Interesteg What makes it different from others?

TeenzTen An action-packed slog

Ogosmith Each character in this movie — down to the smallest one — is an individual rather than a type, prone to spontaneous changes of mood and sometimes amusing outbursts of pettiness or ill humor.

filippaberry84 I think this is a new genre that they're all sort of working their way through it and haven't got all the kinks worked out yet but it's a genre that works for me.

Red-125 "Jane Eyre" (1983) was directed by Julian Amyes for the BBC. It's an adaption of the famous novel by Charlotte Brontë. Zelah Clarke portrays Jane Eyre and Timothy Dalton stars as Mr. Rochester.As we expect from the BBC, production values are high, and all of the supporting players do very well. My one criticism of this adaptation is an unusual one. Early in the film,Jane is cast out by her aunt. She suffers horribly at the boarding school to which she is sent. However, we don't see the suffering. At one point she is publicly humiliated, but the school is shown to us as more or less a standard English boarding school of the time. However, we then hear in a voice-over that typhus took its terrible toll because the children lived in squalor and were undernourished. It seems strange to say that they should have shown us more suffering. However, Jane Eyre did, indeed, suffer at boarding school. That's in the novel, and it should be in the film as well.The casting of the lead roles is interesting. Timothy Dalton is extremely handsome, in a Byronic way. When he asks Jane whether she thinks him handsome, she says no. However, here's what the novel says: "I knew my traveler by his broad, black eyebrows; his square forehead, made squarer by the sweep of his black hair. I recognized his strong nose, more remarkable for character than beauty; his full nostrils; his grim mouth, chin, and jaw—yes, all three were very grim. I saw his figure, now without a cloak, was athletic, though neither tall nor graceful." Although Dalton is very handsome, he looks enough like Brontë's description to fit perfectly as Mr. Rochester. In the novel and the film, Jane is described as poor, obscure, plain, and little. Zelah Clarke is small, but she's really not plain. True, Mia Wasikowska has played the role, and she is extraordinarily beautiful. However, Wasikowska must have had to overcome that beauty to portray Jane Eyre. In my opinion, Zelah Clark is perfect for the role. As another viewer has written, "Only Zelah Clark has ever brought the level of fervor, innocence, and intelligence to the role of Jane that makes it believable that Rochester would fall in love with her." Absolutely correct.Because this movie was made for television, it works well on the small screen. As I write this review, the film has an extremely high IMDb rating of 8.2. Obviously, thousands of other people responded to the movie just as I did. It's a fabulous film. Don't miss it.

vivianu I was about 10 when I first read the book Jane Eyre. Obviously, considering my age, did not understand everything, however, it become one of my favorites I read over years again and again. I also have seen all latest films of Jane Eyre - 2011, 2006,1997 - which left me convinced that they are unable to catch the very essence of the book. Recently I found on Youtube the 1983 version and been watching it on daily basis approximately 2 months now. For me it is a book become alive. I am so thankful for all the production team of BBC for creating such a masterpiece. I've read other reviews on IMDb regarding these mini-series and agree that there could have been a bit more intimacy between Edward and Jane as it was in book. And I would gladly watch even longer version if there would have been Jane meeting Rochester on his way back from business before wedding day, the trip to Millcote etc. Maybe there are some deleted scenes in this production? I would gladly watch them, too, if it is only possible to release. However, I am ever so thankful that the dialogues are taken straight from book almost unchanged (except shortened, but in wise, unaffected way) and not killing the classic. The hero and heroine of the book Timothy Dalton and Zelah Clarke are Mr Rochester and Miss Eyre - simple as that. I do not believe that Timothy Dalton is too handsome - he is amazing actor, in some scenes he really looks ugly in my eyes ("You examine me Miss Eyre. Do you find me handsome?"). Zelah Clarke is Jane as I imagined Jane should be. Great integrity, pride and very genteel appearance - despite not been beautiful. I do not think she looks too old - considering what a harsh sort of life she had and people in that time aged sooner than nowadays. For me she looks 18. I shall not watch any other Jane Eyre anymore as I do not want to spoil the spellbinding atmosphere created by these mini-series. I thank everyone in production of the 1983 Jane Eyre for bringing the book alive and my deep révérence to Ms Clarke and Mr Dalton. I wish you every happiness in your life with deep gratitude from my side. I already rated it 10 out of 10, but if it would have been possible I would rate it as 11 out of 10.

Matthew Kresal After wanting to see this 1983 BBC production for some time, I've finally gotten to see this at last. Having never actually read the book I wasn't sure what I would make of the production, which had been recommended to me because of me being a fan of Timothy Dalton, who plays the role of Mister Edward Rochester. What I got was a fine production to say the least. It has a fine cast, fine production values which help to tell this atmospheric romance/drama in a fine fashion.The cast is fantastic to say the very least. Both Sian Pattenden (as the child) and Zelah Clarke (as the grown-up) both give fine performances in the title role of Jane Eyre, both are believable in their roles and come across as strong willed but all too human characters, which is especially true of Clarke as her relationship with her employer Mr. Rochester grows throughout the story. Speaking of Mr. Rochester, there is an absolutely brilliant performance by Timothy Dalton in the role. Dalton shows a huge range of emotions in the part and he shares some fine chemistry with Clarke and they really work well as a couple. There's also a fine supporting cast as well including Jean Harvey as Rochester's housekeeper Mrs. Fairfax, Damien Thomas as Rochester's mysterious friend Richard Mason, Judy Cornwell as Jane's aunt Mrs. Reed, Mary Tamm as Rochester's love interest Blanche Ingram plus Elaine Donnelly, Morag Hood and Andrew Bicknell as the Rivers family amongst others. Also of mention is the performance of Joolia Cappleman as Bertha who, while not often seen, has a considerable influence over the story and lends it much of its atmosphere and mystery. Together they make for a fine cast of actors and actresses.There's also some fine production values as well. It was shot on both film (for exterior scenes) and videotape (for interiors) which some people have used against it as a way of calling this a cheap looking production. Nothing could be farther then the truth, which is that this was standard BBC policy at the time and virtually all of the programs made by the BBC (such as the original TV series of Doctor Who for one of many examples) were shot that way. Besides one shouldn't judge the production based on that, in my opinion anyway. Instead it should be judged based on the costumes and sets used. Both of those categories are successes as the BBC was more then capable on making fantastic period sets and costumes. Both the interiors and the exterior scenes are well shot and lit, which help to evoke both the moodiness of the story and the atmosphere of the period as well as seen in any of the scenes (interior or exterior) at Thornfield Hall for example. There's also some fine make-up work as well, especially in episode eleven which should be seen as not to spoil the story for anyone. There is also the music of composer Paul Reade who produced a fine piece of music for the titles sequences and the sporadic, but well made and used, pieces heard throughout the production as well. Once one looks past how the production was shot (which shouldn't really even be and issue), there are plenty of things in the costumes, set, make-up and music to admire about this production.Last, but not least, is the script which was written by Alexander Baron from the novel by Charlotte Brontë. Having never read the novel, I am unable to judge how faithful the script is to the original novel though, from what I've read from other reviews, the script adheres to the novel rather faithfully. Judging it then from the point of view of the writing alone it is a well constructed story which goes from Jane as a girl to her becoming the governess for Rochester's ward and beyond. There is a steady build-up of tension once Jane arrives as a mysterious laughter can be heard along with unexplained occurrences and Jane's growing feelings for Rochester. Especially since it is told across eleven half-hour episodes which each ending, cliffhanger like, at a point that brings the viewer back to see what happens next (especially someone like me who hasn't read the novel). This may be down to the novel, I don't know, but even if it is there is much credit to be given to Baron for being able to bring it to this production.All in all this 1983 BBC production of Jane Eyre is a fine example of BBC costume drama. Meaning that has some really fine performances from its large cast (especially Zelah Clarke and Timothy Dalton), fine costumes and sets and a well written script. It is a moving human drama that is nonetheless atmospheric and tense. While I can not judge this production to the novel it is based on, I feel confident in saying that this is a fine drama that will prove enjoyable to those who have or haven't read the novel.

Xanthe Young I am taking into account that this was made in a time when cameras stayed still but they still and the ability to do a bit of good casting.First off, piece of advice, if your camera blurs in poor light, don't have candle-lit scenes.Secondly, considering how much of the speech in the book is utterly pointless you don't need to stick with it word for word. You can cut out a lot of the instances in which Mr. Rochester repeats Jane for a start.Thridly, If your going to cast a tall actor for Rochestor don't cast a short one for Jane. It doesn't work. All the shots had to be wider than necessary to fit them both in and the actors must have got neck-ache surely.And finally, when it comes to casting someone for the part of Jane Eyre their ability to act is more important than the way they look. I couldn't care less about that Jane Eyre, she was utterly pathetic, completely unlikeable and impossible to sympathise with.Watch the 2006 version instead.