उपयोगकर्ता समीक्षाएं

I felt duty bound to watch the 1983 Timothy Dalton / Zelah Clarke adaptation of "Jane Eyre," because I'd just written an article about the 2006 BBC "Jane Eyre" for TheScreamOnline.

So, I approached watching this the way I'd approach doing homework.

I was irritated at first. The lighting in this version is bad. Everyone / everything is washed out in a bright white klieg light that, in some scenes, casts shadows on the wall behind the characters.

And the sound is poorly recorded. I felt like I was listening to a high school play.

And the pancake make-up is way too heavy.

And the sets don't fully convey the Gothic mood of the novel. They are too fussy, too Martha Stewart. I just can't see Bronte's Rochester abiding such Martha Stewart domestic arrangements. Orson Welles' Rochester lived in cave-like gloom, very appropriate to the novel's Gothic mood.

And yet ... with all those objections ... not only is this the best "Jane Eyre" I've seen, it may be the best adaptation of any novel I've ever seen.

This "Jane Eyre," in spite of its technical flaws, brought the feeling back to me of reading "Jane Eyre" for the first time.

The critics of this production say it is too close to the book. For me, someone who valued the book and didn't need it to be any less "wordy" or any less "Christian" or any more sexed up, this version's faithfulness to the novel Bronte actually wrote is its finest asset.

Bronte wrote a darn good book. There's a reason it has lasted 150 years plus, while other, slicker, sexier and easier texts, have disappeared.

As a long time "Jane Eyre" fan, I was prejudiced against Timothy Dalton as Rochester. Rochester is, famously, not handsome; Jane and Rochester are literature's famous ugly couple. And Timothy Dalton is nothing if not stunningly handsome.

But Dalton gives a mesmerizing performance as Rochester. He just blew me away. I've never seen anything like his utter devotion to the role, the text, the dialogue, and Rochester's love for Jane. Dalton brings the page's Rochester to quivering life on screen.

Rochester is meant to be a bit scary. Dalton is scary. Welles got the scary streak down, too, for example, when he shouts "Enough!" after Fontaine plays a short piano piece. But Dalton is scary more than once, here. You really can't tell if he's going to hurt Jane, or himself, in his desperation.

Rochester's imperiousness, his humor, his rage, his vulnerability: Dalton conveys all, sometimes seconds apart. It's stunning.

And here's the key thing -- the actor performing Rochester has to convey that he has spent over a decade of his life in utter despair, lonely, living with an ugly, life-destroying secret.

No other actor I've seen attempt this part conveys that black hole of despair as Timothy Dalton does. Current fan favorite Toby Stephens doesn't even try. Dalton hits it out of the park. If I saw Timothy Dalton performing Rochester in a singles bar, i would say, "That guy is trouble. Don't even look at him." He's that radioactive with tamped down agony.

Zelah Clarke is not only, overall, the best Jane I've seen, she's one of the very few Janes whom producers were willing to cast as the book casts Jane. No, folks who know "Jane Eyre" only from the 2006 version, Bronte did *not* describe a statuesque, robust Jane with finely arched eyebrows and pouty lips. Rather, Charlotte Bronte's Jane is, indeed, poor, plain, obscure, and little, and NOT pretty.

Zelah has a small mouth, close-set eyes, and a bit of a nose. She's truly "little." She is no fashion model. And she is the best Jane, the truest to the book.

Some described her a cold or boring. No, she's true to the book. Bronte's Jane is not a red hot mama, she's a sheltered, deprived teen whose inner passions come out only at key moments, as Zelah's do here. The book's Jane is someone you have to watch slowly, carefully, patiently, observantly, if you want to truly plumb her depths. You have to watch Zelah, here, to get to know who she really is.

I would have liked to have seen more fire in Zelah in one key scene, but that's one scene out of five hours in which she is, otherwise, very good.

In spite of its closeness to the text, this version, like every other version I've seen, shys away from fully explicating the overtly Christian themes in "Jane Eyre." Christianity is not incidental subtext in "Jane Eyre," it is central.

Helen Burns instructs Jane in Christianity, thus giving her a subversive, counter cultural way to read, and live, her apparently doomed, pinched life. It is Christianity, and a Christian God, who convinces poor, plain, obscure Jane of her equal worth, her need to live up to her ideals, and her rejection of a key marriage proposal. That isn't made fully clear here.

In any case, Charlotte Bronte wrote an excellent, complex, rich novel, and this adaptation of it, of all the ones I've seen, mines and honors the novel best of any adaptation I've seen, and that says a lot.

Other versions, that don't fully honor the book, end up being a chore to watch in many places. If you don't care about what Charlotte Bronte has to say about child abuse, or the hypocrisy of a culture built on looks and money, your adaptation of much of the book will be something people fast forward through to get to the kissing scenes between Jane and Rochester.

This version, like Bronte's novel, realizes that everything Bronte wrote -- about Jane's experiences at Lowood, and her relationship to St. John -- are part of what makes Jane's relationship to Rochester as explosive and unforgettable as it is.

If a more masterful adaptation than this one even existed, you need not look for it; you will find all and more in this near-perfect presentation of Charlotte Brontë's masterpiece.

Rarely have I seen a film that would urge me to read the novel on which it was based, but I admit to that here. Although I have not read Jane Eyre, I am convinced that I have missed very little in the way of dialogue and plot or of intensity and emotion. I only wish to explore the novel due to the immense curiosity and emotion that this masterpiece has stirred within me.

I need not divulge anything in the way of plot here. Let me just say this: if you are perhaps unsure as to whether you should watch or read the beautiful story that is Jane Eyre, I implore you to doubt no more! Every atom of might and magic that has reared Jane Eyre as a popular classic of English literature has successfully been captured in this film.

What Brontë did not bring herself, Clarke and Dalton managed to translate in the limelight with stupendous intensity. The movie's success is, no doubt, due in no small part to their acting prowess.

Love Jane Eyre or hate her, but appreciate the richness, the vitality, the truth of the story; love the characters; love the actors; all just as you would love what is great in cinema.

I am a Jane Eyre lover and a purist, and this version includes almost all of the important details of the book, and the characters are portrayed as I imagined them. Jane Eyre is a complex story of great richness and can't be delivered properly in a feature-length format, so it needs a TV mini-series. Timothy Dalton's Rochester is probably the best ever. There has been a lot of discussion about how attractive he is and his age. In the book, Jane (the narrator) describes him as "about 35" and not young, but not yet middle aged. I think Timothy Dalton was about 38 when he made this, so that is about right. Also, we only have Jane's opinion of whether Rochester is handsome. She only just met him and he asks her bluntly what she thinks. As an inexperienced and humble girl, I can't imagine her saying she did think him handsome. The actor playing Rochester needs to show us the character of the man, and this is fulfilled to perfection. I love the relationship between the two leads, which is the crucial thing about this story, and the humour of their encounters. Other versions have blown it, but this gets it right. The 2006 version with Toby Stephens (aged 37 years) is in progress on BBC1 and is very good indeed, so I will decide whether that is my favourite when it is completed.

On viewing this series again, after watching the 2006 version, I have decided that this version with Timothy Dalton and Zelah Clark is the best! Charlotte Bronte's dialogue is preserved and this is essential to the power of the story. Modernisation just doesn't work - it's a Victorian story and having archaic poetic speech suits the characters. This version has an excellent cast - Zelah Clark is tiny and the difference in height between her and Rochester is important; Timothy Dalton has real presence and is an amazing actor. There are no extra scenes to divert from the plot and the screenplay includes all the essential scenes, but leaves out unnecessary details, making it to the point and gripping. I recommend it to all true Jane Eyre fans.

This review comes nearly 30 years late. Nevertheless, it has to be mentioned that I chanced by a copy of this movie sometime in early 2008 and watched it repeatedly for 4 months straight! I just had to write about it! I got smitten and forgot anything else existed once I saw this movie. How ironic it is to see Literature's ugliest male protagonist portrayed by the handsomest man! yet, what a welcome irony! It suited me perfectly and more so because Timothy Dalton did full justice to his role. He delivered an astounding and triumphant performance! I have never seen anything like it! All the other actors are very good too. The whole movie was put together beautifully. I don't care what anyone says about this movie. I just love it and love it! It made me happy and satisfied. It crushes me a bit to say this but I prefer Jane Eyre 1983 to A&E's P&J, which I believe is the ultimate mini-series.

The excerpts from Jane Eyre spooked me a little back in school. I never got around to reading the book seriously knowing the story line so well. Seeing this particular production made the story come to life for me and drove me to a near frenzy. The scenes and Mr. Dalton's voice haunted me endlessly and finally led me to read the book seriously, which, of course is a masterpiece. Bravo to the whole team and especially to Mr.Dalton!! This movie is now a part of me.

I give it 10/10 rating.

Those who love the book Jane Eyre as I do (it's my all time favorite, and I re read it at least once a year) will love this version. Timothy Dalton is just a tad too good looking to be Mr. Rochester, but other than that, he does a marvelous job portraying the brooding master of Thornfield. Zelah Clarke may have been just a little too old to play the 18 year old Jane, but when I watch this movie, I don't think about the ages of the characters. The dialog from the film is taken almost verbatim from the book, which was very smart. Sure, this film might seem a little long, but it's the only version I've seen that includes part 3 of the story.

I wish the people who made this film had been involved in the newer Zeferelli version, as it would have helped that mess of a film.

I also realized the last time I watched this video that Judy Cornwell plays "Aunt Reed"! She is so versatile that I didn't recognize her. She plays Daisy in Keeping up Appearances, and also played Mrs. Musgrove in 1995's Persuasion (another wonderful adaption).

UPDATE: Got the DVD this week, and it's marvelous to see the original unedited version. There's lots more at the beginning (Young Jane at Gateshead and at Lowood.) And at the end, they've restored lots of things, (I always wondered why St. John had a slip of paper when he reveals that he knows who Jane is-- because the part where he tears it from her painting was edited out of the US VHS version!). Rosamund Oliver is in it...she was completely cut out of the VHS. As far as I could tell, they hadn't edited out any of Timothy Dalton's parts, so nothing new there, but it is great to see the whole miniseries in its entirety after all these years of enjoying the VHS. Thanks, BBC (PS...I would have paid more for a special edition DVD...with maybe some interviews with the stars...or a making of show)

This version of Jane Eyre is simply AMAZING! If you haven't seen it already, you should because there will never be another like it. This four-hour adaptation of Charlotte Bronte's novel hardly leaves out the crucial parts that are often left out and overlooked by the other versions I've seen. For the fans of the novel, you will find that this movie includes many lines straight from the novel. You may be surprised on how easy to follow this movie is. I have watched the movie with the book in hand to help answer any questions I may have had.

The dashing Timothy Dalton fits the part of Edward Fairfax Rochester, almost too well, except for one thing; he is FAR too handsome for the Rochester spoken of in the novel! :) Despite this, he brings the Rochester created in my mind to life, because with every line he spoke, Timothy brought a fiery magic to his character. "He was born to play the role," some have said. I must say, I agree. I have watched this movie many times over, and I hardly find a fault to his performance. I think that if I was closer to Tim's age, that I would find my self-swooning over his fine features and magnetic accent. Accents are so sexy! Come on ladies, don't you agree?! :)

Yes, I could go on forever talking about him, but, now I must move on to Zelah Clarke, who although may seem too old to play the part of Jane Eyre, shared a great chemistry with her co-star. Their onscreen chemistry is too magnificent to put into words. Some have said she was not `plain enough' to play the role, I agree that she was pretty, but I think she fit her role just as well as Timothy. I hope that she is well remembered for playing the part of the plain, quakerish governess for decades to come. After all, She deserves to be remembered because of her acting talents. They both [Dalton & Clarke] have immortalized the classic story that touches on the idea that Love is blind. Love knows no age limits.

In conclusion, this truly is an old-fashioned romance movie, and the settings and supporting characters add to the incredible adaptation from the novel to the movie. Bravo, BBC!

Yes, this production is long (good news for Bronte fans!) and it has a somewhat dated feel, but both the casting and acting are so brilliant that you won't want to watch any other versions!

Timothy Dalton IS Edward Rochester... it's that simple. I don't care that other reviewers claim he's too handsome. Dalton is attractive, certainly, but no pretty-boy. In fact he possesses a craggy, angular dark charm that, in my mind, is quite in keeping with the mysterious, very masculine Mr R. And he takes on Rochester's sad, tortured persona so poignantly. He portrays ferocity when the scene calls for it, but also displays Rochester's tender, passionate, emotional side as well. (IMO the newer A&E production suffers in that Ciaran Hinds - whom I normally adore - seems to bluster and bully his way throughout. I've read the book many times and I never felt that Rochester was meant to be perceived as a nonstop snarling beast.)

When I reread the novel, I always see Zelah Clarke as Jane. Ms. Clarke, to me, resembles Jane as she describes herself (and is described by others). Small, childlike, fairy... though it's true the actress doesn't look 18, she portrays Jane's attributes so well. While other reviews have claimed that her acting is wooden or unemotional, one must remember that the character spent 8 years at Lowood being trained to hold her emotions and "passionate nature" in check. Her main inspiration was her childhood friend Helen, who was the picture of demure submission. Although her true nature was dissimilar, Jane learned to master her temper and appear docile, in keeping with the school's aims for its charity students who would go into 'service'. Jane becomes a governess in the household of the rich Mr. Rochester. She would certainly *not* speak to him as an equal. Even later on when she gave as well as she got, she would always be sure to remember that her station was well below that of her employer. Nevertheless, if you read the book - to which this production stays amazingly close - you can clearly see the small struggles Zelah-as-Jane endures as she subdues her emotions in order to remain mild and even-tempered.

The chemistry between Dalton and Clarke is just right, I think. No, it does not in the least resemble Hollywood (thank God! It's not a Hollywood sort of book) but theirs is a romance which is true, devoted and loyal. And for a woman like Jane, who never presumed to have *any* love come her way, it is a minor miracle.

The rest of the casting is terrific, and I love the fact that nearly every character from the book is present here. So, too, is much of the rich, poetic original dialogue. This version is the only one that I know of to include the lovely, infamous 'gypsy scene' and in general, features more humor than other versions I've seen. In particular, the mutual teasing between the lead characters comes straight from the book and is so delightful!

Jane Eyre was, in many ways, one of the first novelized feminists. She finally accepted love on her own terms and independently, and, at last, as Rochester's true equal. Just beautiful!

I had no idea what Jane Eyre was before I saw this miniseries. I had read and watched many classics before, and I believed that most classics were boring, over-worded, and overrated stories with moderately interesting plots at best. This Jane Eyre miniseries completely changed my conceptions.

Zelah Clarke is a fabulous actress, and she gives a wonderful portrayal of Jane Eyre. Her accent is delightful and her quiet, yet firm nature matches the young governess' character exactly. Timothy Dalton is an amazing Rochester. His passion and energy in the film makes me believe that he was born to play the brooding master of Thornfield Hall. I couldn't sleep at all the night after I had watched this miniseries. The plot is both haunting and inspiring. The characters are masterfully performed, and the story is incredible. This is the best version of Jane Eyre to ever appear on film.

I read the book later and was amazed at how closely this miniseries followed Charolette Bronte's writing. Jane Eyre is now my favorite film and book. If you want to see a masterpiece that will change your life, watch the 1983 BBC version of Jane Eyre.

The Jane Eyre mini series was sensational. It was well acted and written and is very enjoyable.

Timothy Dalton I thought very much like Mr Rochester - physically at least with a tall body and strong and dark features. However, I think he acted a bit too fierce and violent at some points, when in the book at these points, it was mere desperation - not vengeance. I think that the actor of Jane Eyre was good physically as well - very short and quite innocent looking. At times, I thought the expression in her voice a little too shallow but very well played nevertheless.

The script was very much like the book in most parts which is quite unusual for television productions of classical novels. However, I think there should have been more time spent with Mr Rivers and his sisters and get a better understanding of his character, which is supposed to be cold and hard. We saw little of his resistant nature in this mini series. The two best scenes in the book, from my point of view, were somewhat ruined in the television version of Jane Eyre. While they were supposed to be the most touching and meaningful parts of the book, they seemed to me a little colder than in the book.

I think overall that it is an excellent production, despite these few faults and that other television series or movies are nothing compared to this. Again, I think it wonderful to see a television 'Jane Eyre' stick so much to the book and recommend it to all Jane Eyre lovers such as myself.

This wonderful 1983 BBC television production (not a movie, as others have written here) of the classic love story "Jane Eyre", starring Timothy Dalton as Rochester, and Zelah Clarke as Jane, is the finest version that has been made to date, since it is the most faithful to the novel by Charlotte Bronte in both concept and dialogue.

A classic becomes a classic for very specific reasons; when film producers start to meddle with a classic's very lifeblood then that classic is destroyed. Thankfully the producers of THIS "Jane Eyre" approached the story with respect and faithfulness towards the original, which results in a spectacularly addictive concoction that is worth viewing multiple times, to enjoy its multi-layers of sweetness and delight and suspense. The performances are delightful, the music is just right, even the Gothic design of the house and outdoor shots are beautiful, and set the right tone for the production.

My only criticism, though slight, is that this version, like every other version ever made of Jane Eyre, ignores the Christian influences that built Jane's character and influenced her moral choices. In today's modern world a woman in Jane's situation wouldn't think twice but to stay with Rochester after finding out he had an insane wife and was still married to her. "Oh, just get a divorce", she would say to her man, or she would live in sin with him. But Jane Eyre knew she couldn't settle for this course in life and respect herself. Why? This decision was based on the foundations of the Christian faith she had been taught since childhood, not from the brutal Calvinist Lowood Institution, but from the Christian example of a true friend, Helen Burns, who was martyred rather than not turn the other cheek. Someday I would like to see some version depict these influences a little more fully in an adaptation. A classic novel that ends with the heroine writing "Even so, come Lord Jesus!" should not have the foundations of that faith stripped out of it.

For anyone who has not read it Jane Eyre is a wonderful book, it nicely falls between the turmoil of Wuthering Heights and the smoothness of Pride and Prejudice, and should be on the reading list of every enthusiastic young (maybe albeit female) reader.

Like all great books it has tempted adaptations. To date I have seen three of them. The first the B&W Orson Welles and Joan Fontaine version, the most recent Franco Zeffirelli film with William Hurt and Charlotte Gainsborough as the leads, and this adaptation. And to my great surprise it is this version that I feel, despite its shortcomings in depth of acting and production compared to the other two, does the greater justice to the book.

It is a crucial point that is all too often over looked by filmmakers, but it is very hard to fit a five hundred of so page novel into a two hour film. In fact the only way it can be done is a) through cutting large areas of the script or b) diluting the story line. Most often than not the producers choose a mixture of the two and the film is ruined, because it is neither a film in its own right, or an acted out version of a novel. There are certain examples, may be most notably the new Pride and Prejudice film were the book is used as a template and a film built around it. In this case the film was still recognisable as the book, maybe not all that loyal to it, but it did not matter because it was a quality film in its own right. The two film versions previously mentioned of Jane Eyre did not achieve this. They both failed and fell into the familiar trap of landing themselves into that in between place.

This version did not though. Mainly because it had more time, it was allowed to portray the book more fully. Crucially it is the only version that truly puts across the strength in feelings that exist in the relationship between Jane and Rochester, which is described so beautifully within the book.

Its also has superior leads. Now I not claiming (by any stretch of the imagination) that Timothy Dalton is a better actor that than Orson Welles (or even William Hurt), far from it in fact. But the simple fact of the matter is that Orson Wells' Rochester is far too harsh, he does no portray the feeling that Charlotte Bronte gave him, and he does not resemble his description in the book. Timothy Dalton does the opposite; he gets far more closer to the Rochester within the novel, and looks more the part. As for the Janes well this is far more simple for me. Joan Fontaine is simply to pretty to be a convincing Jane, and Charlotte Gainsborough too French, seriously which ever casting director or producer came up with the idea of casting her should be shot for crimes against English literature! In short Timothy Dalton and Zelah Clarke may not be the most accomplished actors, but simply by following the description within the book they give the performances needed to portray the couple effectively.

For sure this version has many faults though. In today's modern light the 80s TV filming looks out of place in some cases. The locations are nothing out of the ordinary and the support cast are not as impressive as in Franco Zeffirelli version. The script is not too close to the novel in some places, but perhaps that is not such a flaw, because in the end this product is watchable.

In fact it is more than that it is enjoyable, because somehow, it manages to capture the essence of Charlotte Bronte's exquisite novel better than I have seen any other production do. For sure it has not aged all that well, but underneath the principles shine through.

This is the best version (so far) that you will see and the most true to the Bronte work. Dalton is a little tough to imagine as Rochester who Jane Eyre declared "not handsome". But his acting overcomes this and Zelah Clark, pretty as she is, is also a complete and believable Jane Eyre. This production is a lengthy watch but well worth it. Nearly direct quotes from the book are in the script and if you want the very first true 'romance' in literature, this is the way to see it. I own every copy of this movie and have read and re-read the original. The filming may seem a little dated now but there will never be another like this.

this was a fabulous adaptation of Jane Eyre. the only problem i had with it was that i didn't like Zelah Clarke. i thought she was too old and made Jane seem much to timid. in the book Jane seemed like a much stronger character. i was really annoyed by this portrayal of her. the part where it's the morning after Rochester asks her to marry him and she runs up to him and hugs him always makes me laugh. i think they made a bad choice in casting her. but Dalton was absolutely wonderful as Rochester. he makes this version of Jane Eyre worth seeing. another thing that made this version not quite 100% was the quality of film. i know it was made in the eighties for TV. if it had been a feature film, and better quality, it would have been perfect. my main complaint however, is that Zelah Clarke was definitely too old.

I'm afraid after seeing the 1973 adaptation with Michael Jayston and Sorcha Cusack, this is a poor alternative. Firstly, what a cheat to put a handsome, young actor in the part of Rochester. Obviously everyone is going to love him but the fact that he is the exact opposite of the way Rochester is described in the book seems really strange when watching the adaptation. Zelah Clark does her best but there is no real chemistry between her and Dalton, it just doesn't sizzle like the 1973 version. Zelah is just a bit too mousy for me, where's the fire and quirky character, where's the humour between the 2 characters which is so prevalent in the '73 version? And the after the fire scene is a real disappointment. Watchable once but dull!

There's not much left to say. This is definitely the best adaptation of Bronte's novel with brilliant performances from Timothy Dalton and Zelah Clarke. The pairing of the two in the roles of Jane Eyre and Rochester was a very good move. They both create realistic, believable and equally worth characters. Dalton's charismatic and inspired (but not overacted) acting is beautifully smoothed by Clarke's "light" beauty and the hidden powers of her character. It's impossible not to enjoy all the scenes where both Dalton and Clarke are in. They have created a rare ability of a mutual understanding between the actors - a real chemistry, I may say. A beautiful and touching adaptation even if a bit too severe.

I think this is a great version, I came on here before, to help me find which version I should use and I went to Jane Eyre 1983 and read a comment from users comment and then helped me to get this version. I do not regret picking this version and neither will you. I tried watching all the other versions and none matched up to it,There is nothing like the book,and TRUST ME if you are reading the book you want something that is going to match up with it. When you are looking for something real and moving after you have read the book it is hard because you want something that is going to match up with that. I would say God personally led me to this version. It points to true love for a humans. I would say God's love is greater.if there is anything better, I would like to see it. but so far there is none like it!

I really have to say, this was always a favorite of mine when I went to see my grandma. And it still is. It is very, very close to the book. The way it is filmed, and the players were just all excellent! I have to recommend this movie to everyone who hasn't seen it. Almost everyone I talk to hates TV movies, but this was really great! I gave it 10/10.

I have to say that this miniseries was the best interpretation of the beloved novel "Jane Eyre". Both Dalton and Clarke are very believable as Rochester and Jane. I've seen other versions, but none compare to this one. The best one for me. I could never imagine anyone else playing these characters ever again. The last time I saw this one was in 1984 when I was only 13. At that time, I was a bookworm and I had just read Charlotte Bronte's novel. I was completely enchanted by this miniseries and I remember not missing any of the episodes. I'd like to see it again because it's so good. :-)

I won't compare this version to the book or other adaptations, I'll just talk about my feelings about the main characters. I realize I might offend many fans of this "J,E.", but I couldn't detect any passion between Jane and Mr. Rochester. It seemed as if in her he's found the way to salvation and redemption, something pure than can clean him of his past mistakes.He's too spoiled, controlling and demanding. And she was too cold, not for a second "restless", too proper and rational. She is not an 18 year old girl in love! (And of course Dalton is too handsome to be ugly.)6 out 10.

I've yet to see the 2006 version, but for me this ties with the 1973 series as the best adaptation of Jane Eyre, and that is saying a fair bit. Of the Jane Eyres I've seen, there's also the 1943 film with Welles and Fontaine which despite a hint at a happier denouncement is the best Jane Eyre on film, the 1970 TV film and the recent 2011 film both of which I liked, Zeffirelli's film which despite the production values was dull and the 1997 adaptation which was disappointing, too short, too rushed and too underdeveloped.

This is just about perfect. Some may find the production values dated, but I found the costumes and sets beautiful and charming and there was clear effort into creating an atmosphere that was evocative. The music is gentle and sensitive while suited to the time period as well. The writing is superb, very literate and intelligently adapted, managing to stick to Bronte's basic prose, in fact this is one of the more faithful Jane Eyre adaptations, and the story has a lot of passion and poignancy with the social attitudes just right.

Jane Eyre(1983) may be lengthy, but I don't consider that a flaw actually. Alternatively I consider it a good thing it was lengthy, the book is very long and complex and I think it needs a series of this length and a measured pace to develop the plot points and to bring out the personalities of the characters. The cast are wonderful. Timothy Dalton is brilliant, he looks ruggedly handsome and while gruff and brooding there is also a subtlety and sense of nuance to the performance.

Is he quite as memorable as Jayston and Scott? Not quite, but he is far more nuanced and tender than Hinds while never falling into the trap of being too dull like William Hurt did. Zelah Clarke is a slightly older Jane than I imagined, but she nails the character everywhere else, quiet and plain yet firm without being too bold so it is not an issue as such. And I loved the chemistry between her and Dalton. The support performances are also uniformly excellent, Carol Gillies is especially good.

Overall, one of the best adaptations of one of the best literary works of all time. 10/10 Bethany Cox

This is, in my opinion, much better than either of the 2 1990's versions, but is still not all that good. It feels dated, probably because it is, but it does stand up well compared to other BBC 1980's period pieces such as Mansfield Park and Northanger Abbey.

The length of this adaptation allows for a much better adaptation of the book than either of the 2 90's versions, and St John Rivers is at least covered, although not very well. Timothy Dalton is very good as Rochester, but the actress playing Jane is much too old. There is definitely scope for a TV adaptation of this length that has more than a tenner spent on it.

I admit, it could be me but I didn't like this miniseries. Of course it is closer to the book but is that always a good thing? I don't know. For instance, in the book there is a scene where Rochester pretends to be a fortune teller, I find that laughable being filmed and this adaptation puts that in, but it is cringeworthy. Timothy Dalton imho is just too into Jane in a ridiculously bombastic way. As if he is performing in a play. Zelah Clarke is just wrong for the role. Appearing to be quite old, large, and hard to buy as the object of affection. She also lacks sprit. Mostly seeming sedate and to be reading lines. There was no chemistry between the two of them. Making it hard to buy just about any of it. There was also a distracting hight difference between the to actors.