What makes it different from others?

Best movie ever!

Absolutely the worst movie.

There is just so much movie here. For some it may be too much. But in the same secretly sarcastic way most telemarketers say the phrase, the title of this one is particularly apt.

I disagree with the idea that this is a terrible version.Remember the actors do not always have the freedom to act as they wish. They are hired to act as the DIRECTOR tells them too. So the drama is presented not from the actors viewpoint but the directors'.but more specifically I wish to point out the turning point scene in the novel. specifically - the fire in Rochester's bedroom.The point on which the entire novel turns is when Rochester reaches out his hand to touch Jane. She demurs (in the book, AND this version). Rochester explains that even STRANGERS shake hands.Timidly, Jane takes his hand. That first touch is the magic that awakens Jane's passions. Rochester's attempt to express his feelings is rejected by Jane and she leaves and returns to her room. The next scene shows her in her bed, struggling over the knot in her stomach. She has never known love. Suddenly she realizes that she loves Rochester and he might even love her in return.But the next morning he has left the estate to visit 'some pretty girls'. She is devastated. She mistook that touch for love. She looks at herself in the mirror. She is plain, and poor. WHY would anyone as rich as Mr. Rochester ever love someone like her.This is the ONLY version (I've seen them all) that correctly captures that moment. Although the version with Charlotte Gainsboro captures the look in the mirror much better. Emelia Clarke is quite good, and also the most complete version, but I really like Gainsboro best for her face (closest to my vision of Jane) and Morton for her passion.

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.

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 think that Samantha Morton's Jane Eyre in Robert Young's 1997 TV adaptation of the great novel, could've been the best screen Jane ever. Morton was 20 years old and the closest in age to the young orphaned governess, childlike in the appearance but strong willed, serene yet very intelligent with acute sense of right or wrong. Two years prior to her Oscar nominated role as a mute girl in Woody Allen's "Sweet and Lowdown", Morton proved that she could say a lot by the mere look at her face, by her impressive and speaking eyes alone. It is sad that the film took too many liberties with the book and not only in omitting many important plot lines in order to fit in its 108 minutes length, but with too many changes to the very nature of the novel's two main characters and their relationship. Jane in the scenes with her employer is sometimes too demanding and not as tactful as she is in the book. The changes are especially obvious in Mr. Edward Rochester as he was played by Ciaran Hinds. Hinds is a talented, intense actor but I can't agree or like his reading and interpreting of Mr. Rochester's character. Some his scenes in the film made me cringe. Mr. Edward Rochester of the novel was not yelling or rather barking brute - it was difficult for me to believe that Jane Eyre would come to love so much. I also was unpleasantly surprised with Mr. Rochester openly displaying his affection for Adele. This manifestation was against the logic of his character.