ShangLuda Admirable film.

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

Maidexpl Entertaining from beginning to end, it maintains the spirit of the franchise while establishing it's own seal with a fun cast

Tobias Burrows It's easily one of the freshest, sharpest and most enjoyable films of this year.

Ana Nuit I first discovered this mini-series late one night, back in 2007, when I was still very young. I rapidly feel in love with this enchanting dark tale, which broadened my horizons to classical literature.With that in mind, this 2006 BBC adaptation is one of my favorite mini-series, based in one that has also became one of my favorite books. The acting is superb, with the actors delivering very likable performances, which allows the viewer to feel the love, between the main characters, grow (which I didn't feel at all in the 2011 Jane Eyre movie). The soundtrack, scenery, attention to detail and overall feeling of the show is spot on, which creates a beautiful atmosphere that suits the story very well. I've re-watched it several times over the years and I still cherish it just the same, thus recommending it vividly! It is, in my opinion, a very underrated mini-series that deserves more willingness to be seen and appreciation!

Omar Abu Saad this is the only adaptation i have seen for the great Jane Eyre book and i liked how BBC managed to tell the story with changing any of the details but i think that there were some small details which made the book so great not mentioned in the series and that disappointed me somehow. The total ignorance of Jane's suffering and hunger after leaving Thornfield really disappointed me and made me give 8 star rating instead of 9 stars for this well done series. I really liked how Ruth Wilson performed her role awesomely but i think BBC had done mistake by not making Toby Stephens so ugly as Mr. Rochester should be. All in all, i think BBC did good job in filming this masterpiece book.

misctidsandbits Modernization of old films and books doesn't usually work. Here, it failed in spades. It is especially unsuccessful to actually downgrade a merited classic with supposedly more updated mores and styles. Bronte's "Jane Eyre" is not broken and does not require a fix.From start to finish, from casting to execution, this is a rotten stinker. I personally consider the two leads to be unattractive. Wilson, repulses instead of attracts. She is larger than Stephens, awkward and appears over-nourished, instead of the half-starved girl of the book. Indeed, this Rochester is the one who appears undernourished. Besides, he needed the makeup to cover that gravely, pock marked face. Hers was not appropriate, though she needed help. Yuk to both, I think especially her. Their "love" scenes are actually revolting.All other cast members miss it by a mile, including the scruffy mange of a dog! The changes and adjustments (compromises) in the script and demeanor of especially the lead characters fails utterly. The depth and deliberation of the time and the true Bronte characters were obviously not valued and likely not comprehended by those responsible for this atrocity.Any other version is superior. This one hits the skids and turns the stomach along the way.

jo-hanna I did enjoy this version, but having read the book, I was left feeling 'insulted' on Bronte's behalf, and a potentially excellent mini-series was marred. Why? Well, we are used to watching things on the screen that are greatly changed from reality, and one learns to overlook the offending details - otherwise nothing would be enjoyable; and there is nothing wrong with a little poetic license. However, when something claims to be an adaptation of a classic work, one would hope that it would retain the core elements of that work.. I tried not to dwell too much on the omission of huge chunks of the book which depicts Jane's 'pre-Rochester' life. I even tried not to feel too indignant at Jane's lack of 'plain-ness': I feel that Ruth Wilson is more attractive than Bronte intended Jane to be.. However, when we meet Mr Rochester, and he is considerably more attractive than depicted in the book, I began to feel that the makers of this adaptation didn't see where Bronte was coming from at all.. It wasn't about physical attraction. Lord knows we see enough of that everywhere. It was about the connection of their 'inner selves', a meeting of minds and souls! When this Mr Rochester asks Jane if she can make him more handsome, it just sounds silly! What I object to mostly however, is the scenes following the wedding prior to Jane leaving. This was just so not how it was written. It does not fit with the book/Jane/Bronte at all. It's just plain wrong! They also watered down Edward's injuries at the end, as if Jane couldn't have loved him the way he was; then failed to inform us of the improvement in his condition.I'm a sucker for a good romance, so I still enjoyed it, and had I not read the book first I would have scored it 9. However, a few marks must be lost for the disregard shown to Ms Bronte's work.I'll watch the 1973 then 83 versions next. I only wish I'd read this stuff years ago!