Overrated

The thing I enjoyed most about the film is the fact that it doesn't shy away from being a super-sized-cliche;

Each character in this movie — down to the smallest one — is an individual rather than a type, prone to spontaneous changes of mood and sometimes amusing outbursts of pettiness or ill humor.

An old-fashioned movie made with new-fashioned finesse.

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!

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.

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.

I've known Jane Eyre for more than 40 years. I loved the book as a teen and kept on rereading it every now and then, until career and kids overtook the time IRL. Only this year I found it again, as films. Fascinated with the 2006 version, I watched all major adaptations in few months – and read the book again, several times. I have never before liked a film adaptation of a favorite book. This time I loved both. The situation was so exceptional that I started collecting film versions in order to understand, why and how this could be.IMHO, of all the adaptations that I've seen by now (including the 1944, 1973, 1983 and 2011 versions) the 2006 miniseries is by far closest to the Bronte's original Jane Eyre. Like the book, this version does give credible reasons for the folding of the story. Also, it shows how Jane matures from a socially isolated, passionate girl into an independent and self-respecting woman without losing her innate nature. This must have been shockingly modern in 1840's.I love Bronte's text, which it is used directly in some adaptations. However, faithful conversations lose their charm, if screenplay does not confirm it; or, even worse, if the ongoing story makes no sense. So, why would Rochester reluctantly ask help in Hay Lane, if he did not need it? Why would he be interested in a girl that shows no interest (he can't hear her thoughts)? And why would Jane even consider another bullying man in her life? Stuff like this is in many other adaptations.This version does not have the conversations as such. Instead, this adaptation faithfully presents the ideas baked in the original conversations and in Jane's mind. Thus the story presented in the book propagates throughout the film logically and inevitably like stacked dominoes. As Susanna Welsh said in an interview, it is all in the book, even the birds. And the passion. The illusion holds from the beginning to the lovely end.As for the looks, how does the book describe the main characters?Rochester, 37, was a man not tall but broad, past youth but not yet middle aged. He had an athletic body with trim waist and very broad shoulders, and a face of a bandit rather than a Victorian cherub, with intense eyes, "shaggy mane" and thick eyebrows as a bonus. In spite of his Gothic secret and quick moods, he was well liked in society, with an aura of energy that "lit up the room" and made people forget his bandit looks. Victorian Bronte would not call this sexual energy, but what else could it be, really? All this goes well with the Toby Stephens. However of all the actors that I have seen in this role, only he could become the complex Rochester with the awesome spread of feelings from anger, contempt, sarcasm and grief all the way to humor, affection, pity, love and heart-melting utter happiness.Adult Jane Eyre,18, was first described as young, small, plain and socially inexperienced. Then her looks improved hand in hand with her growing self-esteem. Although young, she had earned her living even before Thornfield. And as for the character: while Bronte's describes Rochester energetic, Jane was described as the passionate one. So, Jane had displayed her feelings already as a child, as unwanted as this must have been. She continued showing her feelings also in Thornfield, in spite of the Lowood breeding. She made a public scene only once, in utter stress, but the firebird is hiding inside all the time. Ruth Wilson is just lovely here. She seems to totally lose her own identity. With her fantastic eyes, facial expressions and body language she becomes the deeply feeling Jane with "that look" so well understood by a soul mate.