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.

I really liked this version. Despite the fact that it took some artistic liberties with bits of the storyline, and left out some things that were favorite small moments of mine from the book (and let's face it, that always seems to happen with the book to movie transformation), the plot line they created was pretty decent. The summary earlier up on the webpage said there weren't any sparks between the two main leads, but I disagree. What I liked most about this film was how much chemistry the two seemed to have. I do agree that there were several moments where they cut stuff from the book, that I feel they could have made room for scenes that would have strengthened Jane's character as a strong-willed woman.

The people who wrote this miniseries clearly read the Cliff's Notes instead of the book. I've read "Jane Eyre" half a dozen times; I turned this movie off maybe halfway through. I spent most of the time marveling at how the producers skipped over classic lines and moments from the book to invent dialogue.They glossed over Jane's early days -- her childhood and time at school -- and then rewrote the love story. The way Jane meets Rochester is wrong. His feelings about his French ward and the story behind her are wrong. The interactions among characters are wrong.See, what the filmmakers forgot is that the characters in this book have a strong sense of propriety. They are formal. Ranks mattered, and people behaved accordingly -- the passionate yet meek Jane and the moody yet tractable Mr. Rochester never forget their stations, and that influences their interactions. Samantha Morton's Jane is outrageously insubordinate and demanding from the moment she formally meets Rochester. It's simply out of character. Ciaran Hinds plays a decent Mr. Rochester, but he lays on the Grade-A jerk too heavily. Rochester isn't mean to Jane even if he is a bit gruff. Even the minor characters don't look the part. The best casting is Gemma Jones as kindly Mrs. Fairfax; she does a great job.I've always believed that film adaptations of books should honor the originals and follow them as closely as possible. You shouldn't take the characters and alter them to fit your audience, you shouldn't invent parts just to suit your needs, and you shouldn't cut parts for the same reason. This book has endured for more than a hundred years; it clearly has something going for it. Why mess with that? If you have read "Jane Eyre," this movie is extremely disappointing. If you haven't read the book, it's not much better. The filmmakers get to the love story as quickly as possible, but Morton and Hinds lack chemistry, and their scenes of passion are actually quite funny.Give this one a miss.