csisman-595-441500 This four-part mini series is an exciting and interesting adaptation from the book. Jane's childhood is squashed into the first episode, and fans of the book will find that a lot is missed, especially the Lowood years. Having said that, they had only four hours and otherwise stuck to the plot very well.Ruth Wilson is a believable and compelling Jane - she reduced me to tears twice - though perhaps a little gutsier and less self-deprecating than Bronte's Jane, for me that was an improvement. She is the highlight for me - a very straight, honest performance with good understanding of her character and brave delivery. Toby Stephens is also wonderful as always, he plays a rather ironic, mischievous Rochester.Other notable performances: Lorraine Ashbourne is an excellent Mrs Fairfax, bringing some life and personality to a rather dull role. Pam Ferris is a frankly terrifying Grace Poole - I jumped in episode four when I saw her carrying the baby and rather wanted to snatch it out of her hands - so great work there, and Cosima Littlewood was born to play Adele. You grow to love her as Jane does, and she is extremely funny, though she always retains an infuriating materialistic and coquettish nature.My only downvote would be for Andrew Buchan as Mr Rivers. He rises to the challenge of cold and aloof so well that he in fact ends up with no presence at all, sucking warmth and interest from the screen. I would have liked to see a more Ralph Fiennesey Mr Rivers, but there we are, it doesn't spoil the series at all.If you like good drama, watch this series, it's wonderful.

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.

ghofer This BBC series is excellent, close to the book, but yet timeless. The cast is superb; Rita Wilson is a perfect Jane and Toby Stephens IS Rochester. Probably not that easy to find an actor who can deliver all aspects of Rochester's complex character. But Toby Stephens does a wonderful job here, he has the looks, the voice, a beautiful smile and he makes the tortured soul visible. When he bursts into tears in the final scene, I think, not only Jane wants to kiss him all over… Many actors in this role (including the most famous and capable ones) have failed to make me laugh and cry, but Mr. Stephens touches my heart by capturing the real essence of Rochester. Ruth Wilson is superb, too. A very, very talented young woman, who makes believe that real beauty comes from inside and she makes Rochester see this beauty, too. Of course, the remaining cast is fine as well, but it needs the perfect performances of Jane and Rochester to make the story come across. From their first encounter you understand why they fall for each other. Although he is rude and sometimes really mean, his sensitivity and capability of giving love shines through. Her innocence and firm believes help her to understand him and to eventually get through to him. And once he – literally - leaves the door open, his softness and gentleness are overwhelming. There are excellent dialogs in this movie driven by his dark humor and her fresh and intelligent responses. And both actors are capable of showing the entire human range of expressions on their faces. The final scene is the best of all Jane Eyre movies. When she realizes his blindness, she is only shocked for a moment. Her love is bigger than any obstacle and his handicap makes her even love him more. She is so convincing, she glooms and Ruth plays it really well. And he responds to her love in the most passionate and touching way a woman can only dream of. What can you ask more of a love story?

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