Genres

Visitors Review

April 2012-05-24 23:45:50

Jane Eyre Has No Charm

I've read Jane Eyre and seen every movie adaptation made. This is by far one of the worst re-makes of all. There was so much left out that unless you've read the book you won't understand a lot of what is going on. The acting was so-so. None of the characters, not even Jane, was likeable. Her humor and playfulness were gone. Mr. Rochester was down-right creepy and it doesn't make sense (in this adaptation) that Jane would fall for him. He has no personality. Even Judi Dench as Mrs. Fairfax was a disappointment.A lot of the movie was taken up with watching the characters silently walking or thinking or just being. It moved so slowly that I was completely bored. I usually love period pieces but this was badly, badly done.

creativeben 2012-05-24 06:09:14

Slow in pace, but the slightly interesting characters keep you watching

"Jane Eyre" is one of those films where you want to praise the film asa classic, but in fact it is not as good as you want it to be. Before Iexplain the reason why, the positives of this film is the cast. Miaportrays Jane very well and is a great watch, also Michael as Mr.Rochester plays the mysterious character who has a hidden secret verywell as well. The visuals of the film is brilliant, very bleak andbeautiful. Yet even though there was a story there it didn't feel likemuch of a story, even though it's not a weak story it just felt likethere was not much to it. Also the romance of Jane and Mr. Rochesterfelt quite rushed despite the fact that both actors had a goodchemistry. At the end of the day it all depends on taste, I likestories like "Pride and Prejudice", "Sense and Sensibility" etc.. butBronte's "Jane Eyre" didn't do it for me. Not a bad film, but not myfavourite film.

2012-05-23 21:55:05

Disappointment

This review is from: Jane Eyre (Amazon Instant Video) I was excited to see this- it had some great reviews and Jane Eyre is one of my favorite books. This was a letdown. Perhaps a viewer who has not read the book would enjoy it, but I could not get into this adaptation. Thank goodness for Judi Dench, who was this movie's only saving grace.

2012-05-23 04:50:07

A Near Definitive JANE EYRE

Though there have been many versions of Charlotte Brontë's 1847 Victorian novel JANE EYRE the current incarnation as sensitively written for the screen by Moira Buffini and directed by Cary Joji Fukunaga at least for this viewer is the strongest thus far. Much of the flavor of this production is due to the spectacularly atmospheric production design by Will Hughes-Jones, the appropriately Victorian musical score by Dario Marianelli and the fine cinematography by Adriano Goldman. And added to the responsible staff should be mentioned the casting by Nina Gold who has assembled a mixture of famous actors with a supporting cast of excellent neophytes.The surprise member of the cast is Mia Wasikowska as the most fully realized Jane Eyre on film (and that is in the company of such greats as Charlotte Gainsbourg, Samantha Morton, Susannah York, Zelah Clarke, Sally Ann Howes to mention a few). Wasikowska keeps Jane's focus clear throughout, never bending from her individuality nor her convictions. She is completely believable in the role of a Governess to Adèle (Romy Settbon Moore), a brave young outspoken lass to her evil Aunt (Sally Hawkins), a good friend to the housekeeper (Judi Dench), a responsible teacher for the missionary St John Rivers (Jamie Bell) and his sisters Diana (Holliday Grainger) and Mary (Tamzin Merchant), and most importantly she stands up to her own coming of womanhood to the harsh Edward Fairfax Rochester(Michael Fassbender). The story weaves back and forth and in this non-linear style we grasp the real essence of how Jane Eyre grows into the woman she becomes - despite a wretched childhood with her aunt, her misery n the boarding school, and her sense of being a poor girl who must be in service to the wealthy. It all works very well, even the treatment of Rochester's mad wife who dwells in the upper room of the mansion and haunts those below until she comes to an end. Though the story does not end happily, it provides a very satisfactory concept of life in the Victorian era.But sailing above everything is relative newcomer Mia Wasikowska in a powerful performance, equaled by her love interest Michael Fassbinder. This is an exceptional film worthy of awards and wide attention. August 11

2012-05-22 20:18:37

Jane Eyre DVD

This review is from: Jane Eyre (DVD) Brilliant Movie - would have to say I find it the best Jane Eyre movie released to date. Just a beautiful movie.

lewiskendell 2012-05-22 03:12:32

A new adaptation with a lot to offer.

First of all, this is a gorgeous movie. Every indoor shot, close-up,and sweeping view of the landscape is an example of how cinematographycan elevate a movie. Jane Eyre is a classic story for a reason, andthis is as fine an adaptation I've encountered with great actingall-around, but it's the visuals and Gothic atmosphere that really mademe enjoy this as much as I did. On the negative side, there never really seemed to be enoughinteraction between the characters to justify their attachments to oneanother. I'm speaking specifically of Jane and Rochester, who areportrayed as being totally in love with each other without much of areason why ever seen by the audience.That's a small complaint, though, and one that's easily overlooked ifyou're watching the movie for more than just the romantic aspect, likeI was. I've got to admit, Mia Wasikowska was an excellent Jane. She fitinto the time and place shown like a hand in a glove, naturallyspeaking the poetic dialogue. Michael Fassbender continues hisinexorable climb to A-list actor status, and Judi Dench (who I didn'teven know was in the movie until I saw her on the screen), is a welcomepresence, as always. Jane Eyre isn't a perfect movie, but for me, itsstrengths far outweighed its flaws.  

kkboyd-1 2012-05-21 20:51:13

A dark and glossy snorefest

I rented this because of all the rave reviews. They were highlyexaggerated. Is the film beautiful? I suppose so, what you can see inthe gloomy sets, whole rooms lit only by a small fire. Is Janeenchanting? Mia W, is so sedate, sitting ramrod straight and neverraising her voice even a half tone, that I found it difficult tobelieve Mr. Rochester had been o'erthrown with love.And what about Mr. R? He was textbook handsome, not craggy andtortured. He so obviously had a Good Heart beneath the sulks andtantrums, that he was nothing (and Jane agreed) to be the least afraidof.How about Judy Densch as the housekeeper? Agreeable but a waste oftalent. The young Adele? Adnoidal but adequate.What had me giving up fairly early in the film was the glacial pacing.It's a slow moving story in essence but to drag it out with woodenperformances in the dark was just too much for me. I love the book andother adaptations. Even if this were the first film version I ever saw,I think I would have thrown in the towel out of boredom.

Robert W. 2012-05-21 11:43:32

My first Jane Eyre experience is a good one

I am a bit of an English classics buff but I have never read Jane Eyre,nor have I ever seen any cinematic version of it. But I was visitingthe city and I try to see some unique indie type films and I'm glad Isaw Jane Eyre. It probably is no secret to anyone that Jane Eyre is abit of a slow story. The film is no different, it unfolds very slowlyand the world of Jane Eyre is a little bleak at times so it feelsalmost depressing which does hamper the enjoyment just a little bit.But this is also probably the perfect setting for this story. It has abit of a Sound of Music quality love story but with a dark twisted endto it all as well. It also has a definitive type Dickens' feel to thestory and the world they create absolutely transports you to the erawhich is so vital for a story like this. If you are a lover of drama orperiod pieces then you will probably fall in love with Jane Eyre. Ilike drama, and enjoy period pieces so for me Jane Eyre was enjoyablebut at the same time moved a little slowly for me, had some moments ofbeing really dry but it does win you over in the end.Voted as one of Variety's ten Actors to watch Mia Wasikowska follows upher billion dollar role as Alice, in Tim Burton's Alice in Wonderlandwith Jane Eyre. While it might not make a billion bucks she leads thefilm with style grace and distinctive talent. She is definitely someoneto watch in Hollywood and her chemistry on screen is palpable. MichaelFassbender plays the brooding rich man whom Jane Eyre goes to work forand eventually breaks down his walls and the two fall in love.Fassbender is excellent, proving again for the second time in 2011(Xmen First Class) that he is a power to be reckoned with in the actingcommunity. Ten years Washikowska's senior the two of them have terrificchemistry and their twisted romance carries the film. The rest of thecast are mostly supporting characters but nonetheless vital to thestory and they all do an excellent job. Sally Hawkin's as the abusiveaunt does a truly terrific job, Valentina Cervi also does anoutstanding job in a small role as Rochester's disturbed first wife.The host of other actors have small but important roles and everyoneworks well together.Cinematographer Cary Fukunaga takes the directors chair and it is easyto see his background in his work on Jane Eyre. Every shot is carefullyplanned the bleak setting is very moving. I have not seen any of hisother directorial work but I'm sure he works at bringing the scene tolife. My only issue with the film is the pacing and yes many will say Ishould understand that the pace of such a story is slow but personallyfor me it just dragged a little too much meaning some of the mostdramatic moments weren't quite enough to carry the film. Nonetheless Ican understand those that love the story, or this type of film couldadore this movie because it is endearing the performances are top notchso I encourage anyone out there to check this version out! 7/10

kosmasp 2012-05-20 15:27:29

Alice in Jayne Eyre-land

I don't really think that people will think of Alice in Wonderland,when they see the main actress. She is too good for anyone to eventhink about the other movie. While I haven't read or seen a prior workof art on the subject matter, I really liked the movie. Theperformances are superb (even if as I understand Michael Fassbenderscharacter was much older and uglier in the book or so I've been told)and the script does work in the environment it places itself.But it's about the subtle performances and about things that are notbeing said out loud. If you like those things, then you will like themovie too. Don't expect it to be grandiose or spectacular, but try toembrace the movie as it is, if you can.

2012-05-20 09:09:26

Amazing movie!

This review is from: Jane Eyre (DVD) This is such a good adaptation! Anyone in love with the book needs to see this one! You will die of girliness and passionate, gothic love :)

2012-05-20 00:35:26

Ok. So I'm about to make Bronte' fan's hate me.....

This movie was GREAT to me! This movie actually made me like and tolerate Charlotte Bronte's plotting skills for the story-line of Jane Eyre. Before, I felt she had none. Being a HUGE fan of classics, I've tried, seriously folks, to palate the Bronte' sisters books and found them as lively as watching paint dry under the influence of prescription cold medicine. I just can't do it. I've read Jane Austen. LOVE HER!!!! I've read Louisa May Alcott, adore her writings and not just Little Women, I also like Little Men, and Jo's Boy's the sequels. This movie, however, maybe because it may be a departure from her original book, I loved! Don't really know, just my opinion.

2012-05-19 12:50:51

Disappointed

This review is from: Jane Eyre (Amazon Instant Video) I pre ordered this and was really looking forward to seeing it but right from the first scenes I was very disappointed. I didn't like that they went on and on with her leaving and trudging around after discovering he was married before they finally got around to getting on with the story. Plus it gave away a latter part of the story. Then for a long time they jumped back and forth in the story. Nothing wrong with the casting. I thought all were good. I would just have preferred that the movie follow the book more closely. I wont look at it again and will resell it at a half price store.

2012-05-18 19:55:48

Just another perfect example of a literary classic on the big screen

This review is from: Jane Eyre (DVD) I loved this version of the classic gothic novel Jane Eyre by Charlotte Bronte. Michael and Mia make the most intriging pair.

Karen 2012-05-18 02:52:01

Beautiful Cinematography

I loved this movie. I am a big Jane Eyre fan and thought the cinematography was outstanding. This version was different than prior versions, but that's ok it was a fresh way of looking at it. It was fast paced and held my interest the entire 2 hrs. If you love period movies you will love this one.

2012-05-17 20:45:27

Great, but too short

I absolutely enjoyed this film! While I am a true fan of the 2006 version of Jane Eyre, I must admit to being a HUGE Michael Fassbender fan and have been looking forward to seeing this adaptation of the film since hearing about it last year. I think Fassbender did a terrific portrayal of Mr. Rochester, and Mia shocked me with her perfect rendition of Jane. Unfortunately, I did not get a chance to view this film in the theater but sure wish I would've! I really missed out! Immediately after watching it, I wanted to watch it again. Casting for this film was perfect, and the director did a fantastic job with the overall setting and cinematography. The lighting/setting was appropriately dark and gloomy. If you are a fan of period films, you will not be disappointed. My only complaint is I wish the film would have been a bit longer. I wanted MORE, and I feel many key details and important parts from the book were left out in this film adaptation. Nevertheless, I would watch it again. In fact, I will be purchasing it to add to BBC collection! I am holding off for a while in hopes that an alternate version/director's cut will be released soon :)

Pete_Tranters_Sister 2012-05-17 17:26:38

Worst Adaptation Ever

Firstly, I'm a big fan of the book and yes I know that it is notpossible to put everything on screen, but I was amazed that whoeveradapted this film managed to make such a mess of it. It seemed to melike the script consisted merely of bullet points - scenes were slappedup on screen with no smooth segue between them, leading to a sloppydisjointed movie that had no real plot development, no characterisationand no attraction whatsoever. The pivotal moments of Jane's life - herteaching career, her art, her friendship with Helen, her relationshipwith her aunt, her empathy with Adele the unwanted child - are glossedover in seconds. Even the romance happens overnight - there's no buildup.It doesn't help that Mia Wasikowska and Michael Fassbender haveabsolutely zero chemistry. Wasikowska plays Jane as a naive lovesickchild but Fassbender (one of my favourite actors) is the realdisappointment. His Rochester is surly and domineering - there is noneof the warmth or intelligence that attracts Jane. The romance is nevercultivated - he and Jane hardly have any interaction and so thedeclaration of love comes out of nowhere and doesn't convince on anylevel. And yet again, we have two very attractive actors portrayingcharacters that are supposed to be plain and damaged. A goodperformance could have transcended this (see Timothy Dalton in the BBCTV series), but neither Wasikowska or Fassbender deliver. Jamie Bell isas good as the poor script allows him to be. Judi Dench plays JudiDench as usual but it doesn't matter because the part of Mrs Fairfax isutterly diminished. Her line about not knowing Rochester was marrieddemonstrates the asinine stupidity the story has been reduced to -she's been Rochester's head housekeeper all his life but didn't noticethat (a) he was married and (b) the mad wife was locked up in theattic? Ridiculous.Main problems with this movie:1. Why is Jane is continually portrayed as meek and lowly. She isn't.She's passionate and strong willed - that's why her aunt hates her andwhy she has such a rough time at Lowood. It is Helen that teaches herstoicism and acceptance and to subdue her feelings. It is this passionthat leads her to Thornfield and it's the suppressed passion beneaththe surface that attracts Rochester and why he tries so hard to get herto show it by using Blanche Ingram. Naive little Jane being seduced byher employer is sleazy rather than romantic. And Jane is denied of hertrue strong-minded character.2. Why are the film makers so loathe to show the religious faith thatis a theme of the book? Helen teaches it to Jane - it's part of whereJane gets her strength. It's why she forgives her aunt. It's also whyshe leaves Rochester rather than live with him in sin as he wants herto do. Later, Jane meets St John Rivers and sees that he has given uplove to do God's work, but she cannot bring herself to do the same -she cannot exist without love and she goes back to Rochester. It's akey element that this movie ignores. St John consequently comes acrossas a bit of a psycho when he's trying to persuade Jane to marry him.3. This movie portrays the romance between Jane and Rochester as alllingering looks and panting breaths. The attraction between Jane andRochester is not physical - it is intellectual. Rochester admires theway that Jane is plain-speaking with him in spite of the difference intheir social status. Jane likes that he treats her as an equal with abrain. And they are kindred spirits. They both suffered abuse aschildren - Jane at the hands of her aunt, Rochester by his domineeringfather who tricked him into a marriage of convenience with a mad woman.They both suppress emotion and their own happiness in favour of doingthe right thing. It is never about love at first sight.4. They cut out all the Gothic parts which are endemic to the story.The creepiness of Thornfield juxtaposed with the fact that it is thehappiest home Jane has ever had; the splitting of the tree by lightningafter they kiss; the sinister build up of Bertha's appearance. Allthese elements are symbolic of Jane and Rochester's relationship andit's unconscionable that they have been left out here. Even Jane andRochester's first meeting is dull when it should have a magicalquality. Rochester sees Jane as otherworldly, bewitching his horse inthe mist, and it sets the tone of their relationship. William Hurt didit better and he's not considered the best Rochester by a long shot. Given that there have been so many versions of Jane Eyre it is a realaccomplishment to make one that so utterly strips the story ofeverything that makes it a classic. All we have been left with here isa facile period romance between two simpering characters. Absolutelydire.

retrojester20 2012-05-17 01:46:14

Good version, but I'm still looking for the best.

I've been a fan of the Jane Eyre novel for years. I've read the bookcountless times, and practically have it memorized. I've seen almostever film/TV adaption there is, and I can honestly say that this one isone of the best I've seen.Although there were a few lines from the book that were left out, thedialogue mostly stayed true to the original novel. I appreciated that alot. Mia and Michael both played their parts wonderfully. I think they arethe best actors to ever play Jane and Edward. Also, I think the lookedthe part of the characters.The only main disappointment I had with this movie is that they leftthe ending scene of the book out of it. I wish the movie had been about20- 30 minutes longer, just to add a few more details to certain partsof it. Overall, a very good movie. 8 out of 10 stars.

MYeah_Gorlomi 2012-05-16 14:26:34

Beautiful, performed superbly by Mia Wasikowska, and appropriately subtle.

'm gonna get into my review of Jane Eyre, based on the classic novel byCharlotte Bronte.Centering on young, seemingly emotionless girl, Jane Eyre (Playedterrifically by Mia Wasikowska), the film follows her struggles throughan orphaned childhood, and then to the age of 19, a time where she nowworks as a governess for a rich, but cold Englishman (Played by MichaelFassbender). Over time, it appears as though the two of them fall forone another, and it seems as if Jane has finally become happy, but whatfollows is a series of mysterious twists, and routes paved withemotional devastation.Jane Eyre, to the mistaken eye, could strike someone as being justanother overly produced period drama - akin to The Young Victoria -without even having seen it. To the eye willing to give it a chance,the film is a more thoughtful, austere, and subtle piece ofstorytelling. Director Cary Fukunaga and screenwriter Moira Buffinitake time to develop their characters and story lines withoutcompromising the tone they establish.This is just as much a benefit to the actors as it is to the story,including miss Wasikowska. A gem of a performer, indeed, she embodiesthe role of Jane seamlessly. Though her facial expressions may appeardry, the true acting lies within her eyes, and what her character isthinking. It's a powerful expression of quiet emotion that easily makesher the MVP of the cast, and that's saying something, considering thatshe has to hold her own against the likes of Michael Fassbender andJudi Dench.I must also applaud the film's visual designers for contributing lovelywork to the movie. The cinematography is soft and flowing, theproduction design is exceptionally conceived, and the costumes aredesigned with typical period appropriate elegance, but also withcharacter and personality in mind to contribute to that.Superbly acted, beautifully designed, and well told: All in one. I giveJane Eyre *** out of ****

2012-05-16 06:13:17

Good but not great....

I didn't feel that this film had sufficient character development. If you're looking for a film version that is true to the book, this would not be one. Overall, it's a pretty gripping story considering that Steven Spielberg was the director. The gothic elements were a unique twist compared to most film versions of the book.

2012-05-15 15:45:19

Mesmerizing, despite flaws

I've always loved the story of Jane Eyre by Charlotte Bronte, and have watched numerous adaptations. My favorite by far is the 1983 BBC version starring Timothy Dalton as Mr. Rochester and Zelah Clarke as Jane Eyre. I missed the theatrical release of this recent version but managed to get the DVD and watched it a couple of days ago.Some have reviled this cinematic adaptation of Jane Eyre as not being faithful to the novel. Though it is true that this adaptation takes too many liberties with the original plot, I felt that given the constraints of movie-making and adhering to a set time limit, the movie was actually quite good. The cinematography is absolutely breathtaking, and the score is suitably haunting and subdued. What made this a compelling movie to watch was the amazing performances of the two leads, i.e. Mia Wasikowska as Jane Eyre and brooding Michael Fassbender as Edward Rochester. Wasikowska plays Jane with an otherworldly ,ethereal quality that truly brought the Jane of the novel alive for me. As for Fassbender, there was just something compelling about him, and the strong chemistry between Jane Eyre and Rochester is credibly conveyed through the actions and words of the two actors.The supporting cast did a good job too - Dame Judi Dench makes for a suitably convincing Mrs. Fairfax, and Jamie Bell as the missionary St. John Rivers also did a good turn in his role. It is never easy to compress a great novel into the limits of a two hour dramatic film, but I think director Cary Fukunaga did an above average job with the limitations she was presented with.