Home
| Search
| Now Playing
| News
| My Movies
| Games
| Boards
| Help
| US Movie Showtimes
| Top 250
| Register
| Recommendations
| Widgets
Box Office
| Index
| Trailers
| Jobs
|
IMDbPro.com - Free Trial
| IMDb Resume
Copyright © 1990-2008
IMDb.com, Inc.
Terms and Privacy Policy under which this service is provided to you.
An 
company.
Advertise on IMDb.
License our content.
Own the rights?
Buy it at AmazonMore at IMDb Pro Discuss in Boards Add to My Movies Update Data
Quicklinks
Top Links
trailers and videosfull cast and crewtriviaofficial sitesmemorable quotesOverview
main detailscombined detailsfull cast and crewcompany creditsepisode listepisodes castepisode ratings... by rating... by votestv scheduleAwards & Reviews
user commentsexternal reviewsnewsgroup reviewsawardsuser ratingsrecommendationsmessage boardPlot & Quotes
plot summaryplot keywordsAmazon.com summarymemorable quotesFun Stuff
triviagoofssoundtrack listingcrazy creditsalternate versionsmovie connectionsFAQOther Info
merchandising linksbox office/businessrelease datesfilming locationstechnical specslaserdisc detailsDVD detailsliterature listingsNewsDeskPromotional
taglines trailers and videos posters photo galleryExternal Links
showtimesofficial sitesmiscellaneousphotographssound clipsvideo clipsIMDb user comments for
"Jane Eyre" (2006) More at IMDb Pro »
119 out of 143 people found the following comment useful :-
Jane Eyre, finally on screen, 30 September 2006
Author: alfa-16 from Rural Kent, UK
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.
80 out of 108 people found the following comment useful :-
Outstanding drama - the best of the BBC, 26 September 2006
Author: (cm-9) from United Kingdom
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.
63 out of 85 people found the following comment useful :-
The BBC have done it again, 4 October 2006
Author: buxombexter from United Kingdom
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.
60 out of 81 people found the following comment useful :-
Toby Stephens - One of the best performances EVER, 16 October 2006
Author: talbotgirl
I was looking forward to this series and wasn't disappointed. In my humble opinion its one of the best series the BBC have ever produced and in Toby Stephens Rochester we saw one of the greatest performances seen on British television. His scenes with Jane (Ruth Wilson) towards the end of episode 4 were extremely emotional. In fact I can't watch Toby's scenes back without crying my eyes out. I've grown to care about Rochester and thats undoubtedly due to the depth of feeling Toby gave to the role. I look forward to seeing this amazing actor in future roles.
I do hope the music from the series will be issued on CD.
51 out of 71 people found the following comment useful :-
A wonderful adaptation!, 10 October 2006
Author: krazykatie from United Kingdom
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.
39 out of 53 people found the following comment useful :-
I was hesitant at first..., 6 November 2006
Author: Heather from Toronto, Canada
...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.
43 out of 62 people found the following comment useful :-
What a True Masterpiece, 3 October 2006
Author: titiefalaarious from United Kingdom
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.
44 out of 64 people found the following comment useful :-
Jane Eyre, 5 October 2006
Author: donnapandabear from United Kingdom
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.
47 out of 72 people found the following comment useful :-
Where is Jane? Adaptation saved only by Toby Stephens, 1 December 2006
Author: hkmp from United States
*** This comment may contain spoilers ***
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!
29 out of 41 people found the following comment useful :-
I Never Wanted It To End!, 3 February 2007
Author: Holly Day from Chicago, Illinois
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.
Add another comment
Related Links