The Worst Film Ever

just watch it!

The joyful confection is coated in a sparkly gloss, bright enough to gleam from the darkest, most cynical corners.

The storyline feels a little thin and moth-eaten in parts but this sequel is plenty of fun.

There's no denying that this miniseries is beautifully filmed, with exquisite production values. It's too traditionally filmed to beat the cinematography of the 2011 movie, but it comes pretty close.I also agree with most reviewers that the two leads had great chemistry. The Gothic horror parts were well done, the music was great (especially at the moor sequences), and the ending/reunion scenes were probably the best I've seen in any Jane Eyre version. That's the good.Ultimately, this version was still a disappointment to me, because of the script and the interpretation of the characters. I actually don't mind shortening or modernizing of the dialogue to a degree. I get it: it makes it easier for us to relate to the characters. As brilliant as Timothy Dalton (1983) was, for example, his lengthy monologues at times threatened to take me out of the story, because it is simply hard to imagine real people talking like that. And I suppose screenwriter Sandy Welch avoided blatant anachronisms (except for "Young-ish". Really??) but it still wasn't worth it in this case. Not only were the new lines of much less originality and beauty, but the script was annoyingly dumbed down. Everything seemed to get spoon fed to us, then repeated to make sure we got the point. For example, Eshton's theory about twins, an obvious foreshadowing for Jane and Rochester's later telepathic connection. I think it was repeated three times! Also, the beyond stupid Ouija board scene, clearly meant to cement the fact that Blanche was bad. You know, in case we'd missed it. Actually, this was a general tendency when it came to Blanche and her mother. It was like there was a man standing with a megaphone, yelling THESE ARE THE VILLAINS OF THE STORY. SEE HOW THEY HAVE ALL KINDS OF BAD ATTITUDES, ESPECIALLY FROM A MODERN POINT OF VIEW? IT'S TO SPARE YOU ANY DOUBT AS TO WHOM TO ROOT FOR. NO THINKING REQUIRED!In the same vein, they removed much of the complexity of Jane and Rochester's characters, and that is my single biggest issue with this adaptation. Jane and Rochester seemed reduced to a conventional Hero and Heroine: Likable, with correct attitudes, having mostly to overcome external obstacles, not internal. Of course, Jane always was strong and deeply moral, but she was also emotionally closed off. Ruth Wilson is an excellent actress, but she (or her director/screenwriter) didn't seem to get this important aspect of the character, unlike Mia Wasikowska (2011), who portrayed it beautifully. Jane isn't reserved just because Rochester is her employer! If you haven't been loved, you protect yourself by not showing feelings. This is why Rochester dangles Blanche in Jane's face, and even goes to the length of impersonating (hiring) a fortune teller: He's trying to provoke a response from her, because it's so hard to get any clue as to how she really feels. In this version, all he would have had to to was stay home after the night of the fire, and she might have thrown herself in his arms. Removing this part of Jane may have made her more relatable to the audience and easier to understand, but it's not true to the book, nor does it make sense psychologically for someone with her upbringing to be so open, calm and carefree. It also as good as removes the impact of her famous line: "Do you think that because I am poor, obscure, plain, and little, that I am soulless and heartless?" Nobody would ever think Wilson's Jane was either of these things, except poor. These are the words of someone who has been on her guard, but finally cracks. Wilson's Jane had at this point been chummy and flirty with Rochester for quite a while already, when really she should have shown her feelings (to the viewers) only when she was alone. Then there's Rochester, who seems very hard to get right, as you have to portray a Byronic, melodramatic (anti-)hero and at the same time make him feel real. Rochester is also full of contradictions. Toby Stephens had no easy task, and could have been worse, but again, he was mostly the conventional hero. Too nice and good-humoured, sometimes depressed and "changeable" (talked of, but rarely seen), but not nearly intense, ill-tempered, selfish or tormented enough. The post-wedding departure scene between him and Jane.. There is no excuse for that, and I don't mean the fact that they make out, though it's weird that Jane would allow it (not because she's Victorian, but because of what she just found out), I mean the lack of urgency. This is the story's most important turning point, yet it's clumsily told in split-up flashback, and it lacks temperature and urgency. Rochester is meant to be desperate, attempting every trick in the book to get Jane to stay. (I guess that's why he first thoroughly smooches her, then promises he won't touch her if they live together? What?!) Jane is meant to steel herself, making him even more desperate. The only reason I can think of for this scene being so unforgivably subdued, is that Rochester manages to make himself believe that she will not really leave. Because she doesn't make a clean break, she tricks him into thinking she might consider the Mediterranean villa. (Now, is that something Jane Eyre would do??) They almost made up for this with the moving reunion scenes - almost - and I loved that Jane finally got her family portrait. I just wish she and the other characters had been less black-and-white.

I first discovered this mini-series late one night, back in 2007, when I was still very young. I rapidly feel in love with this enchanting dark tale, which broadened my horizons to classical literature.With that in mind, this 2006 BBC adaptation is one of my favorite mini-series, based in one that has also became one of my favorite books. The acting is superb, with the actors delivering very likable performances, which allows the viewer to feel the love, between the main characters, grow (which I didn't feel at all in the 2011 Jane Eyre movie). The soundtrack, scenery, attention to detail and overall feeling of the show is spot on, which creates a beautiful atmosphere that suits the story very well. I've re-watched it several times over the years and I still cherish it just the same, thus recommending it vividly! It is, in my opinion, a very underrated mini-series that deserves more willingness to be seen and appreciation!

I have watched this over and over and over and I am delighted every time. Yes, it makes some changes from the book, but in a way I find acceptable. Maybe toning down St John wasn't such a good idea, because he is not enough of a contrast to Rochester. Otherwise, I'm okay with the changes.I loved the delicate beauty of this production, the sense of mystery, the electric interactions between the characters. Both lead actors convey a wonderful range of emotions. Other Jane Eyre adaptions seem clumsy, even ham-fisted in comparison. One of my favourite scenes is when Jane explores Mr Rochester's study in his absence and sees all his maps and books and collections. It is such a great way to introduce his character and to show why Jane would be fascinated by him before she even knows him.This adaption also went down well with my high school students, for whom is was a useful example to study something that is Gothic-but-not-quite-Gothic.

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.