breaks compliment and heal.My own focus (and that of the author, for what it is worth) is on Jane. Watching many depictions of Jane is something of a thrill. Often the actress who is cast has as her chief attribute something that the filmmaker considers as an open innocence.Jane came from a small world of books only. She created herself in spite of what she saw, excepting the essential Miss Temple. (Miss Temple's abandonment of Jane for marriage is key to the story.) Rochester has all of the opposite: extremely worldly but with no sense of self, no tools to invent himself. Jane is all story and Rochester is all lack of story, his story.Anyway, this Jane is Samantha Morton. She does have an amazing demeanor. Her face really does project much of what we imagine Jane is. Firm, settled, strong, simple, and toward the end absolutely committed. We know from that face the whole story: the immense availability of character, the deep, deep heart (oh why cut the Helen Burns part?), the uncomplicated life template.Other actresses have done well with this too. But there's something about seeing a body so gaunt and sexless, but so yearning.It helps to know that Woody Allen cast her in a similar role, written for her in what I think is his most perfect movie. Following that Spielberg cast her in the pivotal role in his P K Dick/ Agatha Christie mystery. And following that, the experimental Winterbottom cast her in again a role that had Jane at the core. And all of that adds her Mary Queen of Scots in which you can still see our Jane.It also helps to know that if you've followed this Jane, you've seen her nude several times and you've watched her body fill out to normal human size. So you'll know the physical repression she had at the time, 19 years old.Ted's Evaluation -- 2 of 3: Has some interesting elements.