Plot so thin, it passes unnoticed.

Most undeservingly overhyped movie of all time??

It's fun, it's light, [but] it has a hard time when its tries to get heavy.

After playing with our expectations, this turns out to be a very different sort of film.

This version of Charlotte Brontës beloved "Jane Eyre" is everything it should be! It's got all the important events, yet they keep it to the point to save running time - it's never boring. The acting is wonderful as well! Ruth Wilson is perfect for the role of Jane, she stays true to the book with her low-key witty replies and humor. I could not imagine a better Mr Rochester than the one Toby Stephens delivers, he is likable, despite his grumpiness, and you can really see that he's a troubled man. They have also captured the romantic atmosphere in a beautiful way, or rather, it is very emotional all the way through!If you're looking for a romantic and entertaining yet true to the book version of Jane Eyre, this is it!

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 believe that Jane Eyre (2006) is one of the greatest period dramas of all time, and almost definitely the greatest period romance. There is next to nothing that I would like to criticize about this miniseries. The perfectly written script combines with the marvelous acting to make a brilliant masterpiece that beats every other version of Jane Eyre I've seen (and that is saying something, because I liked the 2011 version very much). Even my brother, one of the harshest movie critics I know and a hater of silly love stories, found himself drawn into the room while my friends and I watched it for our girls night movie, and he proclaimed it an excellent movie. It is perfect – funny, scary, sad, romantic, and (to those who have not read the book) extremely unpredictable.For the purpose of this review, I'll put aside my personal love of Bronte's characters and storyline not only to avoid spoilers, but also so I might analyze aspects of this film itself. It is brilliantly done. To say that Ruth Wilson is impressive in her first real role (right out of acting school) would be an immense understatement. Jane Eyre's reserved nature and intricate mind make her an extremely difficult character to portray on screen, and Wilson accomplishes this task beautifully. She looks the part - somehow she just seems exactly the sort of person the book describes, though I know that's a very opinionated statement. The emotion she is able to deliver to the audience even with her character's reticence is neither too great nor too small. I see almost no flaws in her portrayal of Jane Eyre.I believe I fell in love with Toby Stephens over the course of this series. Readers of the book will attest to the fact that Rochester is "supposed to be ugly." It's one of the biggest problems fans of the book cite when analyzing others who've portrayed this character – Rochester is too handsome or too young, or both. Still, what girl can deny that she secretly hopes he'll be at least a bit attractive? When this Rochester came on the screen, I think many book fans (including myself) were sufficiently pleased with his rough, not-really-that-handsome appearance (forgive me for lack of a better adjective than 'not-really-that-handsome!') But even with this observation comes the worry that he'll not be very likable… after all, we all know that a character's good looks contribute a great deal to his or her likability. By the end of this film however… I didn't remember ever having considered him anything but handsome. The character is charming, interesting, and on several occasions absolutely hysterical. My whole living room was laughing at some of his conversations with Jane. He flat out nailed the role of Edward Rochester. I'm convinced someone charmed the character to rise off the pages of the book, and he happened to take the form of Toby Stephens. It is that good.The side characters are all very good as well, but the real commendation should go to the screen-writers. Film adaptations of books obviously need to have discrepancies, and there is a science to making this work well. Some seem to pull the dialogue right from the pages, word for word, creating a rather restricted atmosphere. Other times you feel in your bones that the dialogue is too modern. Often, as well, plot points are jumbled together within the script in a rabid attempt to get everything said, so that the script sounds like an eleventh grader reading out his plot summary for English class. Obviously the length of this film made it possible to gradually introduce and develop each plot point, but that takes nothing away from the brilliant dialogue with which this was done. I felt like I was looking through a window into 19th century Britain. The makers of this film brought Charlotte Bronte's characters to life in the most brilliant way possible.It's about the time where I generally find something – anything – to criticize, but I can think of nothing. Lovers of the book should have nothing to complain about, since I feel that it contained almost every scene from the book. If I had to name one problem… I suppose it would be young Jane. I love Georgie Henley, but I do admit that her acting seemed a bit forced, and didn't really capture the essence of young Jane. Still, Georgie Henley looks so much like Ruth Wilson (I marveled at that for about twenty minutes) that I feel I probably would have made that casting choice as well.All things considered, this is the closest thing to a perfect period drama I have ever seen. Miniseries such as this one have the unique privilege to be able to contain nearly every plot point, since they are allowed to be long, and are thus generally very good and well-liked by book fans. This one in particular just seems to do everything a half step better than the rest. It is truly excellent. Watch it, see for yourself, and enjoy!

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.