the worst jane eyre adaptation ive seen

really? it didnt seem like they had any chemsitry to me, because he just barked at aher all the time! but thanks for answering!

oh good, im glad im not the only one! it was offensive i thought that they didnt include Jane receiveing her independence, in terms of the money she receives.

Hurt was totally passionless i felt...there was no relationship devlopment so u never really understood how or why they fell in love unless u read the book.

charlotte gainsbourg was in in the 1996 film version not the 1997 tv version, but i quite liked her as Jane,although i think she was lacking in the passion needed. she looked right.

i read the book when i was 8 and hadnt ever seen a version of it before but personally if i'd seen this version it wouldnt have made me want to read the book, but thats just my opinion. I still say Samantha Morton could have been a fantastic Jane

Say it again, it keeps me awake
I love you

I love Ciaran Hinds as an actor, but I felt that he barked too much as Mr. Rochester.

This version, while still enjoyable to me, lacked passion. It kind of reminded me of how I interpreted the novel when I first read it at 14. I saw Mr. Rochester as an angry brute who screamed all the time. When I was 14 I thought, heck, why doesn't she choose the handsome St. John?

Now, at 25, I've read the novel a few more times since then, and my understanding of it has matured a bit. I read the novel now and notice the wit and sarcasm permeating the pages, as well as the flirtations between Jane and Rochester. I could see more of their connecting of souls. Plus, I don't think Mr Rochester is as loud and boisterous as some might think at first glance. He is outgoing, and he is popular as well as funny. Sometimes, in these adapations I think people forget that aspect of him.

But finally, in the new 2006 version, an actor finally understood and captured that essence of Rochester that is usually ignored. So, in my mind Toby Stephens is the best Rochester I've seen. I don't see how anyone can top him now.

The 2006 version reminds me of how I understood the novel once I matured a little. It really captured the spirit of it.

Time for me to chime in :-p . I have seen every version & my favorite version is the 1996 one staring Charlotte Gainsbourg, fallowed by the 1944 Orson Welles one. I love both of those versions to death.

Charlotte Gainsbourg to me is the perfect Jane, quiet, well mannered, but also her own woman with a strong will, intelligence, wisdom, talent for the arts, & love for the people around her like Adel, Fairfax, & Rochester. To me there is no other Jane then Gainsbourg.

Orson Welles was amazing as Rochester & was my favorite Rochester, he had all the passion, strength, & troubled past of Rochester. The only thing that I felt was sort of off was he seemed a bit too pretty to be Rochester, to me Rochester is a bit more scruffy looking.

For me the worst adaptations are 1997 staring Ciarán Hinds, It is the one I like least, I could not feel anything but anger from Rochester as played by Ciaran, & the second to worst (not as bad) is the 2001 one staring Ruth Wilson.

Ciaran as said was far too mean & yelling to me, he had no passion & only hatred do to his past. He did not have that passion for life nor love of Jane that I expect to see from Rochester. Yes it is true that in the 1996 one William Hurt did not have much passion either, & thus why Hurt is not my favorite Rochester, but at least Hurt had some humor, could smile, joke, laugh, & was kind; things that Ciaran did not do, & was too angry & unloving to do, & thus I did not like Ciaran's portrayal at all. I do however think that Samantha Morton did a lovely job as Jane, she is within my top four Janes.

The 2006 one is my second to least favorite one because it was too sexual for me, I did not like that, Wilson's Jane came out almost as a harlot, I was very upset by that, it was completely a shock, & completely not my Jane, my Jane being Gainsbourg is so full of self control, & restrain, she would never let herself do that stuff before marriage, it would be a crime. The sexual stuff aside I felt that Ruth looked very much like Jane & if the sexual parts are ignored she played Jane very well, she was proper (if we ignore those aforementioned moments) & mostly in self control, smart, loving, caring, & at the times when she was supposed to break down & cry her heart out over Rochester, she did so perfectly giving it the passion & emotion that Jane, or any woman would give, so I have mixed feeling about Wilson's portrayal & the 2006 Jane Eyre. Now as for Toby Stephens' Rochester, I loved his performance, yes it is wrong in my mind for Jane to be sexual, but for Rochester that fits him quite nicely, although I would personally have had him more restrained as well as he had so many bad experiences in the past I would doubt he would want to rush into a relationship so quick & foolishly again, that he would be wherry of fallowing his heart & of loving again, because of how love had betrayed him before. But once again putting that aside, I loved his Rochester, probably my second favorite Rochester after Orson Welles, Toby just had him down so perfectly (Putting the sexualness aside of course). So as you can see for me the 2006 one was a mixed bag that I both like, but at the same time hate, & thus it is one of my least favorites right before the 1997 Ciaran one.

All of the other ones that I have not spoken of were to me average, not bad, but not good, but all in all forgettable.

Also I would like to note that in my two favorites 1996 & 1944 I love how well they both do the Lowood part. In the 1996 one they do a nice job of showing Jane & Halan's friendship, & the poor condition of the girls. However the 1944 one of course tops that by leaps & bounds, the headmaster opening the windows after the doctor told him to keep them closed, & then after cutting Halan's hair making both her & Jane walk out in the rain in circles all night holding irons, with signs on them saying Vain & Rebellious, & thus worsening Halan's condition to the point that she cannot recover. I just loved that, I mean he was truly evil in that version, it makes you really hurt for Jane & the other girls to think what they must have gone through all of those years, & how many of the other girls must have died, & how strong Jane must have been to servive all of that. It was just amazing for me.

Also worth noting is that I love the Paul Gordon & John Caird stage musical version of Jane Eyre, for me it is better then any of the films, & really brings out all of the passion, fears, pain, horror, sadness, mystery, & love of the book nicely, & it is incredibly faithful to the book showing lots of scenes that are left out of most of the film adaptations. So I highly recommend that to anyone who loves Jane Eyre :-) .

& of course nothing beats the original, the book, so if anyone loves any of the films or the musical, they should get their hands on a copy of the book & read it :-) .

___________________________
Mortis Pluit Vita, Vita Pluit Amour
___________________________