I haven't seen it yet and everyone is saying it's very good? What makes it good? Because I read posts with people praising the william hurt version and I nearly threw up all over the tv screen!
I recently saw the new 2006 version, would you say it's better than that one?
-The eyes are open, the mouth is moving, but mr brain has long since departed-
This version has its pros and cons...
Most people like it because of Timothy Dalton as Mr. Rochester. Granted, Dalton is "too handsome" for Rochester, but he gives a very dynamic performance and has tons of charisma and passion.
It also seems to be the version that sticks closest to the actual book - in fact, much of the dialogue is taken directly from the book, and the actors do very well with it. There are also some scenes (like the fortune telling scene) which are preserved, which other adaptations have cut out.
Some people feel Jane was either perfectly cast, or that she was miscast in this. You'll have to watch and see for yourself what you think. She does make for a very plain Jane - emphasis more on the thoughtful than the sensual.
This version does suffer from your typical BBC "production values" (poor lighting, unimaginative sets, silly music, and that weird "videotape indoors, film outdoors" fetish that the BBC always has). It does comes off like a filmed stage play, which isn't necessarily a bad thing, but some people can't get past that.
martisco, great reply.
Everyone has her own fav.
Shop around; pick your fav; report back to imdb, and listen to everyone who disagrees call you the antichrist, and everyone who agrees say, "Amen! You are so right!"
[deleted]
Timothy Dalton doesn't scream and holler constantly like the guy in the Samantha Morton version or Orson Well's version. Dalton actually acts. I think it's a great version. and just a great movie, period. hope you've seen it by now.
Buffy: Broke your arm.
Adam: Got another.
BTVS
I liked the scenes where Jane had left Thornfield and was reduced to begging for work and food. Her poor little face when she thought she was to be turned back onto the moors. Aye, it's a cruel world; the bonds of civilisation are fragile indeed.
Having previously seen the '06 version where life in Lowood school seemed unremittingly grim, it was also nice to discover the edifying Miss Temple.
[deleted]
2006 is my favorite version, but I own and enjoy this '83 version as well...as a matter of fact, I find myself putting it in the DVD player when I want to hear the dialogue spoken more closely to what Bronte wrote. Timothy Dalton has such a beautiful voice and accent, and is so handsome (even though Rochester is supposed to be "ugly") that, in spite of over the top acting is a few spots, he is a pleasure to watch. I'm not particularly fond of the actress who plays Jane, but she is more elf like and small, his "mustard seed", than Ruth Wilson.
The William Hurt version bothers me as well. There is something lacking in the overall production. I own it also, watching it rarely.
My recommedation to you would be...if you love the book, definitely watch the 1983 version. You may, like myself, still call the Stephens and Wilson adaptation your favorite but enjoy this for its more pure interpretation of the book.
Recommend you just watch it without asking others opinions. I liked somewhat the William Hurt version, so would not dare to provide you my comments on this version for fear you'd throw up on your computer monitor. Do you have a problem holding down food?
my god its full of stars
I have watched Hurt version again. Almost a condensation rather than an adaptation, it is very short compared to the other adaptations so a lot of the story has been revised or eliminated. I have grown to appreciate Hurt in the character of Rochester. He plays him in a more gentle, pensive and brooding manner. Gainsbourgh looks like Jane but it is hard to see any passion in her portrayal. I can actually see the two of them in a version that more closely mirrors the book.. the problem is the screenplay more than the casting.
As for the Dalton version, I love it! Except for when he reveals himself in the gypsy scene, which I think he plays as silly, he shows Rochester's unpredictability, humor and love for Jane almost perfectly. I love when he calls her Janet, just as in the book. That never happened in the 2006. And the woman who plays Jane is small and elf-like, as in the book. Dalton overflows with passion for Jane. The proposal scene and the ending are fabulous. I watch this one, along with the 2006 version, over and over.
IMO, the gypsy scene was silly in the book as well. can't imagine anyone being able to pull that off. I liked the way they did it in the 2006 adaptation, still keepind the message but changing the format. there is never any need to see Rochester in drag.
ask the spokesperson, I don't have a brain
I wanted to like the Hurt version. After all, the director is renowned. William Hurt is a terrific actor, but much too blond and too American for Rochester. Charlotte Gainsborough...she just did nothing for me. When she said "How can you be so stupid?" I thought, "Jane would NEVER say this to Rochester." And, of course, in the book, she doesn't.
shareIt's my favorite. I love Timothy Dalton's portrayal of Rochester. This St. John is the best one, he looks like has a duck up his knickers throughout the movie.
shareThe simple and short answer to the question of the thread: Timothy Dalton. Without him I'd never even consider watching this version. He's the reason this version is sooooo worth watching. Sure the production values need a lot of improvement, but once Dalton is on-screen, you won't notice 'em ... or anything else for that matter :)
Here's my tribute to Dalton's phenomenal portrayal as Rochester: http://wp.me/pxXPC-2WX
Closest to the book version, great dialogues, great acting from both of main characters.
They have chemistry and they seem believable and sincere.
Maybe too dark picture, but I think they truly didnt have more lighting those days, in 19 century.
What I dislike in newest version of 2011 is how many storylines and dialogs were cut and changed.. it made whole story less interesting and logical.
[deleted]
I hated the version with William Hurt and while I do admit, Timothy Dalton was far too handsome to play Rochester, it doesn't bother me at all. His acting is so fantastic that it's easy to overlook it.
share