Solemplex To me, this movie is perfection.

HeadlinesExotic Boring

Nayan Gough A great movie, one of the best of this year. There was a bit of confusion at one point in the plot, but nothing serious.

Billy Ollie Through painfully honest and emotional moments, the movie becomes irresistibly relatable

barbara-76 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.

movie-viking 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.

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.

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.