What makes it different from others?

Not even bad in a good way

A different way of telling a story

A terrific literary drama and character piece that shows how the process of creating art can be seen differently by those doing it and those looking at it from the outside.

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 adaptation of Jane Eyre is undeniably a controversial one. Many reviewers have pointed out the many shortcomings which I will not got into in much detail here since other reviewers have already done so. They are (in a nutshell):Ruth Wilson looks wrong for the part: She does - They changed vital parts of the story and included crappy modern scenes like the Ouija Board and the bedroom scene: They did - They modernised some of the language and therefore ruined parts of the dialog: TrueHowever (and it's a big however) they got one part of the script right, and luckily for them, it's the most important part: The very careful fleshing out of the relationship between Jane and Rochester. Another thing they got perfectly right: The lead actors. Yes, Ruth Wilson is too tall and too fleshy to play Jane (by no means fat but Jane is supposed to be tiny and thin as a rake and Ruth is just a normal girl). But she has enormous acting skills and gets Janes character to a tee. And I cannot tell you how brilliant Toby Stephens is. He looks right for Rochester I think, he even has the oft-mentioned "shaggy black mane". Others have claimed he's too attractive but I think he's just right. He isn't ugly for sure but he has the sort of face which seems unattractive at first sight and then starts to grow on you until you find it looks attractive after all. Which is EXACTLY what Rochesters visage is supposed to do. I also agree that his Rochester is a bit too nice. But on the other hand, I much prefer this to getting a too rude Rochester that leaves you at a loss to understand why Jane would like him. And Wilson and Stephens are one of the few pairs (together with Zelah Clarke and Timothy Dalton) who get the very very subtle humour that the two characters share right. And many of the other adaptations shorten the end to an unpardonable degree (the worst being the latest adaptation which allows 1 minute for the last meeting of Jane and Rochester). Not so this one, the ending is intensely romantic and touching. As it should. Many people have a favourite line from the book and I'm afraid to say mine is: "Am I hideous, Jane?" – "Very, sir. You always were you know." I don't like to do without that and they kept it in… So basically this is a flawed adaptation that is salvaged by two fantastic leads and the large amount of screen time that they are allowed together. Given that I don't mind (well I do mind but not too much) that Rochester didn't play the Gypsy woman himself (a thing I've always found to be a credibility stretch even in the book) or the unnecessary amount of sexing up which culminates in the intensely sexy but completely wrong bedroom scene… I'm willing to forgive all these faults because they got the most important thing right. They could have kept closer to the book and it would have all amounted to nothing if the romance leaves you feeling flat and cold. But luckily, that was the one mistake they avoided making.

I normally don't take the trouble to write reviews for films but I make an exception for this since Jane Eyre is, after all, my favourite book.There is a lot to say about this particular adaptation with Ruth Wilson and Toby Stephens - I'll start by listing the strengths.Firstly, I believe that this version is the most enjoyable for those who have never read Jane Eyre or do not possess too much attention to detail (in this case a plus). It also contains the strongest bond/spark between the two main characters portrayed, which in my opinion other versions have not done too well with. It is truly a romance and probably one of the best ever made.In terms of weaknesses, the biggest weakness for me is the script. Having read the book at least 10 times, I felt that the language was often butchered. Sentences were semi-modernised or summarised to be more easily understood by a less intelligent audience, as were the costumes. More importantly, the adapted script fails to portray Jane's strength of character and her integrity. You see her passion but you don't see her internal struggle or her success at avoiding temptation and remaining true to her beliefs.The actors were quite good and I think they did a great job, but due to limitations in the script, they did not portray the true characters of the book. Mr Rochester is less intimidating and less bitter while Jane is more expressive and less conservative. As a whole, I found this a little hard to watch, despite enjoying the exaggerated romance at times. If you're an avid fan of the book and care about accuracy, I would recommend the 1983 BBC adaptation with Timothy Dalton and Zelah Clarke. If you have already seen another adaptation then I haven't much to say because I strongly believe that the first one you see will always be your favourite. For all others, I would recommend this version, which appears to be the most popular and would be extremely enjoyable for those less obsessed or less pedantic than myself.

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