Visitors Review

(2012-05-25 11:57)

Not the Best Version

I was really looking forward to this as people had been raving about it. With such a deep and well done book as the template, how could it go wrong? Well, I wouldn't say that it "went wrong", but it's definitely not the best version out there. I think this one failed to show a budding romance, which is the key to the story. Nothing else works if there is no angst and love. They SAY they love each other, but the actors never show this. It's a good modern interpretation for someone who doesn't like long movies (the best one is much longer and more detailed), subtlety, or traditionally English movies. That, however, was NOT what I was looking for in Jane Eyre.

jadepietro (2012-05-24 23:02)

Poor Plain Jane

( Recommended ) On the outset, let me say, that like the film'sheroine, I had great trepidation. Poor Jane will go from one dilemma toanother. Alas, poor me will go from one adaptations to another. Thistime my fear focused on the latest umpteenth remake of CharlotteBronte's classic tale, Jane Eyre. I was torn with my own pangs of angstand yearning too. Should I see yet again another version of this Gothicromantic melodrama? ( While researching this question, I discoveredthat there have been at least 8 teleplays, 6 movies, and numerousadaptations and related works, including SCTV parody, Jane Eyrehead,which, by the way, I would unconditionally love to see.) Or, should Imiss Cary Fukunaga's vision of this work? ( Fukunga's first film, SinNombre (2009), was such an accomplished piece of filmmaking from a rarenew talent. I was simply blown away from his directorial debut.) So, here I sat in the theater, viewing this familiar story of theyoung moral governess of Thornfield House and her journey to findfulfillment and love with her wealthy employer, the brooding andmysterious Mr. Rochester, as this film predictably followed thefamiliar plot mechanism and framework of its original source, with abit of flashback to perk up this version. I won't belabor this well known plot, except to say that Fukunagabreathes a new life into this old chestnut and does take some libertiesin his modernization of this classic tale. In this version, MiaWasikowska stars as the not so plain Jane and Michael Fassbender as herdubious conquest. Both are too attractive for their roles, but how canone swoon without real beauty to behold?Ms. Wasikowska handles her role quite efficiently, as the grievousvictim of class struggle. She displays the earnestness anddetermination of our heroine with real conviction. But Mr. Fassenderhas some difficulty with his characterization, especially in the earlycourtship scenes. He comes off as a lovesick schoolboy, a mere flirt ofa man. As the character becomes more intense and dark, Fassender cuts adashing and compelling figure that is necessary for the plotcontrivances. Yet, a real chemistry between the two actors seemedlacking to me.Where Fukunaga's film makes its fatal mistake with its solidinterpretation of the novel is by underplaying the involving mysteryand its tragic repercussions. Instead, the director unwisely chooses toelevate the Gothic mood of his film with a foreboding spookiness bettersuited for today's younger target audiences and in stark contrast tothe novel's tone. Bronte's story remains engaging but its romanticelements become overblown melodramatic flourishes in this Fukunaga'svision.No, this is not a definitive version of the beloved classic tale, butit is a strong and noble attempt at its revision. The film never eludesthe shadows of some earlier and more successful film adaptations. Thisnew rendering of Jane Eyre doesn't exactly err ( eyre? ), but it doesstruggle with its own sense of class distinction and pedigree. Alas,poor plain Jane. GRADE: BNOTE: Old World meets New World in this poster which beautifullycaptures the world of Victorian England while adding a slightly modernhint of romance that will appeal to today's younger audience. Using thethe Wyeth-like face of the film's heroine as its major focus, the imageeffectively contrasts her with the handsome profile of her suitor insubtle watercolor washes of blue hues. Quite lovely.NOTE: Visit my movie blog for more reviews: www.dearmoviegoer.com

(2012-05-24 20:28)

Good actors and locations, etc.

I still have not read the book so I cannot comment on the adaptation aspect. The actors are superb, though, especially the two main ones as Jane and Fairfax. Judi Dench is of course excellent as always. The enormous English country houses used are stunning, to say the least. Jane leads a difficult and lonely life until she ends up a governness in a mysterious household with a dark secret upstairs. This leads to much angst and conflict between her and her employer-turned-would-be-husband. I won't spoil it any further.

degrimstead-1 (2012-05-23 21:08)

Films of this book have always been good

Because I adored the book I've found all film versions of this story tobe enjoyable, though I think I enjoyed the 2006 TV mini-series best.But maybe that was just because they drew it out in four separateepisodes; it's such an engrossing story. These actors were quite good,with Mia Wasikowska's eyes and face being a perfect canvas for Jane'semotions and Michael Fassbender playing a fine Rochester. My onecriticism would be that, rather than telling the story chronologicallyas is done in the book, and in all other filmed versions I've seen,here they chose to jump around in time, even starting the film in themiddle. Maybe this is what led to their leaving out Jane staying on atLowood and becoming a teacher (though they referred to this they didn'tshow it, which was disappointing). And they didn't show how her youngfriend at school contracted her illness, either. Still, a very good twohours and I do recommend it.

awada-1 (2012-05-22 18:01)

good film but felt like cliff notes version (spoilers ahead)

Let me preface this by saying I'm a hardcore Bronte devotee, obsessedwith the book, and have seen pretty much every filmed version outthere. I really enjoyed the film- acting, cinematography, costumes,etc. I loved Mia and Michael- awesome together, good chemistry, makingan excellent Jane and Rochester. My main criticism would be that therewere several key scenes that were omitted, primarily between whenRochester and Jane meet and when he proposes, which kind of gives shortshrift to their relationship. They don't really have time to establishthe bond that makes their relationship so powerful, so that it comesslightly out of left field when they confess their love to each other.Many other omissions make this feel like the Cliff Notes version, andmy movie companion was left missing a lot of the magic and nuancebecause he hasn't read the book and was confused by some of the leapsand bounds the film made.The pivotal scenes that have been cut (which are shown in the trailer)are vital to the story, and I'm left wondering why they were dropped.But then that's a major pet peeve of mine: If a scene doesn't make itinto the movie, don't put it in the trailer! Argh! It always feels likefalse advertising to me. But anyways, back to the positives...The scenes between Jane and Rochester feel pretty electric. Jane issharp as a whip, which is right on target. In my opinion, the bestthing about this movie is that they FINALLY showed the scene portrayedin Chapter 27, which is my absolute favorite chapter which they neverdo justice to in the films. They even included the "I could bend herwith my finger and my thumb" line, where a desperate Rochester notesthat he could physically force Jane to submit to his will, but he stillwouldn't control what he cherishes most: her soul. In the film, it feltsomewhat natural and organic, too, which is a hard thing to pull off.Loved it! Also, showing Rochester bursting into Jane's room the morningafter, frantic to discover Jane is gone-- awesome! It's so much betterthan Rochester impotently watching Jane walk away, which is what someother film versions have done.The ending is romantic but abrupt-- I like more closure to my happyendings, and Jane and Rochester need more happiness after a lifetime ofmisery.Final critique- by switching up the chronology, you don't meetRochester until halfway through the movie, and he's sort of the fire ofthe piece. Without Rochester, there's not much story, and I think thefilm would've benefited by introducing him a little earlier.Loved that Rochester puts his pants on AFTER he and Jane put out thefire. I'd always wondered if he was fully dressed...

(2012-05-22 13:05)

Absolutely dead-on adaptation

I was initially concerned about the movie, because it's only two hours. I figured that there was no way they could include the level of detail in two hours that the book contained. Other adaptations had left a lot of important details out and this, I figured, would be even worse. Boy was I wrong! This movie is absolutely fantastic. I was SO happy that they really emphasized the bird theme in the novel. The wedding dress scene was perfection when Jane looked at herself and said that she was losing her name. And the film worked wonderfully to show how she didn't want to be his caged bird. I also loved how the movie began with Jane arriving at Sinjin River's house. It sucked me in and I think that the story worked so much better in film when it was shot in this manner. Perfect! The acting was perfect in this too. They embodied the characters exquisitely. My only real complaint was that they didn't really emphize Bertha's presence as much as in other adaptations. That said, I loved how that gave the whole Bertha ordeal a ghoulishness with the scene with the tapestry getting sucked into the wall. The novel shows Bertha as a kind of phantom that strolls the halls sometimes causing trouble, and this movie exaggerated that element. It was a pleasure to watch this film because even though it's short, it managed to pinpoint all of the major themes and elements of the book that are so important and that make it a literary treasure. I found myself completely engrossed in this. The roles were so well played that this was the first adaptation that made me feel the same way for the characters in the movie that I felt for the characters in the novel. Which is saying something because I'm a HUGE Jane Eyre fan. This movie is truly a treasure and I can't wait to get it when it comes out!

(2012-05-22 00:59)

Intriguing Version Of Charlotte Bronte's Classic Story. Excellent Score. Personally, I Like The 1983 Miniseries Better.

Note: I just saw this movie with XFinity On Demand.This version of Charlotte Bronte's classic novel is intriguing, to say the least. The technique of telling most of the story as a flashback is a bold move, but honestly, I found it to be distracting. The score by Dario Marianelli (Pride And Prejudice) is excellent, and there are some good moments between Jane and Mr. Rochester. Unless you know the story very well (and I've read the novel several times, the last one being around six months before this version came out, so I do know the story very well), you will find yourself asking, "What exactly is going on here?" Plus, there are a lot of moments from the novel which are cut out from this adaptation that are present in other film versions, notably the 1983 version starring Timothy Dalton (which is my personal favourite). For instance, Adele's backstory is merely hinted at, and Mr. Rochester's climactic scene with Jane is nowhere near as dramatic as in the 1983 version. Plus, I found Ms. W.'s Austrailian accent very distracting (Jane Eyre is English, according to the book). I recommend this movie for only people who know the story very well; otherwise, you'll probably think that the original novel is boring and thereby close yourself off to some of the greatest literature ever written. This version should have been rated PG.

(2012-05-21 16:37)

Not the greatest version.

This review is from: Jane Eyre (DVD) Unfortunately this version of one of my favorite tales, Jane Eyre, falls way short. It feels forced, the acting rather bland and wooden. I love Fassbender, but I just feel like he was trying rather badly to copy previous 'Rochester' performances and failing instead of owning him. Jane was mopey, none of her cleverness really showcased, and the emotional moments felt highly ingenuine. An example would be the bed-on-fire scene. Dreadful. In essence, a dvd to be passed over if you're looking to own a great Jane Eyre. Try the Toby Stephens/Ruth Wilson undertaking instead.

(2012-05-21 00:09)

Jane Eyre (Focus Features) Can't we all bleed inwardly?

In reading some other reviews, it seems that no interpretation can be exactly like the author envisioned the story; nor can it match the expectations we have after reading a favorite story. Any visual representation meets tough critics because we're all sure that our interpretation is the most accurate. Filmmakers and actors have their work cut out for them, and I respect all who set out to attempt an adaptation.I have the following minor points to make about this movie: Mia W. looks angry during the most famous lines. Of the first proposal scene, the book says that a "vehemence of emotion" claimed "mastery" over Jane. I would think the dialogue in that scene is not so much with one emotion, in Mia's case mostly anger, but rather a combination of so many of them. For instance, there was relief for being able to say anything on the subject of their relationship. So a very impassioned and maybe long overdue moment, but her face is over-the-top uncomfortable in that scene. Some discomfort from being taken off guard, but there's too much. I'm picky about that scene. I do like this version and admire its brevity. What I liked most about Mia W. is that she portrays Jane Eyre's inner strength.I liked the portrayal of Rochester overall, but also with a few misgivings: Michael F. doesn't seem weary of life enough. The portrayal of R. is integral since Jane wouldn't be the same without him, and although Fassbender's degree of anger is suitable, he too needs to show more passion! This version is dark, as in little lighting, and the dark oppresses throughout. The Gothic ambiance isn't required to sell this story, and for this matter, I wish I'd been more frightened through methods other than lighting.I'd seen on the movie posters that they were emphasizing plain. It seems that the plain was overpowering to the extent that it made Jane a little boring. The point of her plainness is that it is deceiving. It obscures someone not plain. Despite all this, I would not hesitate to buy this for a Jane Eyre fan. At the same time, I'm not spending money on it for myself. It was a treat to see in a movie theater, which was a first for me.For a story with outstanding dialogue, this movie has fewer lines than any other version. I understand trying to innovate by using other means to tell the story, and this dynamic is extremely bold. It works for the most part. Maybe because the parts with dialogue make use of heavy-hitting lines.In and of itself, this movie stands on its own two feet as a beautiful movie. But I cannot connect it to the book on which it's based. The events and characters, such large parts of the story, are not well matched. I know of 2 film versions I immediately consider superior to this, and both are not affiliated with Hollywood. On its own and disconnected from the book, this movie is a nice way to sit down with a bowl of popcorn. There is romance in it. That could hardly be absent.

(2012-05-20 13:58)

A little too literal

This review is from: Jane Eyre (Amazon Instant Video) The visuals and score are lovely...but the movie plays more like a stage play, with much of the characters inner thoughts made plain in dialog. I would have preferred less words and more atmosphere created by acting...a la the kiss from Last of the Mohicans.Absolutely no bodice ripping in this one --in case any one was wondering.

(2012-05-20 01:40)

boooooooooring

This review is from: Jane Eyre (Amazon Instant Video) I've seen probably every single Jane Eyre version out there. This version was bleh. You really can't do Jane Eyre justice with 2hrs. I recommend the Toby Stephens and Ruth Wilson version. Although I think Michael Fassbender is mighty good looking I just didn't buy his performance as Mr. Rochester. I started laughing when Mia gave her "just because I'm poor" speech...horrible.

(2012-05-19 10:28)

Not the Jane Eyre Charlotte Brontë penned.

This adaptation was poorly done. Much was left out of the story and the decision to start the film at the end was doubly confusing. If I did not have a good understanding of the plot - I would have been woefully lost while viewing this version.The chemistry that NEEDS to build between Rochester and Jane was never allowed to blossom nor were the actors suited for this purpose. Mia Wasikowska (Jane) was completely one dimensional and Michael Fassbender (Mr. Rochester), though intended to be disliked at first, never rose above that sentiment for me. If I were Jane, I would have run from him!Adding to the poor casting was the poor cinematography (is Jane's world really a constant greenish-gray color?) as well as the fact that it was just plain boring. Even Judi Dench (Mrs. Fairfax), who I admire as a quality actress, could not liven this script.Read the book and you will understand.I recommend the 1996 adaption that features William Hurt as Rochester and as Charlotte Gainsbourg Jane Eyre. Chemistry,chemistry, chemistry! And a good retelling of the story.

(2012-05-19 02:52)

All's well, but doesn't end well

"You would rather drive me to madness than break some mere human law."Thank goodness for high school literature. That which was tedious and compulsory back then certainly came in handy today while watching this version of Charlotte Bronte's classic dark love story.Although the screenplay required some basic knowledge of the original to sort through the flashbacks and shortcuts, and to fill in the blanks for the many omissions therein, the settings, costumes and Gothic creepiness were right on target. Well cast and acted, Mia Wasikowska and Dame Judi Dench were up to the task, while Michael Fassbender seemed to be a tad cranky and rude at the times when he ought to have been going for "cold and unapproachable." Never-the-less, he plays a reasonable facsimile of his character, despite looking more like Captain Von Trapp from "The Sound of Music" than Edward Fairfax Rochester.The only disappointment for me was the amended, truncated and abrupt ending, which totally ruined one of the best parts of the book, and where I actually could have quoted some of the dialogue, except it wasn't there.Recommended for fans of the classic looking for a good cinematic experience, but not for students looking for a visual CliffsNotes to help pass an exam.Amanda Richards, July 10, 2011

oaktreeade (2012-05-18 11:09)

The act of fitting an elephant into a suitcase..........

Watch the 2006 version with Ruth Wilson and Toby Stephens, then try totell me this version is superior........The film makers do their best to squeeze the elephant into thesuitcase, but two hours is just not enough to do this beautiful storyjustice. the result is rushed, anodyne and cold.The scene where Jane reveals her heart is laughable, it all comes fartoo quickly. not helped of course by the leading lady, who exudes allthe warmth of an ice cube. She does the dour and plain bit really well,but the passion? No i am sorry. it does not work.Its proof that not all stories can fit into the film format.

(2012-05-18 11:26)

Jane Eyre DVD

This review is from: Jane Eyre [Blu-ray] (Blu-ray) I love the Jane Austin movies and this one was different for the other Jane Eyre movies out. Jane Eyre told it from an experience that had happened to her and then it came back into the present. Edward stayed at Thornfield after meeting Jane and worked his home. It showed he had a really down to earth side as he worked a long side his employees. I believe it was very well done.

(2012-05-17 22:24)

I loved it! :) It was really different and fresh

This review is from: Jane Eyre (Amazon Instant Video) I usually never write reviews for movies but before because i am only 17 decided a while back ago not to watch it because it seemed old dark and stupid. Well I love Jane Austens book, They take a very happy approach to things. I've always heard that the Bronte sisters are known for they're morbid stories. So i decided to watch this since it has Mia from Alice In Wonderland. It was really really good. The actors were very good looking and handsome. I wish it would have shown a little more development at the end with the little girl and the mother. It would have been nice to know more you know? I really loved the scenes and the beautiful views you got they were just amazing, beyond anything i've seen. the flashbacks are a little bit to much, It's just a little bit scattered and sometimes hard to understand. But it is a movie worth watching for especially for you Jane Austen and Bronte fans! it's a twist of dark and love.

aajay (2012-05-17 06:38)

Not my favorite version, but better than most

Well, I've seen worse but then again I've seen better. Jane Eyre is mymost favorite book since I first read it at thirteen and many, manytimes since. Frankly, I don't know why they keep remaking it if they'renot going to stay true to the book. They only end up disappointing us"Janeites" to whom every word and idea is known and loved and confusingthe heck out of those not familiar with it. I don't know how anyone,who is not familiar with the book, made any sense out of this version.It's hard enough to shorten JE which is not only packed withcomplicated relationships but also, more importantly, with IDEAS whiledealing with random flashbacks. And the omissions--the morning afterscene MUST include Jane's wrestling with herself "who would care" ifshe lived with Mr R "I CARE"--"Laws and principles are not for the timewhen there is no temptation: they are for such moments as this" Theseare the concepts which make up Jane's character; without them it's justanother Gothic thriller. My favorite version is the 1983 mini-series inwhich they had time to develop the book. I'm not sure one can make atwo hour movie of a long Victorian novel. And another thing, why dothese movies have to be so DARK? What happened to "suspension ofdisbelief"?

Framescourer (2012-05-16 16:57)

Handsome adaptation

This is a really first class film: nicely adapted and acted, and withsuperb costuming, design and location all well shot. I'm only vaguelyfamiliar with the book and other screen adaptations, although I foundMia Wasikowska (and her younger self, Amelia Clarkson) well-matched tothe character that director Cary Fukunaga has in mind, where self-pityis snuffed out by determination and a sort of nervy fearlessness.Michael Fassbender is very good. I felt that his Rochester might almosthave been a shade soft, but then one realises that this isn'tHeathcliff - Rochester's secrets are buried in the house, not his head.Judi Dench was an extra surprise - she's great, predictably. I questionthe casting of the beautiful Jamie Bell though...Above all I couldn't get over just how wonderful Adriano Goldman'scinematography is. The tenements both grand and lowly are set in hugelandscapes that render them isolated. This then become an importantpart of the tone, that an orphaned school teacher and a wealthy lordcan exist in the same isolation. The quality of the picture is alsoravishing, whether they be shots of muggy windswept moors or thebright, dappled sunlight in trees that coincide with the loveliermoments of the story. A familiar tale then, but when told succinctlyand competently, it needs be no more. 8/10

(2012-05-15 21:05)

Something's missing - and it's in the Special Features

This is an excellent movie and an interesting adaptation of Jane Eyre, but the killing point for it was what scenes they had chosen to delete. I had initially watched this and was unimpressed (despite my love for both of the actors), but the deleted scenes pushed it up to a movie that I wanted to own. They filled in the confusing gaps and added the creepiness of the original story. It even made me forgive the surprisingly quiet (almost flat) portrayal of Rochester. I really really hope a director's cut is released that includes those scenes...

(2012-05-15 13:12)

Wonderful

I absolutely loved this version of Jane Eyre! I do not think that a better Rochester could be played by anyone other than Michael Fassbender. He can convey so much with so few words. His emotions are in his eyes. It does skip over the harshness of lowood school a bit, but in just 2 hours, Carey F. did a wonderful job. This version focuses more on the gothic elements of the book which is a refreshing change of pace. I could watch Michael Fassbender in this movie everyday and never tire of it. He does that good of a job.