The problem with the 2011 version is that at the end, Jane just shows up at Rochester's door and then the scene ends. It doesn't show the touching reunification scene. A big let down.
I'm so glad so many people like the '83 version (it's a year older than me!) - my only real issue with it, is when Rochester asks Jane, if she thinks him handsome, & she's like "Oh, no, Sir!" - & I'm just sitting here cackling, thinking, 'Girl, you're *delusional* !' I mean, I know it was in the book- but still... TD was an absolute dreamboat, & gruff or not- he was _so_ smexy!
I liked that version too, but I just think that Jane is too old in this version. She's supposed to be 18!!! When I was 18, I was tiny and unassuming girl, and it gets on my nerves when they cast some obviously gorgeous lady in her late 20 lol. I'm 29 and in no way I look like when I was 18😀 well, maybe just the height. And Rochester here too was waaaaay to conventionally handsome. Atleast their height difference are on point and overall story depiction is very good. I like this movie series for that.
@@burvjuzizlis22 But she had the perfect 'plain, & little' aspect- Zelah Clarke looked perfect- I think getting the look of the characters accurate to their book descriptions is half the battle, because the bean-counters want bankable stars & recognisable faces- to sell the film/ TV project - I suppose it's all ultimately a juggling act/ balancing act...
Wow, it's amazing how different people perceive performances so differently! I need to rewatch some of them but at least as of now, my choices would be so different! I guess that's what makes horse racing.
Wow, this was your first video? This was such a great ranking video-I loved how you went about ranking it separately instead of the whole movie. I’m subbing😁
My favourite adaptation is bbc 2006 version because they both look similar as described in book and they have seriously good chemistry. The added scene where he begs her to stay...just...👌🏻 My only complaint was about Ms Ingram because she was supposed to have this dark haired beauty but she's just.. Blonde..and a bit too kind.
Agree! It has everything : The right amount and very accurate story depiction and lines Actors are true to description and their chemistry is seriously good Ruth Wilson is just soooo good at portraying an 18 yo girls 1st love emotions. Maybe because she was around the same age actually, as well as Toby Stephens was around 38, as it should have been. And it doesn't look creepy! It looks true.
Maybe, but the Jane was just too beautiful 🤣and too tall. And too old. She's supposed to be this plain, short, tiny 18 yo girl, and I actually was that way when I was 18, so i t gets on my nerves when the actress is too old or too classical pretty, or too tall.🤣
@@burvjuzizlis22 have never read the book. But even if i had, I don't expect a movie to be faithful to how the character in a books looks or their age. I do expect them to be faithful to the nature of the character. So i was not happy with the ending of Altman's version of The Long Goodbye"
Thanks for this video. When I was a kid a woman still couldn’t open her own credit card or have a bank account without her husband co-signing. Modern feminists do not understand that the patriarchy is still slow to loosen it’s grip, still trying to take back it’s control, and they don’t see Jane’s situation in life through the same lens as women my age. It remains one of my favorite books ever.
There was an audio version with Ciaran Hinds and Sophie Thompson, where Ciaran Hinds does a much better Rochester than he did on film. You might want to check out the 1970 version and the 1973 version.
The guy in the 4th place, I just couldn't finish that movie. He's just...so blonde! Like Rochester was supposed to have this black shaggy hair which my 16 yo self just looooved 🤣🤣 but this one is just..blonde..an kind of balding?
I'm like you in that I really dislike the Ciaran Hinds/Samantha Morton version. My favorite versions are 1983, 1973, and 1970. The 2006 and 2011 versions are very good. 1983 and 1973 are the longest and the most faithful to the book. The 1970 version has a beautiful score -- John Williams wrote it -- but the movie has fallen into the public domain, so it is hard to get a good copy of it. The 1940s version score was written by Bernard Hermann (who wrote the score of a lot of Hitchcock movies), and that is good too. There are some laughably bad versions of Jane Eyre too -- just wait until you see the 1934 version. The Charleton Heston version and the Patrick McNee versions are pretty bad. Jerome Weiselberry has reviews of practically every version. I think the litmus test of a faithful version is the first moment Rochester calls Jane Eyre by her first name. It is very significant and revealing. It is near the end of the fire scene when he thanks her for saving his life. If a Rochester calls her by her first name too soon, the adapter does really get the book or the time period.
Rochester scale: I agree with 1997… meh. I don’t agree with the Timothy Dalton Fan Girl Club. He is so pretty (he’s not supposed to be) and his voice is so monotone. It’s a joke at our house when he says, “You must be tenacious of life.” that we repeat often! Both of these Rochesters seem villainous in the way they are so unapproachable and then spring the entrapment of Jane at the alter. William Hurt is stunted with a terrible script but still shows the real struggle he loses as he tries to to deny himself a real relationship as opposed to the affectations from the women that had he had always been surrounded. Both twenty first century Rochesters are really good but are held back by a Hollywood feel to the movies… and they’re both too pretty. An honest depiction would be someone that Blanche would only see because of the promise of a good financial arrangement. You’re right that many readers fast forward to the night Rochester was bewitched and again when Jane returns at the end. Orson Welles is perfect for that reader. Joan Fontaine is a Jane that would compete well in your rating system but the screenplay would flunk. I appreciated your post!
Joan is waaaaay too beau,they both are in that depiction. And she's quite tall aswell. I saw that movie, it's far from the story but oh well, it's old.
![Tier Ranking Mr. Rochester: Six Actors/ One Sexy Jerk [CC]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/UXdmV8Qf-Ps/mqdefault.jpg)
![Tier Ranking Mr. Rochester: Six Actors/ One Sexy Jerk [CC]](/img/tr.png)
The problem with the 2011 version is that at the end, Jane just shows up at Rochester's door and then the scene ends. It doesn't show the touching reunification scene. A big let down.
I'm so glad so many people like the '83 version (it's a year older than me!) - my only real issue with it, is when Rochester asks Jane, if she thinks him handsome, & she's like "Oh, no, Sir!" - & I'm just sitting here cackling, thinking, 'Girl, you're *delusional* !'
I mean, I know it was in the book- but still... TD was an absolute dreamboat, & gruff or not- he was _so_ smexy!
I liked that version too, but I just think that Jane is too old in this version. She's supposed to be 18!!! When I was 18, I was tiny and unassuming girl, and it gets on my nerves when they cast some obviously gorgeous lady in her late 20 lol. I'm 29 and in no way I look like when I was 18😀 well, maybe just the height. And Rochester here too was waaaaay to conventionally handsome. Atleast their height difference are on point and overall story depiction is very good. I like this movie series for that.
@@burvjuzizlis22
But she had the perfect 'plain, & little' aspect- Zelah Clarke looked perfect- I think getting the look of the characters accurate to their book descriptions is half the battle, because the bean-counters want bankable stars & recognisable faces- to sell the film/ TV project - I suppose it's all ultimately a juggling act/ balancing act...
What about the 1973 miniseries version?
I love the fortune teller scene in the book because it is masterfully written.
TD & ZC are the ultimate Jane & Edward. Plus that version has the time to be faithful to the book. Your assessments are great fun, thanks 😊
Wow, it's amazing how different people perceive performances so differently! I need to rewatch some of them but at least as of now, my choices would be so different! I guess that's what makes horse racing.
And wish you had included Orson Welles and Joan Fontaine 1943 version.
Really enjoyed this. Original take on productions of Jane Eyre, and very amusing at times. More please.
Wow, this was your first video? This was such a great ranking video-I loved how you went about ranking it separately instead of the whole movie. I’m subbing😁
What about rating Blanche Ingrams? Your synopsis made me laugh. Well done 😀
I don't agree. The 1997 one was one of the best versions. The emotion and feeling were more genuine.
My favourite adaptation is bbc 2006 version because they both look similar as described in book and they have seriously good chemistry. The added scene where he begs her to stay...just...👌🏻 My only complaint was about Ms Ingram because she was supposed to have this dark haired beauty but she's just.. Blonde..and a bit too kind.
Totally agree 💯
I thought 2006 was by far the most enjoyable.
Agree! It has everything :
The right amount and very accurate story depiction and lines
Actors are true to description and their chemistry is seriously good
Ruth Wilson is just soooo good at portraying an 18 yo girls 1st love emotions. Maybe because she was around the same age actually, as well as Toby Stephens was around 38, as it should have been. And it doesn't look creepy! It looks true.
I recommend the 1944 movie. Great performance by Orson Welles as Rochester.
Maybe, but the Jane was just too beautiful 🤣and too tall. And too old. She's supposed to be this plain, short, tiny 18 yo girl, and I actually was that way when I was 18, so i t gets on my nerves when the actress is too old or too classical pretty, or too tall.🤣
@@burvjuzizlis22 have never read the book. But even if i had, I don't expect a movie to be faithful to how the character in a books looks or their age.
I do expect them to be faithful to the nature of the character.
So i was not happy with the ending of Altman's version of The Long Goodbye"
Great video! Just finished the book and excited to watch some adaptations
I love this so much!! Thanks for making it
Really fun, loved the video
Thanks for this video. When I was a kid a woman still couldn’t open her own credit card or have a bank account without her husband co-signing. Modern feminists do not understand that the patriarchy is still slow to loosen it’s grip, still trying to take back it’s control, and they don’t see Jane’s situation in life through the same lens as women my age. It remains one of my favorite books ever.
There was an audio version with Ciaran Hinds and Sophie Thompson, where Ciaran Hinds does a much better Rochester than he did on film. You might want to check out the 1970 version and the 1973 version.
I, a Czech, found the Czechoslovak adaptation and that was my first introduction to fortune teller scene. I did not read the book.
I wheezed.
You forgot "Jane Eyre" (BBC TV, 1973). 😕
I actually loved childhood chapters.
Hinds was most like the book description
I hated the kissing scene 🫠he just kinda..licked her face there 😵💫 disturbing stuff 😀
I loved it ❤❤❤
Why are you hung on age gaps? In the past they were acceptable and still are in some countries. Why are you narrow minded?
The guy in the 4th place, I just couldn't finish that movie. He's just...so blonde! Like Rochester was supposed to have this black shaggy hair which my 16 yo self just looooved 🤣🤣 but this one is just..blonde..an kind of balding?
I'm like you in that I really dislike the Ciaran Hinds/Samantha Morton version. My favorite versions are 1983, 1973, and 1970. The 2006 and 2011 versions are very good. 1983 and 1973 are the longest and the most faithful to the book. The 1970 version has a beautiful score -- John Williams wrote it -- but the movie has fallen into the public domain, so it is hard to get a good copy of it. The 1940s version score was written by Bernard Hermann (who wrote the score of a lot of Hitchcock movies), and that is good too. There are some laughably bad versions of Jane Eyre too -- just wait until you see the 1934 version. The Charleton Heston version and the Patrick McNee versions are pretty bad. Jerome Weiselberry has reviews of practically every version. I think the litmus test of a faithful version is the first moment Rochester calls Jane Eyre by her first name. It is very significant and revealing. It is near the end of the fire scene when he thanks her for saving his life. If a Rochester calls her by her first name too soon, the adapter does really get the book or the time period.
Charlotte Gainsbourg is half French and half English.
Rochester scale: I agree with 1997… meh. I don’t agree with the Timothy Dalton Fan Girl Club. He is so pretty (he’s not supposed to be) and his voice is so monotone. It’s a joke at our house when he says, “You must be tenacious of life.” that we repeat often! Both of these Rochesters seem villainous in the way they are so unapproachable and then spring the entrapment of Jane at the alter. William Hurt is stunted with a terrible script but still shows the real struggle he loses as he tries to to deny himself a real relationship as opposed to the affectations from the women that had he had always been surrounded.
Both twenty first century Rochesters are really good but are held back by a Hollywood feel to the movies… and they’re both too pretty. An honest depiction would be someone that Blanche would only see because of the promise of a good financial arrangement.
You’re right that many readers fast forward to the night Rochester was bewitched and again when Jane returns at the end. Orson Welles is perfect for that reader. Joan Fontaine is a Jane that would compete well in your rating system but the screenplay would flunk.
I appreciated your post!
Joan is waaaaay too beau,they both are in that depiction. And she's quite tall aswell. I saw that movie, it's far from the story but oh well, it's old.