I enjoyed the four-part film very much. =) I’ve never read the book, but I’m sure the movie was different in many aspects. The end was, for example. (I did read a little on the latter part of the novel). The cast was very good, for they were all talented actors and actresses. I think I’d like to read the book, too, but I’m not quite sure. Right now I’m reading North and South and I’m slowly realizing the many differences of movie and novel.

I like Molly Gibson. She’s the dependable sort of person - one you’d trust and confide in, which is why she was a receiver and keeper of most of the secrets of the other people around her. I am glad it turned out well with Roger. I thought he had liked her first, until Cynthia’s beauty blinded him. And I was relieved Cynthia did not end up with Mr Preston, even if it would’ve been for revenge for they’d make a miserable couple.

I’ve watched North and South (2004) this morning (marathoned the 4 episodes). I WANT MR. THORNTON. LOL.

I’ve never read the novel (but I want to now, after seeing the film). Richard Armitage is hot. LOL. xD Anyway, it was a wonderful mirror of social issues and the master vs. worker conflict. The cast was excellent and the story, though serious, was something new for me (since the others that I’ve recently watched has a different theme from this. Jane Austen’s novels certainly has a lighter feel to it). Daniela Denby-Ashe was a wonderful Margaret Hale and I don’t even need to say how excellent Richard Armitage was as Mr. Thornton. Not that I’ve read the novel to compare them and the film with it, but you know a good actor/actress when you see one.

I’m going to look for a published version of the book (because even though you could read it online, I’d rather read classics on a couch or sofa or while eating - which I can’t do if I had to read it using the computer). I already plan on going to the bookstore this Tuesday with a friend, so I’ll be spending a fortune (OK, not really. :P) for a few titles I’d love to have.

I just watched the BBC drama version of Jane Eyre, aired in 2006 (at least in the UK. In other countries, it was shown early this year). It was infinitely better and more gratifying than the 1996 production that we were unfortunate enough to watch in school. Lles said, on seeing Mr. Rochester’s picture, that the Mr. Rochester of the 2006 adaptation was nearly as he had imagined him to be.

I enjoyed this more than the other version because Ruth Wilson was able to project Jane’s strength in character and image. She didn’t seem to cower like the Jane of the 1996 film. Toby Stephens was an excellent Mr. Rochester - gruff, selfish, commanding, finding amusement in the discomfort of others. And Adele was lovely and amusing, talking with her French accent and singing a song not appropriate for her age or for polite company. xD Ha! However, Adele - Cosima Littlewood - did not have much feeling in a few scenes but despite the fact that she wasn’t an excellent child actress, she was a good one. =) I was also impressed at the similarity of the child-Jane to the woman-Jane. I’m glad they found two people who had a similarity to the other that you can easily believe that the child-Jane grew up to look like the woman-Jane (hope that wasn’t confusing, LOL).

One of the many differences from the book in this film is that Mr. Rochester did not end up losing a hand and an eye in the end. Which left him looking more pleasant than what he was supposed to end up looking. It also disappointed me that they didn’t have the scene where the child-Jane shouted at Mrs. Reed. There was a part where she answered back, yes, but I’d like to see Mrs. Reed looking livid. An advantage of this film is that it lasted nearly four hours - and with that length of time, it covered most of the important parts of the books. I was also glad to see Jane’s paintings. It didn’t get a very long screen time but it was still interesting and an important part of the novel. =)

It’s obvious that there’s more passion between Mr. Rochester and Jane here. xD Heh, I would’ve told them to, “Get a room,” in that last scene. It wasn’t hard to know where that was going.

I also found an interesting, well-written fan fiction: Atherton Hall: A Sequel to Jane Eyre. It’s faithful to the characters and probably better than most of the fan fics out there that it deserves more reviews than the mere thirty-two. D:

I was able to indulge myself with the ITV adaptations of Jane Austen’s novels. Being a fan, I was glad to have watched them. I enjoyed them very much and would encourage others to watch them as well. It quenched my thirst for Victorian-era movies and it’s something that isn’t Pride and Prejudice. I’m glad that they did films of her other novels, even to just remind everyone that Pride and Prejudice isn’t her only work, LOL.

Emma - physically, the characters were not as I originally imagined them to be, and there were times I thought that Mr. Knightly did not have the strength of character that I imagined he possessed. The Mr. Knightly in the 2007 adaptation was neither able to get my attention nor impressed me, as much as he did in the book itself. Emma did well as a spoiled daughter of a wealthy man, used to giving orders and having her ways (though more toned down than the image I created of her from reading the novel - with less qualities of a ‘man’) and Harriet Smith was not as stupid as I thought her to be - in the movie at least. In the book it seemed she had less sense. Meanwhile, Emma’s father was quite out-of-character. He wasn’t the old man resigned to being sick, stuck at home, and needy of her daughter. He was more…say, healthy? And outgoing.

Mansfield Park - it is my favorite among the Jane Austen novels but the movie was the least. In fact, it was a disappointment. Fanny Price looked different in my imaginations, but it was her altered personality that I disliked so much. The movie was not very faithful to the Fanny Price of the novel. She had too much strength of character, too much confidence, too much joy. (more…)