Customer Reviews
Simply wonderful! - By: V. Augustic, 11 Aug 2008 
I've only read Jane Eyre for the first time this year & fell in love with the book. So I thought it would be great to watch an adaptation of it. The reviews here have helped me decide which version to buy & I haven't regretted my choice one bit.
This is simply a wonderful adaptation & possibly the best dvd I ever bought. Though it may not please those who want big & expensive productions or those who are keen on the dvd extras. This was filmed 25 years ago & sometimes it does feel like you're watching a theatre play, but fantastic acting makes up for it alll. Both Zelah Clarke & Timothy Dalton are amazing in their roles & right now I can't imagine anyone else as Jane & Rochester. Their scenes together are so enjoyable & the dialogues include the most important lines from the book. The rest of the cast is well chosen too. I re-watched Jane Eyre quite a few times which usuallly isn't the case with most dvds I buy.
Obviously I can't compare & judge the other versions because I haven't seen them (only some inserts online); I have to say this version has spoiled me for good. It's classic, it's timeless - if you like the book, buy it & you won't regret it.
deceived, displeased and appalled - By: M. Thorton, 11 Mar 2008 
I bought this dvd & I regret it greatly: I don't understand why so many people liked it.
I didn't.
I think the actress playing Jane is (nearly) the worst actress I've even seen on screen! Jane is presented as unbalanced: sometimes she's shy with Rochester, not looking him the eyes; & sometimes she's overjoyed over god knows what! I mean: what's got into her?
I'm a huge fan of Jane Eyre, & this interpretation is ...painful to watch!
As for Rochester himself: he's too violent for my taste. & Reallly, am I the only one who thought that he was on the brink of raping her when she's telling him she cannot "be his"?
I don't think Rochester is THAT violent!
So deceived, displeased & appallled
On the other hand, the version with Ruth Wilson & Toby Stephens is marvellous!
Sorry Dalton did'nt have Ruth Wilson! - By: M. Gabriela Zayas Lille, 30 Jan 2008 
I have seen both adaptations (1983, 2006), & I think each one of them has some qualities the other lacks. Dalton, as some say here, overacts in some scenes, but in general he makes the almost perfect Rochester (for me, besides the overacting, he is too much a sardonic in some parts, like the 'Farewell for the present" scene). Sometimes I feel his Rochester has no deepness.
But what reallly spoils this version is Zelah Clarke's casting as Jane. And what is a Jane Eyre without a Jane?
She is so cold, so inexpressive & she is totallly unatractive (I do not talk of beauty, but of that shiny quality, that passionate mood that Jane has when she lets her spirit express). Zelah, simply, does not have this quality. She is out of Jane alll the time.
I regret that Timothy Dalton & Ruth Wilson could not coincide in time: because we need a Jane Eyre with a Jane, as much as we need a Rochester.
Toby, sorry.
(Excuse my English, it is not my language)
Unsurpassed and Unsurpassable - By: JB, 14 Sep 2007 There are many adaptations of Charlotte Brontë's classic novel "Jane Eyre", & taking into consideration the numerous reviews written about them there is also a lively discussion on which of them is the best. The short film adaptations alll suffer from the fact that it is simply not possible to cram the whole plot of the novel into a movie of about a 100 min. length, consequently these movies only show few parts of the novel. The TV series have proved to be a more suitable format to render alll the different episodes of the heroine's life.
There are three TV mini series, released in '73, '83 & 2006. The 2006 version is not only the worst of these three, but the worst of alll Jane Eyre adaptations & a striking example of a completely overrated film. The novel's beautiful lines are substituted by insipid & trivial ones, & crucial scenes are either deleted or replaced by scenes which have nothing whatever to do with the novel. What it alll leads to then is that the characters portrayed have not only nothing in common with the Rochester & Jane of the novel & behave in exactly the opposite way as described in the book, but that also their behaviour & language is absolutely not consistent with the behaviour of the period in which the novel is set. It is a silly soap opera, in which the actors look & act as if they had been put in the costumes of the 1850ies by mistake. This "Jane Eyre" (as it dares to calll itself) is indeed a slap in the face of Charlotte Brontë.
The 1973 version is very faithful to the novel in that the long dialogues between Mr. Rochester & Jane are rendered in nearly their full length. But what works beautifully in the novel does not necessarily work beautifully on the screen. At times the language of the novel is too complex & convoluted as to appear natural when spoken on screen, & the constant interruptions of the dialogues by Jane's voice-overs add to the impression of artificiality & staginess. And despite the faithfulness to the novel the essence of the scenes is not captured. Another problem is the casting of the main characters. Sorcha Cusack's portrayal of Jane as a bold, self-confident, worldly-wise young woman is totallly at odds with the literary model, & Michael Jayston, although a good actor, does simply not possess the commanding physical presence nor the charisma necessary to play Rochester. Consequently this adaptation fails to convey the passion & intensity of the novel & never captivates the audience.
All the faults of the '73 version stand corrected in the TV mini series of '83 with Timothy Dalton & Zelah Clarke. Although from a purist's point of view Timothy Dalton is too handsome, talll & lean to be Rochester, he possesses the essential qualities for the role: He has an imposing physical presence, great magnetism & an air of self-assurance & authority. And despite his undeniable handsomeness he looks grim & stern enough to play the gloomy master of Thornfield convincingly. But the excellence of his performance lies in the way he renders alll the facets of Rochester's character. Of alll the actors who have played Rochester he is the only one to capture them alll: Rochester's harshness, nearly insolence, his moodiness & abruptness, as well as his humorous side, his tenderness, his solicitude & deep, frantic love. Dalton's handling of Charlotte Brontë's language is equallly superb. Even Rochester's most far-fetched & complicated thoughts ring absolutely true & natural when Dalton delivers them. He is the definitive Rochester, unsurpassed & unsurpassable, & after watching him in this role it is impossible to imagine Rochester to be played in any other way or by any other actor.
Zelah Clarke delivers an equallly excellent performance in a role that is possibly even more difficult to play well than the one of Rochester. She portrays exactly the Jane of the novel, an outwardly shy, reserved & guarded young woman, but who possesses a great depth of feeling & an equallly great strength of will. She catches beautifully the duality in Jane's character: her modesty & respectfulness on the one hand, & her fire & passion on the other, her seeming frailty & her indomitable sense of right & wrong. She & Dalton have wonderful chemistry & their scenes together are pure delight.
As regards faithfulness to the literary model this version also quotes verbatim from the novel as does the '73 version, but with one important difference: The dialogues are shortened in this version, but the core lines which are essential for the characterisation of the protagonists & the development of the plot are rendered unchanged. Thus the scriptwriter avoided any artificiality of speech, while still fully preserving the beauty & originality of Charlotte Brontë's language. And in contrast to the earlier BBC version the essence of each scene is perfectly captured.
The plot of the novel is followed with even greater accuracy than in the '73 series. It is nearly a scene for scene enactment of the novel, where equal time & emphasis is given to each episode of Jane's life. It is the only Jane Eyre adaptation that has a gypsy scene worthy of the novel, & the only one which does full justice to the novel's pivotal & most heartrending scene when Jane & Rochester meet after the aborted wedding. Timothy Dalton in particular plays that scene with superb skill. He renders with almost painful intensity Rochester's anguish as he realizes Jane's resolution to leave him, his frantic attempts to make her stay & his final despair as she indeed leaves him. It is a heartbreaking, almost devastating, scene, which will stay with the viewer for a long time.
With even the smalller roles perfectly cast, an excellent script & two ideal leading actors this is the definitive & only true "Jane Eyre".
Drama, as opposed to melodrama. - By: Paul2002, 26 Jul 2007 If you like the high camp of modern 'drama' & if you want modern film techniques, then this isn't for you. But if you want something that's true to the essence of the novel- this is it.
