Jane Eyre (2006)

Sorry, this movie sucks

There is, somehow, an interesting story here, as well as some good acting. There are also some good scenes

The acting is good, and the firecracker script has some excellent ideas.

It's the kind of movie you'll want to see a second time with someone who hasn't seen it yet, to remember what it was like to watch it for the first time.

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.

This is by far the best version of all, but that comes as no surprise since it is Masterpiece Theatre.I have seen all the other versions, and the plot layout and the actors chosen for the roles are great. The actors have passion and chemistry with each other, which is lacking in most of the other versions. Too bad you can only get this on Ebay and for over $50 - though I gave into that!

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.

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!