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 --

I will aim to judge this Jane Eyre on its own terms, as no matter no poor it is as an adaptation it at least deserves that. Of the Jane Eyres I've seen, this one was my least favourite and the most disappointing(I've not yet seen the 2006 version). It is not as dull as Zeffirelli's film, but I found the 1973, 1983 and 1943 versions much better cast than this and the characters more interesting and the story much more passionate in the 1970 and 2011 films.Charlotte Bronte's novel is one of the outstanding works in literature ever, and because the story is so good and the character of Rochester so interesting it is wholly deserving of good treatment if not entire fidelity.This Jane Eyre is not a complete and utter travesty. It does look wonderful with gorgeous scenery, an evocative atmosphere though Thornfield could have been gloomier and beautifully tailored costumes. The music is good too if not as haunting and atmospheric as the 1970 and 1943 films. Of the cast, the best is Gemma Jones who is absolutely marvellous as Mrs Fairfax, one of the few characters in the adaptation that is given any degree of respect.However, the rest of the acting is disappointing. This is especially true in the case of Ciaron Hinds, whose Rochester is almost completely lacking in subtlety or complexity with no attention whatsoever to any possible nuances. Samantha Morton fares a little better, she has the delicacy of Jane to a pat and she is suitably plain, however I can't say she was any more than that because Jane is too bold and insubordinate here. Blanche, Brocklehurst and St John are also nowhere near as interesting. Blanche is nowhere near as haughty, more should have been done with the conflict between Jane and Brocklehurst and St John is too sympathetic.The direction is misguided also, not allowing the characters to be any more involving than they were. I think also that the direction was a big part of the problem with Hinds' performance, because Hinds was also in Persuasion and he was superb in that and that was because the direction and adaptation were great.Jane Eyre(1997) suffers from being too short, too rushed and too condensed. The book is a very difficult one to translate to screen, because the story and characters have so much to them and also the book is big. 2 hours in my opinion is not enough to do the story justice, at least a mini-series of about 11-12 episodes would do. Consequently, things were inevitably cut out, changed or condensed, and the things left in were not very well explored especially the attitudes of the times and characters' motivations such as Rochester's affection for Adele did not make sense.Pacing was too rushed for me, I think to make the passion believable the pace should be quite measured without being deathly slow. This adaptation suffered from moving the story on too quickly to suit the lean running time, which explains why there wasn't enough passion and chemistry between the leads and also the ending should have been much more grim and mysterious, the stilted writing stopped it from being any more than that.Speaking of the writing, that was possibly the adaptation's most disappointing asset. Everything is really stilted and updated, dialogue doesn't flow from one line to the next effectively and some unintentionally funny moments and jarring dialogue in terms of the period Jane Eyre is set in and the type of language used severely undermine the characters and their motivations. Rochester especially in the second half of the adaptation suffers from this.All in all, very disappointing, too rushed, too short, too condensed, too underdeveloped and too stilted. Thank goodness for the production values, music and Jones, the adaptation could've been worse otherwise. 4/10 Bethany Cox

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.

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.