WATCH YOUR FAVORITE
MOVIES & TV SERIES ONLINE
TRY FREE TRIAL
Home > Drama >

Jane Eyre

Watch Jane Eyre For Free

Jane Eyre

In this version of Charlotte Brontë's novel, Jane Eyre as a young girl (Georgie Henley) is raised as a poor relation in the household of her aunt, Mrs. Reed (Tara FitzGerald). As a young woman (Ruth Wilson), Jane is hired by the housekeeper of Thornfield Hall, Mrs. Fairfax, to be a governess for young Adele (Cosima Littlewood). The owner of the estate is Mr. Rochester (Toby Stephens), who is courting the beautiful Blanche Ingram (Christina Cole).

... more
Release : 2006
Rating : 8.3
Studio : WGBH,  BBC, 
Crew : Director,  Novel, 
Cast : Georgie Henley Richard McCabe Toby Stephens Pam Ferris Francesca Annis
Genre : Drama

Cast List

Reviews

Matialth
2018/08/30

Good concept, poorly executed.

More
Afouotos
2018/08/30

Although it has its amusing moments, in eneral the plot does not convince.

More
AshUnow
2018/08/30

This is a small, humorous movie in some ways, but it has a huge heart. What a nice experience.

More
Ginger
2018/08/30

Very good movie overall, highly recommended. Most of the negative reviews don't have any merit and are all pollitically based. Give this movie a chance at least, and it might give you a different perspective.

More
Omar Abu Saad
2015/06/21

this is the only adaptation i have seen for the great Jane Eyre book and i liked how BBC managed to tell the story with changing any of the details but i think that there were some small details which made the book so great not mentioned in the series and that disappointed me somehow. The total ignorance of Jane's suffering and hunger after leaving Thornfield really disappointed me and made me give 8 star rating instead of 9 stars for this well done series. I really liked how Ruth Wilson performed her role awesomely but i think BBC had done mistake by not making Toby Stephens so ugly as Mr. Rochester should be. All in all, i think BBC did good job in filming this masterpiece book.

More
name lastname
2014/10/23

It's nowhere even near the book, the woman who wrote the screenplay read too many cheesy romantic novels, so she invented the whole story, the dialogue and presented it to us as "Jane Eyre", to attract viewers. The series start with some red cloth, waved at our faces for many minutes, are we in communist China? Then, some girl, sitting in a desert, fiddling with sand. What desert, what sand? There is no desert and no sand in "Jane Eyre". The, some silly scene with some painter, which is not in the book also. Due to the desert and the painter, the scenes from childhood were cut off, and one can hardly understand what ailed the girl - she was closed in some room where she stared at the portrait, and it seemed to be her main grudge (no illness, no breakdown). The next second, "Jane" opens her eyes, and she is in a luxurious bed, attended by a doctor. In the book, the aunt called an apothecary to save money on a doctor's visit. In fact, the doctor promises to return again, meaning the evil aunts pays for two expensive visits, that's how evil she is. When Jane tells the aunt how she feels, instead of being indignant at the aunt's lies, she sounds like a prim teacher, telling the older woman what to do and how to behave. One can barely stand not to slap the brat and tell her not to order others around. In Lowood, everything is skipped through, scenes look more like flashbacks. Jane's friend Mary sounds borderline imbecilic, instead of the smartest girl in the school. She also looks extremely righteous and self-satisfied. Thornton Hall does not look as a house of a wealthy aristocratic gentleman, but like some Gothic ruins, to enter which you must crawl almost on all fours into some dilapidated gate (surely a rich man could have paid to fix it). Inside, it's all ruins, too, in which a couple of rooms were cleared and some furniture was installed. Aunt's Reed's house is a real gentlemanly house, and she was nowhere near Mr Rochester in riches. Adele is portrayed like a cretin girl, interested only in clothes, jewels and presents. Mr Rochester is a self-satisfied creep, who knows that he has a pretty face but is constantly fishing for compliments. He is also constantly mentioning his 20K, in case the pretty face was not enough. Original Mr Rochester never mentioned the exact sum of his fortune, no gentleman ever would. Mr Rochester in series is also giggling all the time, like he is deranged, plays with Ouija board (the "real" one was an educated man and would have never stooped to such rubbish), and bullies and humiliates other people playing on their superstitions. But, he found his match in Jane Eyre. In a book, Jane was an educated woman and she was extremely modern, had a career, hobbies, dreams. In these series, she can't even educate Adele properly, who continues to wiggle and giggle. She, too, is fishing for the compliments all the time, playing the victim card ("I was not fed for eight years", "yes, sir, they didn't feed me", "yes, but remember, sir, I told you how they never fed me"). "Real" Jane had too much taste and tact to talk like this. She disclosed some of the abuse that went in the school when asked directly, but never went around with "woe to me, everyone was bad to me" look, permanently plastered to her face. The real Jane never shared a full story about her inheritance with Mr Rochester, the Jane in the series brags about it, to show off and to fish for compliment on her "generosity". She was judgmental, never did much but sketched something, left Adele entirely to her French bonne, and was preoccupied with the one thing only - how to attract a man. The actress is not plain at all either, though the blotched lip injections did disfigured her face, giving her lips a lop-sided look, with the upper lip constantly hovering over the lower one. Her female cousins, instead of being educated well bred women, talked at once and screeched like magpies, also giggled all the time God knows why, and could outgiggle Mr Rochester himself on a good day. The whole thing was turned into a cheap cheesy pseudoromantic farce. Poor author must be turning in her grave. I could never understood why people blotched books so. If the writer of the screenplay thought she was better than Bronte, she should have written her own screenplay, call it "An imbecilic governess captures a rich man" and produce it as a mini series, which, of course, no one would have wanted to watch. Instead, piggy riding on a great name, we are forced to watch complete and utter rubbish, which has absolutely nothing to do with the book.

More
rkrw
2014/07/19

Although this wasn't as polished as say the 1995 Pride and Prejudice, it was still very enjoyable to watch. Great casting! I've read that some think this Jane was not true to the one in the Novel, that she flirted and threw herself at Rodchester. I have to disagree. They did stay true to Jane being plain and humble. She was there to be a governess, and she did just that. Unless you see her having walks and talking to Rodchester as flirting. I do not. They showed Jane as being human and having feelings but being very respectable and not over-stepping her boundaries. They may not have shown her to be as outspoken as she is in the book but I almost prefer that when it came to Rodchester. I loved Ruth Wilson as Jane. She really brought that character to life. And of course Toby Stephens was fantastic as Rodchester. It's hard to explain there contributions unless you watch it for yourself. Most if not all adaptations have changes made so I wasn't too offended by the ones in this mini series. I do agree that more of her childhood could have been added and there being two scenes that I would have preferred being cut short or taken out due it being more sensual than what was expected in the novel. Other than that, I thoroughly enjoyed watching this.

More
jo-hanna
2013/05/17

I did enjoy this version, but having read the book, I was left feeling 'insulted' on Bronte's behalf, and a potentially excellent mini-series was marred. Why? Well, we are used to watching things on the screen that are greatly changed from reality, and one learns to overlook the offending details - otherwise nothing would be enjoyable; and there is nothing wrong with a little poetic license. However, when something claims to be an adaptation of a classic work, one would hope that it would retain the core elements of that work.. I tried not to dwell too much on the omission of huge chunks of the book which depicts Jane's 'pre-Rochester' life. I even tried not to feel too indignant at Jane's lack of 'plain-ness': I feel that Ruth Wilson is more attractive than Bronte intended Jane to be.. However, when we meet Mr Rochester, and he is considerably more attractive than depicted in the book, I began to feel that the makers of this adaptation didn't see where Bronte was coming from at all.. It wasn't about physical attraction. Lord knows we see enough of that everywhere. It was about the connection of their 'inner selves', a meeting of minds and souls! When this Mr Rochester asks Jane if she can make him more handsome, it just sounds silly! What I object to mostly however, is the scenes following the wedding prior to Jane leaving. This was just so not how it was written. It does not fit with the book/Jane/Bronte at all. It's just plain wrong! They also watered down Edward's injuries at the end, as if Jane couldn't have loved him the way he was; then failed to inform us of the improvement in his condition.I'm a sucker for a good romance, so I still enjoyed it, and had I not read the book first I would have scored it 9. However, a few marks must be lost for the disregard shown to Ms Bronte's work.I'll watch the 1973 then 83 versions next. I only wish I'd read this stuff years ago!

More
Watch Instant, Get Started Now Watch Instant, Get Started Now