ClassyWas Excellent, smart action film.

Bereamic Awesome Movie

Kien Navarro Exactly the movie you think it is, but not the movie you want it to be.

Kayden This is a dark and sometimes deeply uncomfortable drama

BenignPillows There's no denying that this miniseries is beautifully filmed, with exquisite production values. It's too traditionally filmed to beat the cinematography of the 2011 movie, but it comes pretty close.I also agree with most reviewers that the two leads had great chemistry. The Gothic horror parts were well done, the music was great (especially at the moor sequences), and the ending/reunion scenes were probably the best I've seen in any Jane Eyre version. That's the good.Ultimately, this version was still a disappointment to me, because of the script and the interpretation of the characters. I actually don't mind shortening or modernizing of the dialogue to a degree. I get it: it makes it easier for us to relate to the characters. As brilliant as Timothy Dalton (1983) was, for example, his lengthy monologues at times threatened to take me out of the story, because it is simply hard to imagine real people talking like that. And I suppose screenwriter Sandy Welch avoided blatant anachronisms (except for "Young-ish". Really??) but it still wasn't worth it in this case. Not only were the new lines of much less originality and beauty, but the script was annoyingly dumbed down. Everything seemed to get spoon fed to us, then repeated to make sure we got the point. For example, Eshton's theory about twins, an obvious foreshadowing for Jane and Rochester's later telepathic connection. I think it was repeated three times! Also, the beyond stupid Ouija board scene, clearly meant to cement the fact that Blanche was bad. You know, in case we'd missed it. Actually, this was a general tendency when it came to Blanche and her mother. It was like there was a man standing with a megaphone, yelling THESE ARE THE VILLAINS OF THE STORY. SEE HOW THEY HAVE ALL KINDS OF BAD ATTITUDES, ESPECIALLY FROM A MODERN POINT OF VIEW? IT'S TO SPARE YOU ANY DOUBT AS TO WHOM TO ROOT FOR. NO THINKING REQUIRED!In the same vein, they removed much of the complexity of Jane and Rochester's characters, and that is my single biggest issue with this adaptation. Jane and Rochester seemed reduced to a conventional Hero and Heroine: Likable, with correct attitudes, having mostly to overcome external obstacles, not internal. Of course, Jane always was strong and deeply moral, but she was also emotionally closed off. Ruth Wilson is an excellent actress, but she (or her director/screenwriter) didn't seem to get this important aspect of the character, unlike Mia Wasikowska (2011), who portrayed it beautifully. Jane isn't reserved just because Rochester is her employer! If you haven't been loved, you protect yourself by not showing feelings. This is why Rochester dangles Blanche in Jane's face, and even goes to the length of impersonating (hiring) a fortune teller: He's trying to provoke a response from her, because it's so hard to get any clue as to how she really feels. In this version, all he would have had to to was stay home after the night of the fire, and she might have thrown herself in his arms. Removing this part of Jane may have made her more relatable to the audience and easier to understand, but it's not true to the book, nor does it make sense psychologically for someone with her upbringing to be so open, calm and carefree. It also as good as removes the impact of her famous line: "Do you think that because I am poor, obscure, plain, and little, that I am soulless and heartless?" Nobody would ever think Wilson's Jane was either of these things, except poor. These are the words of someone who has been on her guard, but finally cracks. Wilson's Jane had at this point been chummy and flirty with Rochester for quite a while already, when really she should have shown her feelings (to the viewers) only when she was alone. Then there's Rochester, who seems very hard to get right, as you have to portray a Byronic, melodramatic (anti-)hero and at the same time make him feel real. Rochester is also full of contradictions. Toby Stephens had no easy task, and could have been worse, but again, he was mostly the conventional hero. Too nice and good-humoured, sometimes depressed and "changeable" (talked of, but rarely seen), but not nearly intense, ill-tempered, selfish or tormented enough. The post-wedding departure scene between him and Jane.. There is no excuse for that, and I don't mean the fact that they make out, though it's weird that Jane would allow it (not because she's Victorian, but because of what she just found out), I mean the lack of urgency. This is the story's most important turning point, yet it's clumsily told in split-up flashback, and it lacks temperature and urgency. Rochester is meant to be desperate, attempting every trick in the book to get Jane to stay. (I guess that's why he first thoroughly smooches her, then promises he won't touch her if they live together? What?!) Jane is meant to steel herself, making him even more desperate. The only reason I can think of for this scene being so unforgivably subdued, is that Rochester manages to make himself believe that she will not really leave. Because she doesn't make a clean break, she tricks him into thinking she might consider the Mediterranean villa. (Now, is that something Jane Eyre would do??) They almost made up for this with the moving reunion scenes - almost - and I loved that Jane finally got her family portrait. I just wish she and the other characters had been less black-and-white.

name lastname It's nowhere even near the book, the woman who wrote the screenplay read too many cheesy romantic novels, so she invented the whole story, the dialogue and presented it to us as "Jane Eyre", to attract viewers. The series start with some red cloth, waved at our faces for many minutes, are we in communist China? Then, some girl, sitting in a desert, fiddling with sand. What desert, what sand? There is no desert and no sand in "Jane Eyre". The, some silly scene with some painter, which is not in the book also. Due to the desert and the painter, the scenes from childhood were cut off, and one can hardly understand what ailed the girl - she was closed in some room where she stared at the portrait, and it seemed to be her main grudge (no illness, no breakdown). The next second, "Jane" opens her eyes, and she is in a luxurious bed, attended by a doctor. In the book, the aunt called an apothecary to save money on a doctor's visit. In fact, the doctor promises to return again, meaning the evil aunts pays for two expensive visits, that's how evil she is. When Jane tells the aunt how she feels, instead of being indignant at the aunt's lies, she sounds like a prim teacher, telling the older woman what to do and how to behave. One can barely stand not to slap the brat and tell her not to order others around. In Lowood, everything is skipped through, scenes look more like flashbacks. Jane's friend Mary sounds borderline imbecilic, instead of the smartest girl in the school. She also looks extremely righteous and self-satisfied. Thornton Hall does not look as a house of a wealthy aristocratic gentleman, but like some Gothic ruins, to enter which you must crawl almost on all fours into some dilapidated gate (surely a rich man could have paid to fix it). Inside, it's all ruins, too, in which a couple of rooms were cleared and some furniture was installed. Aunt's Reed's house is a real gentlemanly house, and she was nowhere near Mr Rochester in riches. Adele is portrayed like a cretin girl, interested only in clothes, jewels and presents. Mr Rochester is a self-satisfied creep, who knows that he has a pretty face but is constantly fishing for compliments. He is also constantly mentioning his 20K, in case the pretty face was not enough. Original Mr Rochester never mentioned the exact sum of his fortune, no gentleman ever would. Mr Rochester in series is also giggling all the time, like he is deranged, plays with Ouija board (the "real" one was an educated man and would have never stooped to such rubbish), and bullies and humiliates other people playing on their superstitions. But, he found his match in Jane Eyre. In a book, Jane was an educated woman and she was extremely modern, had a career, hobbies, dreams. In these series, she can't even educate Adele properly, who continues to wiggle and giggle. She, too, is fishing for the compliments all the time, playing the victim card ("I was not fed for eight years", "yes, sir, they didn't feed me", "yes, but remember, sir, I told you how they never fed me"). "Real" Jane had too much taste and tact to talk like this. She disclosed some of the abuse that went in the school when asked directly, but never went around with "woe to me, everyone was bad to me" look, permanently plastered to her face. The real Jane never shared a full story about her inheritance with Mr Rochester, the Jane in the series brags about it, to show off and to fish for compliment on her "generosity". She was judgmental, never did much but sketched something, left Adele entirely to her French bonne, and was preoccupied with the one thing only - how to attract a man. The actress is not plain at all either, though the blotched lip injections did disfigured her face, giving her lips a lop-sided look, with the upper lip constantly hovering over the lower one. Her female cousins, instead of being educated well bred women, talked at once and screeched like magpies, also giggled all the time God knows why, and could outgiggle Mr Rochester himself on a good day. The whole thing was turned into a cheap cheesy pseudoromantic farce. Poor author must be turning in her grave. I could never understood why people blotched books so. If the writer of the screenplay thought she was better than Bronte, she should have written her own screenplay, call it "An imbecilic governess captures a rich man" and produce it as a mini series, which, of course, no one would have wanted to watch. Instead, piggy riding on a great name, we are forced to watch complete and utter rubbish, which has absolutely nothing to do with the book.

M Campbell I must say that I really loved this version of Jane Eyre. I've seen most of the movies, both old and new and the mini series as well. But I really thought Ruth Wilson and Toby Stephens were the best Jane and Rochester couple out of all the versions I've seen. And Andrew Buchan really was a wonderful Mr. Rivers. Whoever did the casting for this version hit it on the nose with their selection. I applaud the BBC again for another great mini-series, no one does drama as well as the BBC. Even if you've seen the other versions out there, this one is worth a watch.

TheLittleSongbird Seeing as Jane Eyre by Charlotte Bronte is one of my favourite novels, I was eager to see as many adaptations as I could. And I really liked this 2006 version. It is I agree not the best adaptation, and it is not the most faithful, I do prefer the 1973 and 1983 adaptations, that were given a longer durations to develop the themes and the characters and they went at a more leisurely pace which was beneficial for the atmosphere I feel.However this adaptation, although some may disagree, is vastly superior to the dull Zeffirelli film and the too short, rushed and underdeveloped 1997 adaptation. Is this perfect? No. There were a few scenes that I didn't like so much. One was the seance between the rich people, which was lame and unnecessary. Two was the gypsy scene which is much more enjoyable in the book. And finally the scene on the stairs, which was ruined by trite dialogue.I also felt that although Andrew Buchan was good as he always is, very commanding as always, St John was too likable and too sympathetic here. The parts with Jane as a child were rushed in a sense as well, but compensated by the wonderful production values and the very believable acting from Georgie Henley, the girl playing young Jane.On the other hand, this is a beautiful-looking adaptation. Of the TV series adaptations, I think this 2006 one is the best photographed, and the costumes and scenery are equally striking. Thornfield has the essential Gothic haunting quality to it, which I appreciated. The music is never over-bearing or low key, instead it is hypnotic and authentic.The writing may lack the poetic prose of the book, there are some stilted and trite moments, but the adaptation does try hard condensing a very difficult book to adapt to screen. The results are not perfect by all means but considering what happened with the 1997 adaptation it could've fared far worse. The story is well paced and compelling especially the final episode which is unforgettable in every sense, with some suspenseful and beautiful moments throughout to make up for the few not-needed and not-so-enjoyable ones and an effort to convey the attitudes and conflicts of the times.Acting is great. Toby Stephens is perhaps the most handsome of all Rochesters, decide for yourself whether that's a bad thing or not, but he shows Rochester's characteristics perfectly. He is gruff, boisterous, charismatic and cynical yet also world-weary, subtle, nuanced and tender. Ruth Wilson is also perfect. She is delicate and plain, but her Jane is so poised and controlled it is easy to relate to her. I much enjoyed the support cast, especially Tara Fitzgerald, Lorraine Ashbourne, Pam Ferris and Francessca Annis. Adele is less annoying than she can be, and Christine Cole's Blanche is suitably haughty.Overall, a much better than expected if imperfect adaptation. I don't think it is definitive or the best adaptation, but it is a valiant one and worth seeing for the wonderful production values and superb cast. 7.5/10 Bethany Cox