Jamaica Inn Online

I read the novel many years ago, and loved it. This adaptation struck the right mood, it seemed to me, dark and subtly sinister. I didn't have problems understanding the dialogue, for the most part--yes, Joss Merlyn is a mumbler, but I remember that as being in character.

I did think some of the "night" scenes on the beach could have used better light filters--they look like it's mid morning on an overcast day! At times it did seem a little heavy-handed,and as a fan of BBC drama, I wouldn't put this in my upper tier favorites. But I did enjoy it, found the performances to be generally good (Jessica B-F made a very good Mary Yellen, who is not a simplistic heroine)and the sweeping moorland scenery was a plus as well.

I love Cornwall, I go there all the time, and I have never had any trouble understanding the delightful Cornish accent. So what in God's name is the language they're speaking in BBC1′s new adaptation of Jamaica Inn? I began by turning up the volume, thinking I simply had the TV on too quietly. When I still couldn't catch what most of the cast were trying to say I tried listening on headphones like a language student struggling to revise for a forthcoming aural exam.But however much I concentrated, rewound on TiVo, or adjusted the audio controls I could only manage to pick out about one word in fifty.

Most inaccessible of all was the dialogue uttered by Sean Harris, as violent, drink-soaked smuggler Joss.

Joss produced a baffling array of mumbles, whispers and grunts, delivered through the upper nasal cavity in a West Country accent so thick it might as well have been first generation Klingon.

Even headstrong barmaid Mary – played by Jessica Brown Findlay off Downton Abbey – had trouble understanding the ramblings of her thuggish, inebriated uncle, and pointed out as much on more than one occasion.

"I don't understand," she said at one point, and Britain breathed a huge sigh of relief that not every viewer in the country had simultaneously gone deaf.

Uncle Joss turned out to be a bit of a nineteenth century Basil Fawlty – a reluctant innkeeper who "don't like people staying," and would rather go down to the beach and crush people's heads with his bare hands. He also had a nasty habit of grabbing people around the throat and shoving them up against walls – a style of behaviour that was also reminiscent of Mr Fawlty at his least hospitable.

Matthew McNulty was in it, of course. He's in all the BBC costume dramas and probably hasn't had a day off work in about 7 years. Poor old Matthew must be sick to the back teeth of heavily colour-corrected, windswept moors full of clattering stage coaches and women wading up to their knees in muddy bogs. He looks like he could do with a couple of weeks in the Canaries. Maybe his agent needs to learn how to say "no" from time to time.

Finally giving up on trying to follow the dialogue, I turned my attentions to Mary's heavy, full length velvet dress. This character's fondness for bog wading at a variety of different depths meant that in every scene the dark stain around the hem of this garment moved up and down, up and down, like the rise and fall of the tidal Thames at Teddington. I eventually found myself trying to guess at which level the watermark would appear next, and I have every intention of turning this pastime into a drinking game while I am watching episode 3 of Jamaica Inn (with the subtitles turned on.)

OK so first things first the sound is a bit dodgy, but persevere because the screen crackles with tension. The writing is good and the filming style doesn't disappoint. It's suitably dark, and no one, not even out our heroine Mary Yellen, looks pretty in that vapid way that some costume dramas enjoy. She's a bit grubby, but still attractive, so she seems more realistic, because she isn't portrayed like Anne of Green Shipwrecks. The locations are treated like another character in the story. The acting is exciting, with huge amounts of magnetism. Each character has an interesting back story that is sometimes hinted at, sometimes explained. The thing I noticed first is that everyone is dirty, their hands, their hair, their clothes, and of they would be. Smuggling is a dirty business, this production lets you see just how dangerous and desperate it is.

The only version of Jamaica Inn I had watched before this was the one with Jane Seymour,which I'm quite fond of.I have noticed that because of recessions,we seem to be having spates of darkly lit grim dramas,and intense acting.There's nothing wrong with that of course,but It starts to feel like all other dramas rolled into one,because really it felt to modern,too abrasive for the time it was meant to be set in,and the excitement and tension was lost (I did feel they gave away the culprit to early).Plus the audio,Sean Harris was the worst,which is a shame,as he is a very good actor,possibly giving the best performance in the entire series,despite his mumbling growls.Jessica Brown Findlay gave a believable performance as Mary Yellan,credit to her that we didn't even remember Lady Sybil as she romanced a thief.Overall a series I watched,but would not watch again,best to watch the Seymour version,or The Thirteenth Tale,the bbc didn't even widely advertise it,and it was remarkably better than this series.

I greatly enjoyed this adaption of Jamaica Inn.

It was dark and grubby, just like the monstrous crime at the heart of this tale.

For me the key to Jamaica Inn is the portrayal of the extremely compromised characters. The production excelled at this.

The only character who is not compromised is the evil fiend at the centre of it all of course. That person has abandoned morals and has found a form of liberation.

The most compromised of all, Joss Merlyn was played by Sean Harris superbly. He is ensnared in something extremely nasty indeed. His attempt to drag the heroin into the evil cesspool he inhabits was really a first class piece of drama.

Thank goodness today we have Formica worktops, dettol, vinyl floors and suchlike. We still have monstrous criminals but at least we have nice clean living environments for them.

The fashion for dark realism seems to have permeated even Historical dramas. I suppose they think it underpins the characters with an Earthy veritas and makes them, and their circumstances, seem more real. It is true that the doings on the Cornish coast were pretty dreadful but to depict it in such uniformly depressing tones leaves no room for the light of moral comparison to shine in. It's as if the Human Condition is depicted as black paint on a black canvas. We're all doomed and there's no point in trying.

This is the stuff of Literature, we are tempted to think, but, unfortunately, this dark cynicism has not so much given it a Literary sheen but rather the ambiance of a bucket of mud from a marshy strand, full of ugly little creatures all trying to escape from their dire surroundings.

The trouble with being too realistic is that Reality is often dull, dour and boring and so to take this attitude when dramatising an Historical novel is really, to drain the romance, and thus the entertainment, from the history. Dickens and Shakespeare, and more recently Ripper Street, have a sort of parallel historical verity by the action being enhanced by beautiful dialogue and richly drawn characters. This dramatisation of Jamaica Inn, however, seems to have reduced Literary endeavours to incoherent grunts, curses and prosaic railings against the brutality of life.

I had to stop myself from wistfully hoping that the grim, marshy landscape would be transformed into the polished cobbles of Westward Ho and that the Inn would have a Shepperton makeover to turn it into a shiny Admiral Benbow complete with picturesque pirates and colourful redcoats but, unfortunately, we were stuck, until the final squalid thrashings, with undifferentiated mud and gloom. Our heroine was failed by the absence of the best traditions of female literary creations, and became, not so much a plucky young lass, but just another creature floundering in the mire of the marshes.

So when poor Mary Yellan rode off into the sunset with her mud-coloured horse-thief, we could only shrug with the dire certainty that she was merely riding slap-bang (with a guttural grunt)into the mud-encrusted side of the bucket.

It's a reasonable stab at a great tale, but sadly this latest version of Daphne du Maurier's Jamaica Inn takes too many television shortcuts to satisfy and really impress. That's a shame, because there is a lot about it which makes it stand out from what another production might have settled for.

Effort and imagination went in to making the story very much of its time and although the various Cornish accents are at times a little off (I live there - here - and can tell, although I'm not myself Cornish), it does take you back to the early years of the 19th century when life was not half as sweet as it is now for most of us. OK it has been castigated for several anachronisms, but if you are not aware of them - and I was not - they won't spoil your viewing. I rather liked the acting, too, and thought it well cast. Where it falls down is in the pretty mediocre script and storytelling: where subtle exposition and greater characterisation were needed, we got, instead, the pretty usual two-dimensional TV version good and evil. This was storytelling by numbers. In fact, the storytelling was pretty slapdash.

Too much was left unexplained. What hold did the Vicar of Altarnun have over Joss Merlyn which so ensnared him to his will? And why did the Vicar stick to the pretence of being a man of God. Surely it was more than just needing a 'good cover story'? And what drove him to lead a gang of wreckers in the first place? It cannot have been merely for venal gain, because he seems wholly uninterested in it.

It was the kind of inner detail which this version needed but which it lacked to make it something special. As it is it serves well as a piece of TV fodder and in many ways is better than much we are presented with. It's just a shame BBC couldn't - or couldn't be bothered to - go that extra mile.

Flipped this on, on Acorn--thrilled to see a Du Maurier tale, which is a nice break from the usual dreck...or so I thought. This was, simply and positively AWFUL. I don't know what dream team dreamt this up, but it dragged on, and on, and on. It held no suspense (is there anyone alive who didn't know who the "fiendish culprit" was, in the first third of it?), the characters had as much charisma as a plate of old salmon, and the dialog was beyond comprehension. I'm accustomed to using closed-captioning for everything, so, no: it wasn't the hideously bad accents, nor the dreadful voice-overs (really? In this day and age, that's the best that they could do?), nor the grotesque overacting by every single member of the cast, save the young actor playing Jem Merlyn. It was logy, and there wasn't anything to do to save it.

The continuity errors were painful to watch--the mud-drenched heroine's hemline, popping up-down-up-down, as if she walked through a mystical dry-cleaners while slogging from the dreadful Inn to the Moors. The over-reliance, by the DOP on the darkness to set the mood, rather than actual interior shots or, gods forfend, ACTING. It's got that ridiculously dark "modern" feel to it, as if Dark Shadows had sex with some soap opera and out popped a "gritty" movie. YAWN.

When I realized that Acorn had stupidly only put 2 of the 3 "episodes" up for viewing, I honestly didn't know whether to be vexed or relieved that I wouldn't have to watch the last third. What's left to know, after the second part, other than slogging through the now non-existent denouement? I hope that the actress (who played Lady Sybil Crawley) certainly didn't leave Downton Abbey for this piece of drivel--her career should, I'd hope, survive, in SPITE of this, but it's no thanks to her acting in this. I watched her "emote" several facial expressions that were incomprehensible to me--and I know the story line. Given how ridiculously over-long this is, they should have been able to provide some character depth, but didn't. It's ironically both too long (by half, mind you) and yet too shallow at the same time.

Inexplicably bad. The Seymour version, albeit sort of "Made for Lifetime Movie-ish," and overwrought, is better than this. Better yet, stick with the novel. If you do flip it on, don't say you haven't been warned. I don't know what version the "crackling with tension" reviewer was watching, but maybe he had a battery charger hooked up to his chair and was jolting himself every 5 minutes. THAT would be less torturous than watching this again, or even finishing it.

What an abysmal dreary offering of what is a brilliant Du Maurier story especially when compared to the excellent 1983 HTV production with Jane Seymour. It was all I could do to stop falling asleep. The complete lack of charisma of any of the actors was painful, excepting the excellent Andrew Scarborough who surely would have made a more convincing and menacing Joss Merlin.

For me, there was a complete lack of suspense, it had the the magic of a monotonous monologue supported by an awful music score. Certainly, the cliff hanger didn't leave me hanging on for any more of this and to think that my license fee was in part paying for this really grieves me. Seek out the 1983 version, I recommend.

If you are a US viewer you'll certainly need the subtitles turned on although I recommend you find something else to watch. I turned off after around 30 minutes because of the mumbling dialogue which has attracted thousands of complaints to the BBC.

Sean Harris is utterly terrible in this role as he was in the channel four travesty Southcliffe.

How the director/producers failed to notice the nonsensical dialogue is beyond me.

Do yourselves a favour and buy the (very excellent) book and give this utterly terrible adaptation a wide berth.

Very beautiful adaptation of the Du Maurier classic novel to a TV mini-series. There is a reason why Hitchcock directed this back in 1939. The atmosphere set is hypnotic at times. The music is well-chosen. It sets the right mood. When I first read the book, I imagined the setting to be similar but not quite as beautiful as shown here.

The actors did quite a formidable job in this. Especially the supporting cast: Whalley, Harris (mumbling or not, his presence and portrayal of the character is nothing short of excellent), Shirley Henderson is great as ever. Jessica B-F is very talented and fits into the role of the main protagonist. A young girl, not too beautiful, but determined to go her own path, despite the obstacles life's put in her way.

All in all, a great effort, in my opinion and I imagine the cost of making it wasn't as high as with many other TV productions nowadays. It's good to see that the BBC hasn't lost its touch when it comes to adapting a classic novel for the small screen. One more thing, the average rating is too low, out of reasons I cannot comprehend. Just doesn't appeal to anyone, I guess. 7.3/10

Watch on Netflix so you do not suffer the mumbling. Do not watch for continuity issues. I was reminded of Crime and Punishment and some sad personal memories. I was very naive at that age and had never experienced true evil. It wasn't until 9/11 in downtown Manhattan that I truly realized that true evil exists. This level of casting and acting are rarely seen on film. I was duly horrified at many points. I was going to recommend it to my daughter but she does not need to see this reality at this point in her life. The brutality is portrayed in its real form, and many of us in America are descended more from the Moors of England, than the pretty pictures of Jane Austin.

Suitable dark and gritty setting but poorly adapted, cast and directed. Daphne Du Maurier's story and characters were barely recognizable in this version. Lots of staring and pouting but not much feeling and lots of characters and incidents added unnecessarily to an otherwise good story. I read Jamaica Inn long ago and just re-read the book so was looking forward to a new adaptation of it but was extremely disappointed. Jessica Brown Findlay left Downton Abbey for this?

This is a TV miniseries based on a Daphne du Maurier novel, adapted by Emma Frost, brought to life by the superb direction of Philippa Lowthorpe. Great cast (Joanne Whaley, Matthew McNulty, Sean Harris, Ben Daniels, Shirley Henderson) lead by Jessica Brown Findlay (a favourite of mine), none of whom missed a beat in fleshing out their characters. Wonderful themes of finding yourself, your own strength, and making complex choices. There is also an interesting study of the complexities of being both an abuser and a victim. This is not your historic pastoral piece but has dark themes and moods. The cinematography is breathtaking capturing the landscape that is another character in this film. The costuming is gritty and dingy so befitting the mood of the piece. I thoroughly enjoyed this series , although I feel the last episode was the weakest, yet I still give it an 8 (great) out of 10. {Period Drama}

Fraught with weak character development and the story line veered so far from the original as to be almost unrecognizable. Aunt Patience appears only marginally cowed and afraid of Joss, who himself is only a shadow of the menacing creature of DuMaurier's novel. The novel held me spell bound and in fear for both Mary and Patience - not so this version. Nor does the vicar's character portray the eeriness of DuMaurier's. After watching through the first half of episode 2, I gave it up as a waste of time. I understand that movie/tv adaptations of literature often take liberties but seriously, this was way past anything resembling necessity. Don't waste the time to watch this version. Better off reading the novel!

It is so very easy to see what has gone wrong with this production. The magnificence of Daphne Du Maurier's work has been taken too lightly, and in some obscure way, it seems to have been deemed old fashioned, and in need of retelling.

The direction is without equal in all the realms below average, and scarcely superior to some of the worst ever set loose on the television or film industry. No attempt has been made to create characters even close to those penned by Daphne Du Maurier, and all seem to have been painted variously good, strong, weak, or evil, with a yard broom, and played to the hilt on that basis.

Daphne Du Maurier was able to write strong female characters without making them creatures that never existed and probably never will, she understood the evil that people do and the reasons behind it, something which seems to have escaped the sensibilities and sensitivities of the people involved in producing, directing, and even acting, in this travesty of Jamaica Inn.

This was a dark story. Never one minute of happiness. Everyone in the movie was a horrible person except Mary. I wondered how bad was Ned that she would live in scalor and watch ppl be murdered instead of returning to marry her friend Ned. I never saw or understood why she felt anything for Jem although Matt is a handsome actor.

Now the real mystery was why nasty Patience ever agreed to take her into this scum bag life or why she was so devoted to her horrible husband. I suppose at the end where they were kissing and talking about an egg he bought her i was supposed to be touched after watching him drown an entire ship full of men. No not feeling it. Did not care one bit for either. Both should hang. They were all scum of the earth.