Forget Bond - Timothy Dalton is the ultimate Mr Rochester

The new "Jane Eyre" film with Mia Wasikowska and Michael Fassbender does most things right. It doesn't mess around with the story and tells it effectively. It is well acted and beautifully shot. It certainly beats the feature film with Charlotte Gainsbourg and William Hurt hands down (though she was good). And yet, it can't really replace the TV adaptation from the 1980s with Zelah Clarke and Timothy Dalton in my affections.

One problem is the film format, of course. Films should not drag on forever, so there's limited time to tell the story in. It is easy to get restless in a cinema, where you are a more or less captive audience with limited access to loos. A TV series, on the other hand, can go on for as long as the producer's on board, so there's more time to let the action unfold. Apart from that, though, it's just difficult for any production - on film or on TV - to beat the pairing of Clarke and Dalton.

It's strange that Mr Rochester should be so hard to get right. In the many "Jane Eyre" adaptations I've seen, Jane has mostly been convincing, though it's hard to match Clarke's fairy looks and fiery temperament. But Rochester is trickier. As I've already mentioned somewhere long ago, he is one of the few heroes I really have time for. Ironically, though, his status as "the thinking woman's crumpet" may be part of the problem. William Hurt, Toby Stephens and the latest Rochester Michael Fassbender are all good-looking in a typically brainy way. I'd happily drool over at least the latter two in any role you care to mention, but I must admit they may not be quite saturnine enough for Mr Rochester. I did not care for Ciarán Hinds's Rochester at all, but like it or not, looks-wise he comes a great deal closer to what Charlotte Brontë had in mind than slim and polished Stephens.

Then there's Rochester's manner. Though he should be brainy, he should also be Byronic. Hurt is wet, Stephens is very likeable but not overly passionate, and Fassbender also seems to hold back. They all appear slightly embarrassed by Rochester's Byronic side and tend to downplay his more volcanic outbursts.

Now Dalton, on the other hand, gives them everything he's got. He is not ashamed of his lines and sees no reason to appear apologetic when he talks about cords snapping and inward bleeding. A man who can carry off the gypsy scene doesn't have to be afraid of anything. He also has a good deal of warmth and humour. The disgust with which he pronounces St John's name in his jealous fit at the end - "that man Rivers! SIN-John Rivers" - is unforgettable. Finally, he has the advantage of looking properly dark and wild. He's too handsome for Rochester, of course, but then so is nearly everyone who's played him. Jane's "No sir", as answer to the question whether she finds Mr Rochester handsome, seldom rings quite true (well, maybe with Orson Welles).

There is a lot of carping about Timothy Dalton's take on Bond, and I admit he's not quite my idea of 007, though that is not necessarily a bad thing. (Also, Dalton was hardly to blame for the ghastly "Licence to Kill" which wasn't Bond-like in the least - exploding petrol tanks and drug-dealing instead of cats and eccentric sidekicks? Horror!) But who cares if he nailed Bond? He did one better - he nailed Mr Rochester.