Printable View
Like my title says, i thought it was pretty amazing, even compared to the other great versions on film. Toby Stephens MADE Rochester his own, and it was a good portrayal, remember not everyone's interpretations are the same hence why so many people loved it and others not so much. I thought it stayed pretty true to the novel so what else can you ask for?
Plus i know i am only one in millions who admired Toby's performance as Rochester, and as a debut, Ruth Wilson did an astounding job.
I wondered if you were talking about the Masterpiece Theater version I saw. I loved it, I really did. I let my kids stay up late to watch and they loved it, too. Netflix has several different Jane Eyre movies. I'd love to watch another if someone can recommend one. I ordered one and did not like it as well as the Masterpiece Theater version.Quote:
Originally Posted by sciencefan
Hi, erm i think it is the masterpiece theatre version, many people on myspace speak of it, after seeing pictures of Toby Stephens and Ruth Wilson they say they have seen it - this IS the one i was talking about. Here in Britain it is made by the BBC, but i think it is the same but under the name of "masterpiece Theatre" elsewhere...just read through my reply and it's a bit confusing sorry about that:blush:Quote:
Originally Posted by motherhubbard
I DON'T recommend the Miramax version where William Hurt plays Rochester;Quote:
Originally Posted by motherhubbard
they over-modernized the story and changed it too much.
I would barely have recognized it if they had named it something different.
I DO recommend the A&E version with Ciaran Hinds as Rochester, and
Samantha Morton as Jane Eyre.
Hi, i haven't heard of this version, the same Cairan Hinds as in Persuasion? There is an A&E Emma version aswell, does anyone know what A&E stands for, it's been bugging me for ages!Quote:
Originally Posted by sciencefan
Emma J x
Yes.Quote:
Originally Posted by emmsi_*tobyrox*
Persuasion (1995) .... Captain Frederick Wentworth
He was also in:
The Nativity Story (2006) .... Herod
The Phantom of the Opera (2004) .... Firmin
Rules of Engagement (1995) .... Cambell Ferguson
I got this information from the Internet Movie DataBase:
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0001354/
A & E stands for Arts & Entertainment.
Cheers sciencefan! :D
Well, I liked the new Jane Eyre adaptation... until I read the book... And I saw the original Rochester... Now: if they would combine Timothy Dalton's Rochester (1983) (grandeur, real gentleman), Ciaran Hinds' Rochester (1997) (pure arrogance, uglyness (sorry for the honesty, fellow) and above all could sing and speak French in a proper way!!) and Toby Stephens' Rochester (flirty and out to get her) AND if they would get a woman to write the script and who can catch the reason why Jane falls in love with this hideous figure who is nontheless for some reason soooooooo attractive, then we might finally get what he should be.
They also changed a few crucial parts and above all they added the scene on her bed after the wedding was cancelled... :flare: They didn't at all get it??? I understand that for 2006-people religeous principles are not a priority, but Jane is very consequent in this, so it is absolutely unthinkable that she would have allowed him in her bedroom after that desastrous wedding, let alone lie in bed together and also let him kiss her.
Also... Did anyone find that the first proposal of marriage was a little odd? I watched it a few times on TouTube (you can watch the whole series on there!) and it was just as if they had already done it like 50 times that day and they were tired and both actors were waiting for their moment in the scene (Stephens sighs mechanicly and then goes on to "we have been good friends, haven't we, Jane?" and she looks to the side until she can take off to start "how can you imagine that, what do you think I am???" etc) in the book it is nicely built up to the point where the passions rise and stay until the end, but here it doesn't really take off... The start is there, but maybe they did it too many times, then Hinds' and Morton's version was much better...
Anyway, it was a nice version, but I found it lacking a bit in arrogance o his side. Jane was credible, but maybe a little too modern... More later...
PS: Pardon me for any spelling mistakes, I'm a belgian, so English is only a third language...
Very useful. Good job.Quote:
Originally Posted by sciencefan
How does the '07 version compare to the '73 of Sorcha Cusack and Michael Jayston?
I really liked the new version with Ruth Wilson and Toby Stephens. The story wasn't exactly as it is in the book, but it never is when a book is turned into a film and this one wasn't bad adaptation at all.
I think Ruth Wilson did a great job, and she looks like Jane Eyre might. I still can't say, whether she's pretty or not, and that's exactly as I've always thought Jane should look like :D
As for some people saying that Toby Stephens is far too good-looking to be Mr Rochester, I must say I don't think so. I think he's gorgeous, but most of my friends are like "Eww, he looks just AWFUL! :sick: " I think Toby Stephens makes a great Mr Rochester, he has the right attitude to it :)
Do you mean the one with Ruth Wilson and Toby Stephens?Quote:
Originally Posted by Newcomer
According to the "Enthusiast":
"Beautiful cinematography and music are featured in this BBC miniseries and Ruth Wilson makes a really fantastic Jane- presenting her many emotions in a believable and subtle way. Toby Stephens is not quite the Rochester of the novel, he's more of a charming "rake" and his absolute love for Jane is not as apparent as his absolute love for tail. A thoroughly modern interpretation, sensationalzing the novel and turning it into more of a Gothic/Harlequin romance."
I thought that they changed the script so much that it was almost unrecognizeable as Jane Eyre. Had they changed the names, I would not have known. I did not like the 2007 version at all.
The "Enthusiast" says about the 1973 version:
"A BBC miniseries, which is, in my humble opinion, the very best adaptation of this novel. Cusack presents a very credible, layered Jane, and Jayston is superb in bringing out all the aspects of Rochester's complicated character. The script is the closest to the novel with little added scenes and whole chunks of dialogue lifted from the book. Absolutely outstanding."
She makes me want to buy it.
Yes, both actors are not universally ugly... But then again who is??? What actually troubled me the most in Stephens looks, were his nostrils, when he was taken in close-up. Certainly when I watch more than one episode after another, I start to be irritated by it. Then I see these 2 black holes in the middle of his face... Nevertheless, good acceptable interpretation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Annamariah
I and many people with me apparently found Ruth Wilson's lips also quite noticable. But I suppose that there are men who don't mind...
I guess this book is the ideal one to interprate as an actor if you are not Hugh Grant or his female counterpart... You can never be too ugly...:D
I think that it may not have been the most faithful adaptation of the book but by 'eck it was a great evening drama and I swooned over Toby Stephens rather a lot. :blush: The book I like for different reasons - it's more subtle.
I liked it very much :thumbs_up