User reviews

Surely this is the version against which all others must be judged? Outstanding performances by the two leads. Like all good dramas, it wasn't afraid to take its time , and yet there wasn't a wasted minute from start to finish.

Jane Eyre is my favourite novel of all-time. I do not say this lightly.

I have seen exquisite stage and screen adaptations. I have seen brutally laughable attempts. We won't go there...

The likes of Timothy Dalton and Michael Fassbender were incredible in their own right and their performances are cherished and highly regarded.

But Stephens was made for the part and captures the dramatic depth, the complexity of Rochester and gifts him with a spell-bindingly cheeky humour that is captivating and lovable.

Ruth Wilson is sublime as always. As a young girl reading and learning from Jane's struggles and loneliness, watching Wilson in 2006 amazed me as, for me, she embodies the values, the heart and willpower of Jane at an exceptional level. Her silence is loaded with depth and psychology. Her delivery hasn't been matched.

Wilson and Stephens are a joy to behold - heartfelt and credible as loving, humorous and silently powerful soulmates.

The ensemble supporting them are on par with the leads, complementing their chemistry and helping to bring this Bronte universe to life.

From the direction, production design, soundtrack and locations, this is a wonderful adaptation that must be seen and valued by as many people as possible.

Other adaptations have a rightful place in our understanding of various aspects and interpretations of the dynamics between the characters. The novel is so multi-faceted it is only to be expected that certain details captured in contrasting ways across all adaptations will resonate differently with people.

But to me, this adaptation epitomizes the psychology, the emotional depth, the connection and the humour of this literary couple. It asserts Jane's independent singular mind and heart. I return constantly to it.

It is definitely worth your consideration. And I say this 14 years after its initial release!

Jane Eyre is a tough adaptation. You need a host of competent actors for the minor roles, good child actors and a brooding, fiery Bronte hero for Rochester, capable of attaching a variety of women and inspiring devotion in one of literature's great heroines.

There have been plenty of great Rochesters, George C Scott and Ciaran Hinds to name but two, and Toby Stephens may be another. The ladies certainly seem to think so.

But in Ruth Wilson we may finally have a memorable Jane Eyre. An actress who is strikingly beautiful but not superficially pretty. Who can look dour and empty, who is believably dull and innocent and yet simultaneously contains the fire for a great love story. She has fabulous poise and control. Only the smallest alterations of expression are required to communicate changing emotions bubbling below the surface. One of the reasons it fits so well into four hours is that Ruth can do 10 pages of prose with one change of expression. Adorable.

It goes along at a fair old pace. Jane is into and out of Lowood in the first 10 minutes. But the texture is right. The two central characters have sparked on and off each other very convincingly.

Will it be the one?

(After the Final Episode) There's no doubt. It is THE one. Started extremely well and got better and better. There are so many outstanding moments between the two leads and not just in the big scenes. Watch Ruth Wilson's incredible acting in the stairwell as she summons up the courage to enter the tower room to nurse Mason, balanced by Toby's concern followed by his wordless decision to trust her. Or his petulance as he welcomes her return from Gateshead, turning to delight in Jane's pleasure in coming home. The last episode is unforgettable. As good as television gets.

Magnificent.

...but now I am truly hooked. As I waited patiently for each hour of more Jane, I grew to admire the way the book was handled. Yes, much of Jane's past is missing, but what is there is captivating. Georgie Henley is scarily mature - more than she has a right to be - and her understanding of young Jane's gravity and passion was wonderfully portrayed.

When Ruth Wilson took the scene, I didn't see at first how she was the unearthly Jane I had read. But it became clearer and clearer, and by far she is the most human and understandable Jane yet. Her face speaks volumes as she says nothing. "That face," comments Toby Stephens' Rochester. It is true. Though we see her silent face many times, we have no problem guessing exactly what she is feeling.

At first, I thought Toby was disappointing. I quite liked the sarcasm of William Hurt in the 1996 version, and Mr. Stephens seemed more brash than sarcastic, more flirting than teasing. But it was the chemistry that quite obviously grew between these two characters that has solidified Toby Stephens as Edward Fairfax Rochester for me. For the first time in a movie version, I realized how much the two had become friends first, and then soul mates.

Two other things were handled extraordinarily. The sex and the scary. From dark corridors and floating candles, burning beds, portraits of mad people and blood dripping, Susanna White got her Gothic right. It is almost a ghost story. This suspense keeps the story from being overly lovey-dovey, and shows a real contrast between the white taffeta-covered aristocracy, and the darkly-clad Jane in Rochester's dim study.

As for the X factor, this is not Jane Austen. Women can have conversations with men alone in rooms. Dark-haired, exotic beauties can seduce with a look, cheat with a smile and sin the world round. All of it is not afraid to show up in this version. Rochester and Jane's connection, displayed quite innocently and platonic in some versions, blazes with passion in this. The flashbacks in the final hour of series are some of the steamiest and most emotionally charged parts of this production.

It's heart-warming, passionate, suspenseful, full of beautiful scenery and costuming; all in all, a whole 4 hours of excellent entertainment. Don't miss out.

A lavish production in all the right ways (script, cast, direction, location, details), this is a perfect literary adaptation - very much in the heritage of the BBC's 1996 Pride and Prejudice, but perhaps even better. Toby Stephens (the son of Dame Maggie Smith) plays the brusque, flawed Mr Rochester with exactly the right admixture of arrogance and warmth, while newcomer Ruth Wilson is luminous as English rose Jane Eyre - like a swan swimming, her impassive face nevertheless conveys a wealth of feeling churning beneath. The location filming is handled deftly, with careful camera angles leaving us with the sense that we haven't seen everything yet - and oh, what locations: this is how it was always supposed to look.

Highly recommended.

A wonderful adaptation of this classic. The casting is excellent, Ruth makes a delightful and intriguing Jane and Toby Stephens is an utterly fantastic Rochester. This is a compelling series, each episode leaves you anxious to see the next. The set designers, costume designers have excelled themselves and the lighting in particular is superb.

The acting is generally of an extremely high standard and has been very well cast. I would not be surprised to see this adaptation doing for Bronte what Pride and Prejudice did for Austen. Toby Stephens' Rochester is even more ruggedly handsome and desirable than Darcy (if that is at all possible). This should be on everyone's list of things to watch.

Well what can one say about this adaptation

It is superb, anyone who does not like this version is mad, it has all the right qualities for a classic, Ruth Wilson is superb and i cannot believe that she is only fresh out of drama school what a brilliant actress she is amazing and has at last created the perfect Jane, fiery yet innocent, sad yet elated, she has brought the character off the paper and to life, and Toby Stephens OH MY GOD what a Rochester, hes is so gorgeous, we can now see what Jane is so attracted to, he has created a Rochester that is a certain rival for Mr Darcy sex god status. But he has also showed us the tortured soul that Rochester really was, shutting himself away while all the while just wanting someone to really love and love him in return.

I have seen nearly all the adaptations of Jane Eyre and this is the best in my opinion, not since P AND P have i had this much anticipation for a Sunday nights television

Well done BBC you have done it once again.

This is the first adaptation of Jane Eyre that I have seen and I am thoroughly enjoying it. Ruth Wilson, a relative newcomer to TV, is fantastic in the role of Jane. She captivates the role brilliantly and her facial expressions say it all, she need not ever speak. She is an amazing actress and I hope to see her more in the future.

What can I say about Toby Stephens in the role of Mr Rochester? He was born to play the this part as he captures the brooding, mysteriousness of Mr Rochester perfectly. He is an amazing actor and extremely handsome, he has now replaced Mr Darcy as the love of my life, I didn't think it was possible girls but watch this and you will feel the same.

The chemistry between the two actors is amazing, I don't know what I am going to do with my Sunday nights when it finishes.

I did watch this one based on Masterpiece Theatre's reputation and the fawning reviews written here. But "the best adaptation" and "history in the making" etc. etc.?? I'm sorry but this is not a true adaptation and plays a bit too fast and loose for me. If one seeks to adapt a classic and changes the details that made it a classic, one is doomed to mediocrity at best and failure at worse. This falls into the former category. This simply will be seen as an also ran, especially when compared to the Zeffirelli version of 1996. Performances were fine but screenplay is off. Read the book and compare and contrast-- I'll bet this miniseries won't be the victor. P.S. favorably comparing this version of Jane Eyre to the 1996 BBC version of Pride and Prejudice is BLASPHEMY! That was and is one the single Best versions of classic literature transcribed to screen.

I have never read the book, but I did see the 1996 version of the story. That was my favorite until I saw this one. I can't truly express with words how much I loved this particular version. I must say that I don't understand how Toby Stephens could ever play someone who's supposed to be ugly, maybe I don't see so well, but that guy is hunky. That being said, I can't really imagine anyone else playing Edward Rochester in such a way. He was everything. Funny, witty, moody, and romantic. In the 1996 version Edward Rochester scarcely had any personality at all. Toby made me fall with the character. Nobody else can ever do what he did. I loved Ruth as Jane, too. Both Ruth and Toby seem to be able to play Edward and Jane without even speaking. I mean, this could have been a silent film and still worked. I thought that Cosima made a perfect Adele, she was so cute. This has to be the most complete and romantic version ever. Ruth and Toby steamed up my television set.

5 years have passed since I wrote my review, and I can hardly believe it. I have read the book many times now in the past 5 years, and I still believe that my original review holds true. It may not be an exact replica of the book, but both are quite pleasing.

I settled down to watch Jane Eyre with trepidation as all the other adaptations I have watched disappointed me in some way. By the end of the first episode I was thrilled with this remarkable new version of one of my favourite books. Ruth Wilson is a charming Jane - very believable and totally in character and Toby Stephen's Rochester is marvellous. All the supporting cast are just right for their roles and the photography is superb and the soundtrack very haunting. I think the setting of Thornfield Hall is brought to life magnificently. I was particularly pleased with the way the major events from the book are shown to us with only little variations from the chapters. That is always a major problem for me with any drama taken from a novel that the writers edit out too much or put their own things in for no reason but Sandy Welch has the knack of telling the story as it should be told. Looking forward to the next episodes.

I first read Jane Eyre when I was 9 years old - a very tatty edition that belonged to my Grandmother - and from that moment on I was hooked. I've read it several times since then and Rochester was my first literary hero : I fell in love with him then and continue to do so with each reading/viewing.

Like thousands of others, I fell completely under the spell of this version - and was bewitched by the performances from the two leads. In particular the portrayal of Rochester from the gorgeous Toby Stephens. He brought Rochester to life. Only a heart of stone could fail to have been moved by his performance. This was a classic portrayal and one which will not be forgotten.

The definitive Rochester? Absolutely The definitive Jane Eyre? For sure Watch it and weep - unless you really do have a heart of stone.

I am a a 15 year old and a huge fan of Victorian literature, including Pride and Prejudice, Wuthering Heights and, of course, Jane Eyre. These books are written so powerfully that your heart is drawn into them and hangs on every written word. When I sit down to watch film adaptations of these classic novels, my expectations are to become as attached to the film as I am to the book. I have been disappointed by film adaptations time and time again, so when I sat down to watch this miniseries, I watched with a mind and voice that was ready to yell at the TV screen.

My voice and mind's eagerness for anger were quickly replaced by awe and overwhelming happiness as time wore on. This adaptation is so powerful in its loyalty to the book and its characters. Jane and Mr. Rochester are portrayed absolutely beautifully. I was drawn into the film by my heartstrings and kept there, emotionally tied to the charactersn until the end. The characters speak and act with such passion, and although I knew what was going to happen in the end, I felt connected to Jane throughout every step of her story.

I must admit that there were a few lines that were awkward, and the beginning was a bit rushed. It bothered me as a Jane Eyre fan for about one minute; my irritation was quickly lost as I was swept back up in the spirit of the film. What I value in film versions of books are their ability to capture the essence of the book. Not the book word for word, but the spirit, chemistry, and the power that makes the book a classic. Movies aren't about literal adaptations, they are artistic adaptations, which means that they should be allowed some freedoms - not complete freedom, but room for the actors to breathe.

It is a gift to make a film that is perfectly adapted from a novel on top of being emotionally innovating, and this adaptation is a perfect example of just that. I applaud everyone who worked on this miniseries and I am relieved that I thought to tape it, because I am going to watch this whenever I can.

10/10

This is an adaptation of the Charlotte Bronte book. An adaptation that i think makes this classic story more approachable for young people. Being only 23 i am aware many people of high school age read these types of stories because they have to without a real understanding or interest in them. Dramas like these can make them more interesting and help the reader/watcher get more emotion from the story. While there are parts that weren't emphasised enough this adaptation concentrates on Rochester (toby Stephens) and eyre ( Ruth Wilson) relationship and in my OPINION does this very well with a little spice that maybe didn't come across in the book.

Toby Stephens is a experienced actor with a background in these types of dramas,who does this role justice and who will appeal to many women. cause lets be fair it is always good to watch people who you consider to be good looking and it certainly wont have hurt the ratings.

Ruth Wilson is a new face with a bright future who plays the different emotions excellently.

well done BBC

I was very excited after viewing the first two hour segment of Jane Eyre. Very few liberties were taken with Bronte's wonderful story and compelling dialogue. The actors captured the essence of the characters and one could not help seeing why they would fall in love.

The second two hour segment, however, skipped important parts of the story and changed both dialogue and story. Spoiler alert - If you are not familiar with the story, you may wish to stop here. Two of the most compelling parts of the book are when Rochester and Jane bear their souls to each other after the wedding scene. This is almost nonexistent in the movie and what little there is is not true to the book. Spoiler Alert - In the movie, rather than demanding Jane become his mistress as in the book, Rochester asks her to live with him as brother and sister. The second omission is when Jane returns to Rochester. The dialogue is completely changed and most of the heart breaking discussion is eliminated. The final faults are relatively minor, but nonetheless annoying. All references to religion, redemption and God's vengeance are gone. In addition, Rochester still has his left hand, although it has what appears to be a bandage and no mention is made that he regains sight in one eye in the book.

While the first two hours was thoroughly enjoyable, I was frustrated and disappointed with the thoughtless changes to the story in the second half.

I have only seen 4 adaptations of Jane Eyre: Jane Eyre (1943)Joan Fontaine and Orsen Wells; Jane Eyre (1973) Sorcha Cusack and Michael Jayston; Jane Eyre (1983)Zelah Clarke and Timothy Dalton and Jane Eyre (1996)Charlotte Gainsbourg and William Hurt. So I was looking forward to this miniseries. But I have issues with this version.

(1). Sandy Welch's script: having scripted the beautiful Our Mutual Friend (1998) and the exquisite North & South (2004), tried way too hard in this series. The book does not need to be vandalized and hacked to pieces, just updated to suit today's audiences. Stay within the bounds of the novel. Which begs the question: What was she thinking? What is it with that séance scene and that woman dressed up as a gypsy lady, instead of Rochester? Those crazy twin character, are they really necessary and the ending was rather odd and Disney like.

(2) The series needs to be at least 5-6 episodes. Why? Because they missed out on vital character building of Jane. This need for her to meet Rochester was entirely unnecessary, the pacing of the miniseries was all wrong. Jane was physically and mentally abused living under Mrs Reed's household; where was the Red room scene. All they did was drag her up the stairs and lock her in a room. Jane Eyre's inner strength and character comes from the Lowood Institution, where she learned discipline, self control, the need to become independent and to seek freedom. The short 10-15 minutes, the production spend on it was rushed and it showed.

(3). Jane's liberation to sex: If you want to sexually liberate a character, then do it correctly. This is a love story with Rochester in the heart of it all, set in the Victorian era, passion can be shown on screen in many different ways. It can be subtlety achieved by looks, touching, gestures and a sentence or even by musical score; audiences do not need to be spoon fed.

(4) Suspense and drama: There was not enough suspense in this production. And the build up was to the reveal of secrets, wasn't what I expected. Yes, there was a stabbing of Mason, a torn veil and a candle in Jane's face as she slept, but nothing much. Plus Mrs Rochester did not look mad; her hair looked neatly brushed plus her teeth looked like she went to the dentist.

(5) As outlined in Chp XXVII, after the wedding scene, a desperate Rochester asks for forgiveness; he would do anything to hold her, while Jane is heartbroken, resolute but strong. This part was missing, or rather misconstrued into the "bedroom scene". What a pity, a missed opportunity for the 2 lead actors to really "sink their teeth" into the emotionally charged scene.

Ruth Wilson was above average as Jane Eyre; she looked the part, though she is tall while Jane is petite. Although I still believe Gainsbourg appearance is better suited visually, no great beauty, slender and small boned. Toby Stephens may not be my ideal choice of Edward Rochester (odd to cast him as Rochester), yet surprisingly, he has managed to pull it off. This Rochester is playful, not so severe or over brooding.

The supporting cast, are suitably casted for this production: - Pam Ferris (Mrs Poole), Cosima Littlewood (Adele), Lorraine Ashbourne (Mrs Fairfax), Christina Cole (Blanche Ingram, Andrew Buchan (St John Eyre Rivers) and Tara Fitzgerald (Mrs Reed).

Over all the production, the score and the cinematography is brilliant, just don't put too much effort into the pacing. There are many people who read the book and loved the character, like I have, and want simply the story of Jane Eyre told with respect, honesty and truthfully.