User Reviews

Brilliant.

Absolutely brilliant.

I first saw this adaptation in November 2008, whilst channel-surfing during a free afternoon. I saw this movie again today (New Year's Day, 2009) on "The History Channel," and I was glad to settle down for all four hours of this wonderful adaptation of Charlotte Bronte's classic.

From the opening scenes, with the horrible Mrs. Reed and the cruelty of Lowood, this movie captivated and moved me. Toby Stephens (Rochester) introduced a degree of cynicism mixed with world-weariness that was all too believable. Ruth Wilson (Jane) played her role to perfection -- without being a "classic" beauty, she made a profound impression, with her simple gaze and her quiet demeanour and assuredness.

The setting was perfect. The North Tower of Thornfield Castle introduced a brooding, malevolent presence to the plot that resonated throughout the movie. This adaptation succeeded because of the careful attention to detail paid by the editors -- the portrait of the mad people hanging in the hallway, the somber demeanour of Grace Pool, the ominous presence of Pilot at Jane's door, and the cackling laughter that echoed throughout the mansion, all added to the depth and intensity of this story.

Wilson captured the essence of Bronte's character perfectly. Her face expressed emotions with a degree of clarity that could be matched only by paragraph after paragraph of prose. "That look," brooded Stephens. That look, indeed! I have seen many adaptations of this novel. The length of this adaptation made it possible for the movie to track the book with an astonishing degree of accuracy and fidelity. This length enabled the movie to develop the central characters wonderfully, capturing the personalities of both the major and the minor characters perfectly.

The ending was perfect. All of the servants were present (in marked contrast to other versions, in which Grace Pool was killed off), and the portrait at the end of the movie bracketed the beginning with symmetry and closure.

This is a must-see for any serious student of this classic, as well as for the average viewer who merely wishes to be entertained.

Congratulations to all involved in the production of this masterpiece! PHILIP CHANDLER

Superb Toby Stephens and Ruth Wilson, excellent cinematography, musical score, locations but poor screenplay. This production had none of the mesmerizing dialog of the book. I cringed when Rochester asked Jane "Why are you crying?" Imagine Toby speaking in his dulcet tones the words from the book... "But I affirm that you are: so much depressed that a few more words would bring tears to your eyes--indeed there they are now, shining and swimming; and a bead has slipped from the lash and fallen on the flag.." (how beautiful), the altered gypsy scene compared to the Dalton/Clarke 1983 version is a terrible disappointment. Why did they change it? Why fiddle with perfection? Eshton's theories (nowhere in the book), the final marriage proposal I am paraphrasing because I don't remember it exactly. Rochester: Ah Jane but I want a wife. Jane: choose then sir her who loves you best. Rochester: I will at least choose her I love best. Why didn't BBC use this? I could go on and on. An excellent movie for the moviegoer who has not read the book but poor for the reader. I only wish BBC would have adapted the 1973 Jayston/Cusack or the 1983 Dalton/Clarke scripts with the excellent production used in this movie. It could have been perfect. A missed opportunity. I give it a 10 for production but subtract 2 for the script.

Jane Eyre is probably one of my all-time favourite books, and, I'm glad to say, the 2006 film has become one of my all-time favourite movies. The actors have an amazing chemistry, and some scenes were just too electrifyingly romantic to belong in a Victorian period piece. The acting was great, the script was great--pure brilliance!

Based on the novel by Charlotte Bronte, the film focuses on (duh) Jane Eyre, an orphan living with her cruel aunt and abusive cousins. After being sent away to an all-girl boarding school, Jane develops into a little and learned woman. Eventually, she adopts the career of governess at a place called Thornfield, working for the estate's reclusive master, one Edward Rochester, and his charge, a little French girl called Adele. Jane and Rochester develop a close friendship that soon turns to something more; but Rochester holds a dark secret, one that could prevent them from ever being happy...

The character of Jane is so sympathetic; she is humble and kind and yet very capable of holding her own. Rochester is also very interesting, in that he appears gruff and indifferent but has a strangely charming disposition. Actually, he reminds me a little of Gregory House (House MD).

Overall, it's a wonderful movie based on a wonderful book; it will appeal to fans of Bronte and fans of Victorian romance alike.

10/10

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!

Although it was beautifully filmed, this is one of the worst adaptations of Jane Eyre. It is untrue to the book and the character of Jane. Where is Jane in all this genteel loveliness? She is portrayed as a lifeless mouse who has barely anything to say other than "Yes, sir" or "No, sir." Where is the headstrong Jane who speaks her mind? Jane was not a sappy little girl pining for romance. In fact, she openly rebuffed most of Rochester's kindnesses toward her with her brusque common sense. It was only when alone with her own thoughts that she dared allow herself the sweet dreams of budding love - but not in this adaptation. Here we see Jane openly longing for love and practically throwing herself at Rochester. Charlotte would not have dreamed of behaving in such a fashion and never would have written her heroine that way! From this adaptation one would surmise that Rochester loved Jane solely because she was "soft and yielding" and lacking a personality, not because they were fiery kindred spirits, which is what the book declares them to be. In the book, Rochester recognizes Jane for who she is. He knows her to be his equal, his match, and that is the one thing they both long for so desperately. It was worth more to him than beauty or fortune. You don't get that in this adaptation. You get a rich guy who's sick of phony women chasing him so he goes after the "quiet, plain girl" to ease his pain. The book is much, much sexier.

I had not read over the cast list before watching this adaptation and I confess that I was disappointed when Toby Stephens showed up as Rochester. I like him as an actor, but he generally plays weak men and I guess I had stereotyped him as such. Thankfully, he quickly disabused me of such feelings. He is a magnificent Rochester. His astounding performance was the only thing that kept me watching, and I dare say it is the thing that has tricked most reviewers into claiming this adaptation is a good one. If you love the book, you will not love this adaptation but you will love Toby's performance. He is the Rochester to end all Rochesters and I highly recommend watching this solely for him.

ADDITIONAL WHINES (not necessary to read, really) Ruined scenes: (1) The scene with the gypsy. Why on earth did they not perform this as it was written? It is one of the most brilliant and enjoyable parts of the book! How difficult would it have been to do it properly?

(2) The rich people hold a séance (not in the book, of course). This is so unbelievably lame, I can't even discuss it.

(3) The scene on the stairs in which Rochester tells Jane she is depressed. He has a beautiful speech in the book - one that is not trite and stupid - and they replaced it with a trite and stupid scene. "You are crying." *tears roll down Jane's face* "No, I'm not crying." That's good writing? Okay then. Compare to chapter 17 of the book. Now imagine Toby Stephens performing it. We have been cheated.

A final whine not solely directed at this adaptation: Why do they always choose attractive people to play Jane and Rochester when Charlotte clearly states that Jane is plain and Rochester is downright ugly? Just curious!

EDIT: I am truly stunned by the number of reviewers who claim that this adaptation is faithful to the book. I assure you, reader, it is not!

I watched this film with my mum, we are both fans of the books and we both love this adaptation. The only problem my mum and some other viewers have with this version of Jane Eyre is that the two main characters are too sensual. Some viewers have gone as far to say that the attraction between Jane and Rochester in the book is a spiritual one and arises from affinity of character.

This is all true but if you think that that is all, you have not read the book properly. The book is so charged with sexual tension that it was deemed inappropriate by many people at the time it was first published. Personally I found the complete lack of sexual attraction in other films such as Zeffirelli's version very disappointing. The scene in Jane's bedroom after the almost wedding doesn't happen in the book but it was edited beautifully and really brings out the longing and loneliness in Jane it is completely in tone with the book.

Other than that what can I say? The acting was brilliant, the locations beautiful, lighting, music, editing; all were top class in my opinion. The pacing is comfortable with all the major scenes included - a great adaptation, if you liked other classical adaptations you will probably enjoy this one!

I think I must have seen all the screen incarnations of my favorite book now - and this one is as good as it gets. I never believed the 1983 version with Timothy Dalton and Zelah Clarke could be beaten, but it will now have to share the spotlight with the BBC's latest gem.

Toby Stephens, one of the most gifted actors of his generation, turns in another flawless performance here - he makes you love him, pity him and then he breaks your heart with the vulnerability he endows his character with. The book tells the reader that Rochester 'became dangerous when he lost her (Jane) and that the servants of Thornfield Hall had 'never seen a man so much in love as he'...and in this version you believe that utterly.

Ruth Wilson is an enchanting Jane. Seeming at once very young and innocent and yet also wise beyond her years. Her on-screen chemistry with Toby Stephens is electric, making her departure from Rochester all the more heartbreaking. Although the screenplay definitely modernizes the language of the book, and takes some small liberties with minor characters and plot, the true nature of the main characters and the story of their love, has a never been brought more vividly to life.

I was elated that there was another adaptation of Bronte's Jane Eyre. I've seen most of the versions and and this one is the best, by far! Most of the versions do not follow the book exactly. In the 1944 adaptation with Orson Welles, see how many parts of the book were combined, made up, unexplained and forgotten. Check out the 1997 version with Samantha Morton and judge whether Rochester was really that rough with Jane and generally gruff. If you want a thoroughly precise version, watch the 1983 11-episode mini-series with Timothy Dalton, oh right, Rochester is supposed to be ugly! Oops! Re-read the novel: Rochester was "not handsome," but he was no Quasimodo either. As for the age difference, in the book Jane thinks that Rochester "had not yet reached middle age, perhaps he was thirty-five." To an almost nineteen year old, that's twice her age, but hardly an old man (as most of the readers have defined him to be). Jane Eyre is a passionate and beautiful story that commands the performance of truly talented actors: I thoroughly enjoyed the current version with Ruth Wilson and Toby Stephens. They both showed depth to their respective characters and their likenesses and portrayals were very close to the book. One must forgive artistic license, but I was particularly struck by Rochester's confession scene: Mr. Stephens was mesmerizing showing a man who is passionately in love and doing everything in his power to keep Jane from leaving him. Miss Wilson was equally wonderful in that scene showing Jane Eyre's strength despite her passion for Rochester. An unforgettable scene which summed up the characters' emotions even if the scene was not "played out" the way it is written in the book! Also, the editing of this scene, shown in two flashbacks following Jane's departure from Thornfield, was a refreshing departure from previous "traditional" versions. There were other scenes that were not in the book but, I think, were in the same vein as in the original. You don't want to miss this!

Having recently re-read the Charlotte Brontë's novel for the 30th time I noticed with pleasure how many film adaptations of that timeless novel are now available on DVD and I undertook the enterprise of watching them all. The Masterpiece version of 2006 was the last one I had to watch and the numerous positive reviews of it had led to me to expect an extraordinarily good version of the novel. I was utterly disappointed!

Nothing of what has fascinated generations of readers since the novel was published in 1847 appears in this particular version. It is more a perversion of the novel than an adaptation of it, and to call that film "Jane Eyre" is close to impudence. Firstly, the filmmakers cut out many crucial scenes of the novel, but invented others which have no relation to the novel whatsoever. Secondly, and for admirers of the novel this in nearly unbearable, next to none of the novel's fantastic dialogues between Rochester and Jane have been retained in their original form - thereby cutting out the essence of the novel's timeless charm. These dialogues (or rather Rochester's monologues) are beautifully written, fresh, unusual, striking and highly fascinating, and to change them in a stupid attempt to modernize them is to undermine the novel's most beautiful element. But even if one put up with all this and sided with those who say that a film adaptation of novel does not necessarily have to follow the novel's plot and retain its lines, this film would still be a failure because the script writers or director displayed a complete and sad disregard for the etiquette and conventions of the time in which the novel is set. The mid 19th century's established code of behaviour, its sense of propriety, decorum, decency and modesty are completely violated. Toby Stephens' Rochester and Ruth Wilson's Jane are both young, sensual and sex-conscious people and behave as a modern couple would. As a consequence they have no resemblance whatever to the characters of the book. The film's constant emphasis on the sexual attraction between Rochester and Jane is a gross deviation from the novel, which depicts a love between soul-mates, a love that arises from affinity of character and spirit. Apparently the filmmakers considered the emphasis on the sexual element as an appropriate means of modernizing the novel and securing the interest of a younger and supposedly shallow audience in the story. The most striking example of that is the parting scene between Jane and Rochester after the aborted wedding. They both lie on the bed, kiss repeatedly and seem near to taking off their clothes. This is an even worse distortion of the novel's pivotal parting scene than in the Hinds/Morton version, in which he tells her to go if she does not love him enough to stay. In the heartbreaking scene in the novel Jane rejects all Rochester's caresses and steels herself against his attempts to convince her to stay. The question must be allowed why filmmakers still continue to shoot films called "Jane Eyre", when all they retain from the novel are some parts of the plot. Why do they on the one hand obstinately set their films in the same period as the novel, with great attention to costume and setting, when they are on the other hand unable to display not only the true spirit of the novel but also that of the period?

All these points of criticism make it hard to decide whether the actors do a good job or not. If they wanted to portray the Rochester and Jane of the novel it is an utter failure on their part or on the part of the director. Toby Stephens' Rochester in particular has no resemblance at all to the novel's main character. He does not possess Rochester's charisma and overpowering presence and also fails to portray Rochester's torture of soul, his struggle with his conscience, his moodiness and abruptness. His Rochester is simply a weak, sensual young man, nothing more. Ruth Wilson is a good actress, but the woman she plays is a bold, self-confident, modern female, but not Jane Eyre.

As a conclusion it must be said that when one takes liberties in adapting a famous novel for the screen, as one is perfectly free to do, one should at least have a feeling for the spirit of the period one portrays. There have been many beautiful adaptations of famous novels in the last years, which were true both to the literary models as well as to the period in which the novels play (e.g. Sense and Sensibility, Pride and Prejudice, Emma) and which have charmed the audiences without their having to be sexed up. The makers of the latest version of Jane Eyre unfortunately failed to recognize what is timeless in the novel and what is unchangeably bound to its time. The film is therefore an example of a senseless and insensitive attempt to modernize a classic novel.

The question then which of the other versions one prefers is of course largely a matter of taste. If, however, one is looking for truthfulness to the novel, you should turn to the BBC productions of 1973 and 1983. The 1973 is a nearly word-for word adaptation of the novel, but digresses from the novel in that Sorcha Cusack's Jane is a self-confident, robust and sophisticated young woman and does therefore not resemble the small, shy and elf-like Jane of the novel. And also Michael Jayston, although a good actor and a good Rochester, pales in comparison with Timothy Dalton, who portrays Rochester in the 1983 production, which is for me without question the ultimate version of Jane Eyre. This version follows the novel's plot scene for scene, retains the novel's wonderful lines and boasts of two leading actors who capture the essence of the character they played.