Beystiman It's fun, it's light, [but] it has a hard time when its tries to get heavy.

Sharkflei Your blood may run cold, but you now find yourself pinioned to the story.

Brennan Camacho Mostly, the movie is committed to the value of a good time.

Roxie The thing I enjoyed most about the film is the fact that it doesn't shy away from being a super-sized-cliche;

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.

flowergirlz_us I have watched many versions of this, my favorite story of all time, and have found this to be the best, most comprehensive version ever. Yes, the lighting is bad and it is filmed on video tape, but unlike the other adaptations done by the BBC at the time (Pride & Prejudice, Sense & Sensibility, and most especially Persuasion, a version that screams the 1970's) this version has beautiful sets, beautiful characters and some of the best acting of the series. It truly is the jewel in the crown for Jane Eyre fans. While Timothy Dalton is truly too handsome to play Rochester,(remember, Rochester is supposed to be homely too) his powerful acting makes it work. He is truly a Shakespearean actor, full of fire and brimstone, as well as sweetness and heartbreak. He is the essence of the Regency era. Zelah Clarke, while not the prettiest actress to play the character, plays the character with a lot of pluck and spunk. The two actors have incredible chemistry which is very evident in the scene where Jane confronts Edward after the revelation of his mad wife. The power between these two wonderful actors reverberates off the screen. This is my favorite version because it takes the time to tell the whole story, being an 8 part miniseries, it has all of the wonderful scenes from the book which is sadly left out of most other movie versions. This is one of my favorite movies of all time and any true Jane fan will not be disappointed.

marspeach I like this version more each time I watch it. Like the 1973 version, it is very faithful to the book. I preferred it, on the whole, to that one as well. The acting is much better, overall, and it does not have such intrusive, redundant voice-overs. Some very minimal narration by Jane was used at times, but only for transitional purposes- not in the middle of scenes so that the characters have to work their conversation around it. This version includes even more scenes than 1973 as well- such as more of Bessie's personality from the book, Miss Temple's marriage, the grown-up Eliza and Georgiana, and more of Jane's journey on the moors before being taken in by the Riverses.Zelah Clarke was a little too old for Jane but other than that, looked the part, and gave a decent performance.The real star of the show is Timothy Dalton's Rochester, however. Yes,he's too good-looking. But he really embodied the role. He made the character come to life and his scenes with Jane oozed chemistry.It was not perfect, however. In addition to the usual stagy production values of the time, there were a few flaws throughout that bothered me. Not every single thing from the book was kept, of course. One cut scene, in particular, really upset me- Helen Burns' death. This was a crucial scene from the book, which for some reason was not kept in this version! Yet we did get an added scene of Rochester meeting with Briggs after Jane has left Thornfield, trying to make sure she is alright. I found that scene very odd, because Jane wasn't present. We should have kept Helen's death instead! So much was kept in that the cuts they did make irritated me even more than they would have otherwise.

janet_joseba This review comes nearly 30 years late. Nevertheless, it has to be mentioned that I chanced by a copy of this movie sometime in early 2008 and watched it repeatedly for 4 months straight! I just had to write about it! I got smitten and forgot anything else existed once I saw this movie. How ironic it is to see Literature's ugliest male protagonist portrayed by the handsomest man! yet, what a welcome irony! It suited me perfectly and more so because Timothy Dalton did full justice to his role. He delivered an astounding and triumphant performance! I have never seen anything like it! All the other actors are very good too. The whole movie was put together beautifully. I don't care what anyone says about this movie. I just love it and love it! It made me happy and satisfied. It crushes me a bit to say this but I prefer Jane Eyre 1983 to A&E's P&J, which I believe is the ultimate mini-series. The excerpts from Jane Eyre spooked me a little back in school. I never got around to reading the book seriously knowing the story line so well. Seeing this particular production made the story come to life for me and drove me to a near frenzy. The scenes and Mr. Dalton's voice haunted me endlessly and finally led me to read the book seriously, which, of course is a masterpiece. Bravo to the whole team and especially to Mr.Dalton!! This movie is now a part of me.I give it 10/10 rating.