Jane Eyre Reviews

Honestly, when I first heard of this movie, I had some rather mixed feelings. Indeed, again another adaptation of Charlotte Bronte’s book… Basically, like some other classic books like ‘Pride and Prejudice’ or ‘The Three Musketeers’, they feel compelled to bring again another version every decade (I have to admit it though, I had only seen Zeffirelli’s version so far). On the other hand, there was a really attractive cast and since the reviews were pretty good, I still wanted to check the damned thing. First of all, Mia Wasikowska was a great choice for the title role and she gave a very good performance. Michael Fassbender, easily one of the best actors of his generation, was again really impressive and with Wasikowska, they had some really good chemistry. Furthermore, the directing by Cary Fukunaga was pretty much flawless (I will definitely check his other movies when I get the opportunity) , it looked great and he managed to create a very dreary atmosphere which you should expect to get from a Gothic Romantic novel. Unfortunately, I can’t say I really cared about the story. I mean, basically, I’m not such a huge fan of those old-fashioned doomed love story and most of the time, while watching/reading such tales, I feel like kicking the characters in their butt in order to make them stop whining all the time and to get them in the sack once and for all. To conclude, I have to admit it, even though I didn’t really love it, it remains a decent romantic feature and it is worth a look, especially if you like the genre.

There were movies where Mia Wasikowska was the biological daughter of a sperm donor or a 19 year old returning to Underland, somewhere she had visited as a child, but here, she played Jane Eyre and gave an amazing performance

You can't deny that 'Jane Eyre' is Mia Wasikowska's best performance and by far the best in the movie out-acting a (still) very good cast (Michael Fassbender, Jamie Bell, Judi Dench, Sally Hawkins)

'Jane Eyre' isn't the best movie of 2011 but it's definitely one of them, a decent story, very good acting and sets you would want to look at!

One of the only things I would criticise is the casting of Jamie Bell, his performance was very good but he was a bit too young, yeah, Daniel Radcliffe was seriously miscast in 'The Woman In Black' but his performance was rubbish and the movie would've still been bad without him, Logan Lerman played a 13 year old in 'The Perks of Being A Wallflower' but he still gave a very solid performance and in my opinion, out of Jamie Bell in this movie, Daniel Radcliffe in 'The Woman In Black' and Logan Lerman in 'The Perks of Being A Wallflower', the worst casting was definitely Daniel Radcliffe - an ill fitting choice and a terrible performance

Still fangirling over Michael Fassbender, I watched his other films. After falling for him first in X-Men: First Class (2011), rekindled it in Inglourious Basterds (2009) plus, I didn't realize that he's in 300 (2006), this time I watched Jane Eyre (2011). (Greetings British film that capture the life of high class and middle class people in 1830s. Hello again!) Directed by Cary Joji Fukunaga and starring Mia Wasikowska as Jane Eyre, Jamie Bell as St. John Rivers and Michael Fassbender as Edward Fairfax Rochester.
I have never fully read Jane Eyre by Charlotte Brontë, I only read the simplified version of it (for kids) when I was in my first year of senior high. So I didn't really know the atmosphere of the novel, etc. But in my opinion this version has some better qualities compared to the BBC version of 2006, starring Toby Stephens and Ruth Wilson. First, the character of Jane Eyre by Mia Wasikowska is captured perfectly according to the character's real age in the novel. Mia Wasikowska makes Jane Eyre more humane, giving us insights of her terrible past and childhood and at the same time not decreasing her character. Michael Fassbender's Edward Rochester is also more constantly coarse, real and sympathetic (besides of course more effortlessly handsome than Toby Stephen's portrayal).
Unfortunately, with Michael Fassbender being cast as Edward Rochester, they should have casted someone at least 'equal' to him as St. John Rivers. Placing Jamie Bell as St. John Rivers is really a no-match for Michael Fassbender, moreover with his tendency to rebel-insecure-appearance (I always capture this teenage-rebel-appearance whenever I watch Jamie Bell). I have to say that Jamie Bell is somewhat miscast. (Plus, his great chemistry with Mia Wasikowska from Defiance (2008) still lingers in me, so...) The cinematography is really beautiful with its candlelights, shades and natural lights. The choice of music is a no-brainer. The costumes are marvelous. Plus, they have Judi Dench playing as Mrs. Fairfax! (Is Judi Dench overrated? Maybe, but I still adore her)
What this film lacks of, is time. I wish it would be longer, even though I like the brief ending better in this film than in the 2006 version. It gives more room to our imagination about how the ending will proceed. Being a TV mini series, the 2006 version is more unimpeded dealing with the development of its characters and making sure its correct connection with the novel. Also what I find disturbing is in the scene when Jane Eyre sitting by herself in her small 'schouse'. She wrapped herself in blanket that has embedded modern font in it, see for yourself. I find it utterly disturbing. Where the hell they got the blanket from? Setting, properties... hello?

This movie surely gave me food for thought to read the book and others by the Brontë sisters. An excellent drama on its own, though I fear judging it solely by its cinematic appearance might not do it justice. The movie on its own is very good, however.

This new adaptation of Charlotte Bronte's classic has its magnitude from the present work to the coeval public which has no access to literature or to the elder version.

As expected, the film has a commanding art direction by Will Hughes- Jones, which is quite lower in scale to other classics of the time, but is of equal quality in the costume, and in the choice of locations in the rejuvenation of the period in which women were simply props from their husbands, unable to participate in decisions and cursed to see the horizon of its narrow windows.

There are not many mysteries: Jane Eyre (Mia Wasikowska) is a young woman who, humiliated by her aunt and sent to a strict school, became the governess of the of Mr. Rochester's daughter (Michael Fassbender). Eventually the tormented boy is enchanted with the conviction of the girl and her presence as well as direct and clever in the way that she answers him.

So, Mia Wasikowska, who is an actress I do like, considering a little flat and not charismatic, precisely just because she can revive the coldness and austerity of a woman who hopes to achieve big dreams in life. Michael Fassbender, confirming the upward curve in his career, has an extraordinary performance as the tormented Rochester, stuck with a secret past that does not allow love.

Plus the steady direction which Cary Fukunaga mixes the superstitions of the time and turns the large estate of Rochester in a place almost in awe. What never ceases to be.

In short: it's a renowned literature told with the degree of wealth enough to be absorbed by the public, but no big mystery or innovations.

Some mighty fine acting performances light up this otherwise routine romantic drama. The story might have been path breaking at the time the book was published but it's tough to find any novelty in it today. Despite that, the movie does a great job of telling the story as a romantic drama filled with longing and heartbreak. Mia Wasikowska is excellent as the title character and the rest of the cast keeps pace with her. The background score and the cinematography are fantastic as well.

Jane Eyre, Charolette Bronte’s tri-fold genre novel, is a compulsively readable novel but covers so much territory that it proves highly problematic when trying to condense and adapt it into anything less than a mini-series. It requires a sure-footing in both writing and directing and an extreme pruning to focus in on certain aspects at the expense of others. Sad, but true. So it was with a great awe that I viewed this version of Jane Eyre which directly lifted the novel’s romantic literature trope of nature as an emotional template and reaction to the characters interior lives. While it has chosen to focus in on the romance between Rochester and Jane at the expense of the rest of the novel’s storylines, I didn’t mind since it excavated their interior lives and erotic underpinnings so expertly.

So much of the success isn’t just thanks to director Cary Fukunaga unique handling of material that’s in direct opposition to his debut feature, the indie feature Sin Nombre that’s a harrowing immigration drama. While the way that he sets up and films the characters is wonderful, without two great actors like Mia Wasikowska and Michael Fassbender it wouldn’t have amounted to much. Think of the way that so much of Wasikowska’s clothing looks so grey and dowdy, drained of color and stiff during the earliest parts of the film and seems to bloom and melt into lighter colors and textures once the romance with Fassbender awakens her to her latent sexuality. A scene that immediately springs to mind is the montage of their courtship which features a delicate and shy kiss underneath a cherry blossom tree. Wasikowska – so stern and stubborn from the beginning – seems to melt, giggle, and smile as if for the first time. Her mousy hair and dowdy dresses seem more chipper and put together. It’s a combination of beautiful cinematography and a actress of tremendous depth and talents.

But there’s also the way that the film opens in the middle, in a harsh, barren and stark landscape with a single solitary figure, so tiny and ready to be devoured by the surrounding landscape, running. Her frail body looks like it is ready to fall over and die at any moment. But within Jane there is a reservoir of strength which makes our first impressions feel so silly. She’s a bundle of contradictions which can make for messy human explosions and emotions – more succinctly: she’s a real person. And Wasikowska, a young actress who I admire with each new role that I see her in, nails every subtlety and nuance. But her Jane can only be so good without a great Rochester, and Fassbender walks a fine line between a romantic daydream of a hero and charismatic untamed and un-caged animal.

The way he swings back and forth between these two extremes during the grand reveal (which is always faintly ludicrous once lifted off the page, and even on it) is a wonder to behold. I hear a lot of talk of X-Men: First Class being the big movie for Fassbender, but he’s been so good for so long that it seems silly to ignore his work in this movie. While trying to wed Jane he’s as eager to please and lovesick as one could imagine the lust object for our heroine, but once things start to sour on their big day he flips the switch with but a frown and a growl. I hope the history books will point to his performances in Fish Tank and this film to explain why he became a mega-movie star.

Understated, yet passionate, like Jane Eyre herself.