Patricia

(2012-05-01 01:47:44)

Jane Eyre 2011....has anyone read this book?

I went to see this film with great expectations given the gushing reviews by others. I was greatly disappointed! My mom and I, who've read the book more than 5 times and seen the other film renditions, were sooooooo verrrry disappointed. There were many details, crucial to the understanding of the story, that were left out making it almost impossible for someone new to the story even understand it. While I know it's almost impossible to put everything from the book into the film, this version added bits that weren't even in the book! The actors were fine, the actress playing Jane Eyre was perfect casting, but didn't have much to work with considering the script. I would not recommend this film for anything other than a few beautiful visuals. I really wish I had waited to see this one on DVD. If you really want to see a much better version, consider the one with Timothy Dalton as Mr. Rochester.

(2012-04-30 07:32:33)

God, I Love Being an English Major

This review is from: Jane Eyre (DVD) The last time I read this book, I was in 7th grade and thought it was ridiculous. I totally got the whole unrequited "I'm not worthy of you" love thing, but, come on, what type of girl--even an ugly one--could fall for a man who was more than twice her age?Now, a couple years later, I see the appeal of a mature and experienced man, and now I can not only commiserate with the unrequited love sentiment, but I am madly in love with this Mr. Rochester. Of course, he looks 28 instead of 40-something, but the movie completely captures the glory of the novel. It's gorgeous, the actors are all lovely (Judy Dench woot!), and you cannot help but love Mia's Jane. A win for 19th centure movie-lovers. Even my dad loved it, and he refuses to admit that he has a heart.The movie does take a more Gothic tone ... which is to say that all of the outtakes on the DVD are really creepy and kinda disturbing because, in the end, love sells, so the things that were kept were those that would keep the teenage girls coming back rather than the twelve-year-old boys. Wise decision. The only thing that I didn't like about the movie was the facial hair. There was not a single commendable mustache, and I don't care when mutton chops were in fashion, there had to be a standard and these men could not have been anywhere near it.Otherwise, flawless. I can't wait to see what else this director makes sublime.

(2012-04-29 17:20:53)

Something lacking

This review is from: Jane Eyre (DVD) I recieved this film and looked forward to watching it with great anticipation. The reviews from the critics and on Amazon had been glowing and this film was mean't to be the film adaptation to end all...Ah no. I can't say how disappointed I was with this version. Maybe the director just couldn't decide whether it should be a gothic thriller or a love story. Certainly the actors seemed to be a bit confused. There was absolutley no chemisty between Mia Wasiskowka and Michael Fassbender... They are both as cold as an artic winter and there is no reason why they suddenly develope this passion for each other other than they were trapped at Thornfield Hall and were a bit bored. Judi Dench as ususal was wonderful to watch but she couldn't save this clunker.And what happened to Mrs Rochester...she was barely a passing reflection in a window... Maybe the problem is that the length and depth of the novel is not suitable to be compressed such as this is into two hours. If you are wanting to see two excellent production then both BBC Jane Eyre's with Zela Clark and Timothey Dalton or Ruth Wilson and Toby Stephens are far superior.

(2012-04-29 11:25:41)

Horrible

I wish I did not have to give this a star. It deserves negative stars!! Anyone who thinks this is an accurate portrayal of the characters from Jane Eyre by Charlotte Bronte clearly has never read or does not understand the novel. This was the worst and most horrible version of Jane Eyre that I have ever seen. It is simply awful -- it is far too "hurried". The flashing back and forth is most annoying and disjointed and from the terrible acting one cannot gain a true sense of the characters as they were written. I love and greatly admire the Bronte sisters works, have read all of their books and writings dozens of times and have visited Haworth in Yorkshire. I have run on the moors amongst the heather yelling "Heathcliff"!! Do not waste your time with this movie; it is a wretched and feeble attempt to recreate on screen one of the greatest written masterpieces of all time. I would highly recommend Jane Eyre with Timothy Dalton and Zelah Clarke -- it is wonderful -- beautifully done -- and accurate. I could watch that version over and over and over again.

downsabel

(2012-04-29 15:08:58)

Characters misrepresented - Comments on specific scenes

Not sure these comments would spoil the viewing but just in case, to beon the safer side, I do comment on certain very specific points.Entertaining enough, but if you have read the book I'm sure you'll findthis movie doesn't do justice to it. It offers a totalmisrepresentation of the characters, the weaker are stronger, thestronger are weaker. The totally unpassionate portrayed as seeminglymadly in love, the strong heroine a weepy girl. Even the ugliest andgrotesque is omitted to give us a model-like physical appearance. Ithink it skips, deforms and steals value from 2 very important scenes:the meeting and the fire in the room ones, more importantly this lastone, since 'he' appears composed, when in reality he wasn't, takingaway the whole idea of her being his supporter, both mentally andphysically. The fact the writer of the book made a stronger heroine 150years ago and that the film wouldn't follow through with the properconsequences of 'his' acts, keeping him 'cute' for sales' sakes is verysad, even disturbing. I understand you have to chop and shape 400 pagesof complex narrative to fit into a film BUT I do believe that neitherthe scrip writer nor the director did actually read the book. By theway, the times would absolutely have prevented the behaviour displayedin front of the servants after 'M' was agreed to, honestly, I found it'most' shocking. The actors in themselves were good, if not the rolesgiven to them. It is a pity they couldn't bother with a real 'plain'girl in contrast to the rest, she was truly so, and that was importantto the plot too. I said to friends who also read the book 'save yourpennies'.

(2012-04-28 20:23:28)

Yes I know it's a gothic romance but....

There have been numerous comments about the parts of the book omitted from this version. I haven't read the book in many years and still felt an emotional reaction remembering the omitted sections of the novel (Lowood in particular.) I think that Mia Wasikowska should win a ton of awards for her performance. She beautifully communicates the underlying fierceness and fundamental self-respect Jane has as well as intense feeling/passion with limited dialog and physical action. The effect is an emotional tension in the character like the vibration of a single violin string. Of course, this is amplified by the score.I love the romantic versions of Jane Eyre but I loved this one for different reasons. Although a gothic romance, the novel is a 19th century one and the film's characters are true to this. Rochester is not quite so Byronic. The cinematography brings the isolation and loneliness of Jane (and Rochester) to the fore. The lighting is also true to the 19th century as well as adding a gothic touch. But most of all this version is about passion rather than romantic love -- the passion that can only develop between two equals.Makes you wonder what Charlotte Bronte's life would have been if she hadn't spent her life in a freezing parsonage in Haworth watching her sisters die of tuberculosis and her brother drink himself to death.

TheLittleSongbird

(2012-04-27 22:20:04)

Beautifully filmed and acted, and a credible adaptation of a wonderful story

Jane Eyre is one of my favourite books, and I love period dramas, sonaturally I wanted to see this film. I was very impressed overall. Iremember the Dalton, Welles and Scott versions with fondness(didn'tlike the one directed by Zeffirelli very much), but didn't expect thisfilm to be as good.In general, it isn't, and it isn't perfect. However it does have anumber of strong things about it and is a credible adaptation. It isbeautifully photographed, the locations are stunning likewise with thecostumes and the atmosphere has quite a pleasing gloom to it.The music is well composed too, sparkling and poignant and rarelyoverbearing. The dialogue, apart from the odd part that could have donewith more bite, is good and doesn't fall into the trap of beingstilted, and the story is still the compelling and moving story I fellin love with with only the rather rushed and abrupt ending striking afalse chord.Other good assets are strong direction and above all a great cast. Asmuch as I do like Jamie Bell though, I wasn't entirely convinced by hisperformance, the look didn't matter so much, it was more to do withthat Bell was not quite pious enough.However, Mia Wasikowska was much better than expected as Jane. I thinkshe has grown as an actress, meaning while I didn't like her very muchin Alice in Wonderland I loved her here. She's very beautiful andappropriately strong-willed.Michael Fassbender has such a strong screen presence, and although wedon't see much of Rochester effort is done both on the writers andFassbender's parts to make us care for him. Sally Hawkins is suitablyicy, while Judi Dench is wonderful as she always is.All in all, beautifully rendered, directed and acted. And as anadaptation, while the ending could've been more in particular, it ismore than credible. 7.5/10 Bethany Cox

(2012-04-27 08:26:30)

Excellent Version of Jane Eyre

This review is from: Jane Eyre (DVD) This version of Jane Eyre takes the story from a different perspective. We see Jane suffering her extreme disappointment and loss first. Then the story develops in retrospect to the point where we understand what she is suffering, then it goes forward. This is done with wonderful acting, costumes, and sets. It is one for your collection! LJ

(2012-04-24 07:58:32)

THIS IS FOR BLURAY, NOT MOVIE

This review is from: Jane Eyre [Blu-ray] (Blu-ray) MOVIE GREAT!so far bought and returned 2 blu-ray dvds of this movie and neither of them play. if the 3rd does not play, i'll keep my regular copy. heard blu-ray problems on other brand new releases of some movies, don't know the problem. my player is only 2 years old, not hooked up to the internet.

Rishi Hanson

(2012-04-23 17:13:35)

Charlotte Bronte would have been proud!

I have to admit, I was fairly surprised to see how this two hour movieachieved what many TV miniseries just barely managed - the element ofbelief! Incredible, incredible, incredible! Mia is just perfect as JaneEyre! Age appropriate, she is believable as the innocent eighteen yearold governess who has seen little of the world, but emulates thecourage, conviction and righteousness of Greatheart! And MichaelFassbender did what no previous actor filling the shoes of EdwardRochester could do - make him pitiable and yet so adorable andcharming! Masculine is the word I think.In this version of Jane Eyre you actually see the difference betweenJane and Rochester - physical, intellectual, social, and emotional -and Mia and Michael do a convincing job of making us see why these twounlikely lovers should fall in love, and their ultimate reconciliationechoes the truth of that love which surmounted those difficulties, madethem aware of their faults, brought them together as equals, andpromised a happy life thenceforth.I was delighted to see that minor character were not overlooked, andwere given their proper share of importance. A special mention of JudiDench as Alice Fairfax, whose terrific performance threatened toovershadow the two leads.Every particular in this film pertaining to the era in which the storytakes place has been meticulously observed. From sets to costumes tobackground score - its flawless! Even Thornfield appears alive andenigmatic! I would urge audiences to give this movie a try. There arehardcore Bronte fans who would detest the movie for everything thatmakes it superior to other adaptations, but you see, with Brontes, youeither hate, or you love passionately. I fall into the latter categorywith regard to this film.

(2012-04-23 03:43:44)

Sketchy version of Jane Eyre

As someone who has now watched every version of Jane Eyre that came to film via the big screen or TV, I was looking forward to seeing what yet another version would do with the novel to film and rented it as soon as it arrived On Demand. I was sadly disappointed. Mia plays a somewhat repressed rather than passionate Jane Eyre and Rochester is far too young, handsome and not very convincing as the hot tempered lion tamed by true love. Adele, Bertha and Grace Poole are minimally referred to. The storyline fell flat and left out numerous important scenes and details of the making of this classic. Gone is most of Jane's important upbringing at Lowood School. Parts like the outbreak of Typhus and Jane's strong condemnation of enforced rules were completely missing. No names of the nasty Miss Scatcherd nor her beloved friend Miss Temple whose departure of the school spurns on Jane's boredom and desire to hire herself out as a governess are mentioned. No attempt to mention St. John and his sisters are actually her cousins and why she truly wants to share her inheritance. The scenes of Rochester courting Blanche Ingram are left out. No gypsy readings, no parlour parties, no Jane playing the piano to show her "schoolgirl" talents. Pilot the dog is referred to once! And nothing of the famous scene where Bertha Mason comes into Jane's room, wakes her, shreds her veil and disappears in the night. Again, a very odd and sketchy version of the story of Jane Eyre. A&E did a much better job capturing all of this in a shorter amount of filming time. BBC did a masterpiece of the film starring Timothy Dalton and Zelah Clarke. The rest fall in between. Other than some lovely gothic scenes outside and eye candy shots of the interior of an old English estate, this film lacked in every other aspect. Even after the fire Rochester looks barely harmed and the film suddenly stops. Where is the last chapter when the famous lines come in; "Reader, I married him."?? Anyone new to Jane Eyre is not aware of how he regained his sight enough to see that his first child inherited his eyes. Anyone familiar with Jane Eyre and who know the book inside out are probably cringing in their seats wondering....where is the rest of the story? Where is the full background of Bertha and how he was tricked into marrying her and what he has sacrificed? Where is the story behind Adele and her mother? Again, far too sketchy, which might explain why it never reached our theatres. Plenty of better versions out there. Seek them out!

(2012-04-22 18:32:57)

Liked the book better

This review is from: Jane Eyre (Amazon Instant Video) I read the book several times growing up and loved it. I found this movie version left too much out.

Rockwell_Fassbender

(2012-04-21 08:20:54)

Enthralling. Enchanting. Ethereal.

I'm a huge sucker for 19th century period films when they're doneright, and Cary Fukunaga's Jane Eyre adaptation is, for my money, thefinest one to be released since Joe Wright's Pride & Prejudice.Fukunaga was an inspired directorial choice for a work like this, hisonly previous feature being the Mexican crime saga Sin Nombre, and hecouldn't have fit the part better. He nails the enchanting beauty thatmake period films so enthralling for me, but he also hits all of theaspects that make Jane Eyre unique from other films of it's type. Thepowerful feminist statement is well in tact without being overbearingand Fukunaga nails the eerie, chilling mystery aspect of Eyre withoutmaking the film uneven.Fukunaga doesn't miss a beat when it comes to the multiple realms thefilm digs into. In one five minute period we can go from a tense dramaabout the unconventional sexual desires of two people to the intrigueof a man with a secret to a paranoia horror where something is lurkingbehind the wall. Most directors would fail miserably at trying tocapture all of these different tones, but Fukunaga somehow creates onetone that simultaneously captures every aspect of the story. Nothingfeels out of place and everything is equally compelling.While Fukunaga delivers in every single way, it's no surprise thatrising stars Mia Wasikowska and Michael Fassbender are what make thefilm. Wasikowska plays the titular role with fearless grace, she playsit entirely unselfconscious, stripping her down to the bare woman sheis and building a developed, strong woman. She makes every sceneinteresting, constantly working Eyre's thoughts and emotions justunderneath the surface, not afraid to let them out but of the beliefthat if she let them out they wouldn't really matter. She captures thatconstant desire for something more than herself, a world where womenhave the same experience as men, and when Rochester gets introduced herdesire for him is instantly recognized. For some reason in cinema itcan often be hard to play a strong woman with ideas and desire withoutmaking her unlikable and annoying. Wasikowska doesn't tread into thatterritory for a moment. We are always on Jane's side, no matter whatdecision she makes, not through a bias in the story but because of howconvincingly Wasikowska plays the role.If you've followed me or have read my posts at all, you know that I ama massive fan of Michael Fassbender and any new performance of his iscause for celebration for me. So it's no small feat when I claim hiswork as Rochester to be his best performance so far, without a doubt.Rochester is a very hard role to pull off; he starts off as thispowerful, looming, terrifying figure and slowly we have to be let in tothis emotional, beaten soul with a dark secret. We have to firstunderstand why he frightens Jane and then slowly understand why shefalls in love with him. Fassbender pulls all of this sensationally;when we are first introduced to him he is immediately terrifying buteven then we can tell that there is something underneath the surface.As Jane slowly unravels this hardened, tortured man, Fassbender becomesan almost tragic figure that we feel for deeply. His sexuality poursoff the screen, and he's got more heart than he can contain in hischest. It's a very struggled, internal performance and Fassbender isphenomenal; then when he gets to let all of that pain and emotion comepouring out, we refuse to turn away for a moment. This is the kind ofperformance that sticks with you.Individually they are both magnificent, but the real power of the filmis when the two of them are on screen together. From the moment theymeet, their sexual tension is palpable and my eyes were more than gluedto the screen every time they were on it together. As the filmprogresses, their desires grow and it slowly becomes harder and harderfor the two to keep their emotions in check. They're bursting at theseams, but the two actors are marvelous at making almost everythinginternal until the appropriate moment to let them out. And I'll try notto spoil anything, but when that moment comes it is absolutelyoverwhelming. The film brought me to tears three specific times, twowith joy and one with absolute devastation. It's a marvelous work thatbrought intense emotion out of me, thanks in large part to theseperformances and a story that keeps most of it's emotion stuckunderneath until it reaches a boiling point. I've heard some peoplecomplain about the ending, declaring it abrupt, but I felt it to be theperfect way to finalize such a beautiful, magnetic work. In fact, Ithink it was the only way to end it; and boy did the tears roll downfor me.

reeseslightning

(2012-04-20 20:29:53)

How can a fan of the book say this is the best?

First off, I'm a huge fan of the book. I think it may be one of themost underrated books of all time.Now for the movie.Let's get to the good: 1) The casting- Michael Fassbender is perhaps the hottest Rochester Icould ever imagine. He's got the "ugly" that the character needs whilenot bothering to try and hide his good looks. He brings a certainsomething to the character that wasn't in the books.Mia...whatever her last name was okay. She's young so at least theykept that in the movie. But she's quiet and meek which is what Jane isreally like.But there is zero chemistry between them. And what there is, is forced.2) The music- absolutely wonderful!! 3) The scenery- Gorgeous! Just theThornfield I had imagined in my head come to life.Now for the bad: 1) Pacing- The movie went by way to fast. It missedthe whole buildup and friendship between Jane and Rochester so when itcame to for them to declare their love, it was a WTF moment.2) Lack of important parts- the whole book is focused on Jane's lack offamily. Then, we find out that the Rivers family is actually her familyas well.The movie completely ignored this! And they made John into an admirerof Jane! WTF? Jane's background is barely touched on. Where is herfriendship with Helen? And what about Lowood and the Reed girls? 3)Timing- Again, it was rushed. But the timing of the story is all overthe place. I didn't mind that they told it as a backstory, but it waskind of distracting.I've seen the deleted scenes and I think that if they were included,the story would've flowed smoother and made much more sense. Andreally, was it that hard to include a few extra scenes that areimportant (such as Adele and Rochester's connection)? Those sceneswould've made the movie maybe 10-12 minutes longer, which the moviedesperately could've used.4) The Ending- Um...what? I thought I was watching Jane Eyre and notPride and Prejudice. There was an epilogue at the end of the book whichshows what happened to Rochester and Jane. Instead, the writers wentfor a Jane Austen ala P&P sequence that slowly fades out with them.Boring and anti climatic to a very predictable movie based on a veryharsh and real love story.How can a true fan of the book say this is great? They leave out justabout everything important! (ie. Bertha, Adele/Rochester connection,the Reeds, the Rivers, Lowood, Bessie, and so much more) However, if you never read the book, then its great. Usually I have noproblem separating book from film, but this was ridiculous. They filmedmost of those parts that I mentioned then deleted them. What a waste.

(2012-04-18 23:34:17)

Wonderful!

This review is from: Jane Eyre (Amazon Instant Video) I have been waiting somewhat impatiently for this adaptation of Jane Eyre to hit Amazon. Being in a small town I was not able to see the movie in theaters because of its limited release. I absolutely adored this movie!! While not everything ran in line with the book, particularly a lack of emphasis on certain characters, it was beautifully conceived. I loved how exacting the details were to the time period, especially in regards to how gothic everything was. The casting was perfect!! Fassbender is by far my favorite Rochester...the most likeable in comparison to other actors--most attractive too ;). In some of the other versions I could not conceive of why Rochester was attractive to Jane. I could really feel Jane's angst in this one...could feel her torment as she ran away. Another reviewer mentioned that they felt Jane came across as weak...I definitely don't agree. Her morals were her strength...they allowed her to do some very difficult things, especially given her age. I just finished watching it and am ready for another round. Focus Features did another great one!

(2012-04-18 18:12:36)

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.

(2012-04-17 18:12:52)

Good but not the bst

This review is from: Jane Eyre (DVD) I have seen pretty much all the Jane Eyre movies and I didn't get the thing I get in my soul when I watched this version. She didn't move me or bring me into the movie like the 2005 version did, her name is Charlotte Gainsbourg, now she was amazing.

Laurie

(2012-04-17 05:00:30)

Excellent

I majored in English literature and feel this version does for Jane Eyre what the Knightley/McFadden movie did for Pride & Prejudice--and the same composer, Dario Marinelli, wrote a beautiful score. What sets this version apart is the fabulous casting--as the actress chosen really DOES capture the essence of an 18-year-old Jane falling in love with a much older man. And the actor playing Mr. Rochester has a rugged and, ultimately attractive, look but is not at all conventionally handsome--which has been an issue in some of the other versions (all of which I've seen; many of which I own). The other issue is that the screenwriter chose to start the story with Jane's escape from Thornfield after Rochester's betrayal and tell the story as a flashback. This may not follow the book--or any of the other versions--but it really made the movie. I love books AND movies but there is, and has to be, a difference between how a book is constructed and how it is translated to the screen This simply works.

(2012-04-16 20:47:45)

Beautiful score but watch the '07 version instead

It WOULD have been a beautiful movie if it would not have been cut so brutally. My husband who has never read the book or seen other Jane Eyre adaptations where confused by explanatory "details" that were missing. So at the end he felt confused and I was just left with the feeling of complete dissapointment. I had to patch up the missing information for my husband. I love Michael Fassbender and was excited to read he was to be Mr. Rochester. I was however disappointed. He did well but the whole movie does not move me as the Masterpiece Theater version did. I need to watch the Masterpiece Version again, but it seemed to be that they reused the "same" Thornfield?The scenes that were deleted, I think, are absolutely essential. It is just a shame and very unfortunate they were cut from the final movie. Such a shame!!! Such a dissappointment.However I do give the movie 3 stars but only in hope they would make an extended version with the deleted scenes. Also the music is very beautiful and reflects and extends the feelings of the characters. The music suceeded where the acting did not. The score reminds me a bit of "The Piano". It will not surprise me I will buy the soundtrack.

(2012-04-16 08:37:11)

A Must See!

I savored every word of the book Jane Eyre, it is my favorite by far. I have seen all the Jane Eyre movies and none come close to bringing the book to life as this one does. If you are a true fan of the book this movie will satisfy you like no other and if you have not read the book, well, you will still love this classic dark romance (who doesn't?). Mia played Jane so perfectly I wouldnt change a thing and Mr. Rochester...wow! Great job by bolth actors they stayed so true to the original novel.