User reviews

The oft-filmed Charlotte Brontë's Gothic novel has been adapted into TV and film more than two dozen times. Here's a summary of what works and what doesn't in this 2011 version:

THE GOOD:

• Cary Fukunaga's direction. He preferred natural light for much of the film, forgoing camera lighting and instead opted for candles which created the proper dark, moody and gloomy atmosphere that matches Rochester's temperament perfectly. He used some hand-held camera work to great effect, but not too much so that it became distracting. Thornfield Hall, Rochester's expansive mansion looked like something Count Dracula could comfortably settle in. It practically becomes its own character here and adds the necessary spookiness we come to expect from this Gothic tale.

• Judi Dench as Mrs. Fairfax – When does Dame Judi ever disappoint? Apparently never. Even in small roles, the scenes she's in are one of the best ones in the movie. There was an important scene involving Jane and Rochester where Mrs. Fairfax didn't utter a single word, but she made quite an impact just with her expression.

• Mia Wasikowska as Jane. A lot of the issues I have with literary adaptation is that the supposedly plain heroine usually ends up being played actresses who are too glamorous for the role. Fortunately in this one, Wasikowska was believable as a plain young girl, though she obviously is a pretty girl. At 18, she's also the perfect age for the role. If I were to nitpick though, she's not exactly 'little' as she's described in the novel as Rochester doesn't quite tower over her. In any case, I thought she did a wonderful job carrying the film. She captures the essence of the strong-willed character who holds her own against her much older subject of her affection, and one who despite 'not being well-acquainted with men' doesn't seem intimidated by them.

• Michael Fassbender as Rochester. In many ways, we evaluate a Jane Eyre adaptation by its Rochester, and as long as we use that 'calculation,' I think he measures up quite well. He has a strong screen presence and is the kind of actor who's usually the best thing even in a so-so film, and he makes the most of what's given to him. Even with the relatively short screen time, which is less than what I had hoped, he's able to make us care for Rochester.

THE NOT-SO-GOOD:

• This cliff-notes version feels way too fast. With a complex story like this, no doubt it'd be a challenge for any filmmaker, no matter how talented, to pare it down into a two-hour movie. So it's inevitable that this film just moves along too quick for me. Of course that is not Fukunaga's fault and he really made the best of it, but still this version just leaves me wanting more. I guess this is perhaps a more 'accessible' version for the crowd that otherwise would not watch JE. But to me, the story is compelling enough that an extra half-hour would only enhance the viewing experience and allow enough time for the characters to develop an authentic connection.

• Dialog omission. This is perhaps a result of being 'spoiled' by the comprehensive 1983 version (which at 5.5 hours is perhaps the longest screen adaptation). Of course it's impossible to include every single dialog from the book, but I was hoping at least some of the important ones are kept. The famous quotes such as "I am no bird; and no net ensnares me", "Do as I do: trust in God and yourself", "Reader, I married him" are not spoken in this adaptation. I also find some of the delivery lacks bite, y'know that certain oomph that an actor does to bring those timeless words to life.

• Jamie Bell seems miscast. Now, keep in mind I really like Jamie as an actor and have said so many times on my blog (http://tinyurl.com/mozzs5) However, I don't feel he's right for the role of St. John Rivers. Firstly, when you've already got someone as striking as Fassbender as Rochester, I'd think the casting agent would have to find someone much fairer than he. No offense to Jamie, but that's not the case here and he certainly doesn't fit the book description of 'tall, fair with blue eyes, and with a Grecian profile.' Now, physical appearance aside, he also lack the solemn and pious sensibility of a Christian missionary.

• Unconventional storyline – Moira Buffini's script tells the story in flashback mode instead of following the novel's linear storyline. The movie starts off right as Jane is leaving Thornfield, which is right smack dab where the main crisis of the story begins. Now, I can understand that it's done to make it less tedious, yet it gets confusing at times to figure out which part happens in the past or present. I think for someone not familiar with the book, the shuffled time line might be a bit tough to follow.

IN CONCLUSION, despite leaving the theater wanting more, I do think this is a worthy adaptation. The production quality is top notch, with gorgeous cinematography, affecting light work and music that serve the story well. There is even one scene of Jane and Rochester that Fukunaga took liberty with that's quite tantalizing. It caught me off guard but I must say that scene left me breathless and is an effective way to convey how much Jane longed for her true love.

But in the end, even though I adore Fassbender, he still hasn't replaced Timothy Dalton as my favorite Rochester. Sure, the production quality of this one is superior, but what makes a Jane Eyre story so fascinating and memorable are the heart-wrenching connection between the two main protagonists and the dialog spoken between them, so in that regard, the 1983 version is still the one to beat.

BBC again. We expect perfect costume, perfect sideburns, perfect landscape and most of all we expect perfect acting. We find it all here, but usually such productions are out of this world. Here something is added. The Gothic element.

Much has been said about movie adaptments of novels. But here the actors are allowed to say what they feel. It's not rationalized away. And it's still a movie, not some filmed text.

That makes this a very impressive version of "Jane Eyre". A dream, interrupted by living people who can put their feelings in words. Most satisfying.

This is the third version of the Bronte novel which I have seen, the others being a TV serialisation and the other the Orson Welles version. I enjoyed the former and the less said about the latter the better! This,for me, is far and away the best.The photography is top-notch and, as an avid lover of silent movies the preference for the visual over the oral puts this film high up on my favourites list. Top marks to all cast members and a bonus point for the divine Judi Dench (I have been a fan of hers since seeing her at Stratford in about 1970). To fit the whole novel into a two hour format is no mean feat, but here it is done so well that those who have read the original can supply the missing sections from their memory, while there is enough left in for the non-initiate to enjoy the tale as it stands.

First of all, this is a gorgeous movie. Every indoor shot, close-up, and sweeping view of the landscape is an example of how cinematography can elevate a movie. Jane Eyre is a classic story for a reason, and this is as fine an adaptation I've encountered with great acting all-around, but it's the visuals and Gothic atmosphere that really made me enjoy this as much as I did. 

On the negative side, there never really seemed to be enough interaction between the characters to justify their attachments to one another. I'm speaking specifically of Jane and Rochester, who are portrayed as being totally in love with each other without much of a reason why ever seen by the audience.

That's a small complaint, though, and one that's easily overlooked if you're watching the movie for more than just the romantic aspect, like I was. I've got to admit, Mia Wasikowska was an excellent Jane. She fit into the time and place shown like a hand in a glove, naturally speaking the poetic dialogue. Michael Fassbender continues his inexorable climb to A-list actor status, and Judi Dench (who I didn't even know was in the movie until I saw her on the screen), is a welcome presence, as always. Jane Eyre isn't a perfect movie, but for me, its strengths far outweighed its flaws.

Charlotte Brontë's seminal literary work "Jane Eyre" has been adapted countless times and prepared in a myriad of ways from the 1943 Joan Fontaine/Orson Welles version that was whittled to an hour and a half to the 1983 BBC mini-series with Zelah Clarke and Timothy Dalton that spans five-plus hours. That certainly begs the question of why anyone, from writer Moira Buffini to director Cary Fukunaga to Dame Judi Dench, would feel inspired to recreate this coming-of-age story about love and accepting its blemishes.

Fukunaga's ("Sin Nombre") take doesn't exactly provide an amazing revelation or epiphanic justification for bringing "Jane Eyre" back to life, but it does prove that no classic can be so overdone that it becomes untouchable; even the most tried and dated of love stories can find new life. Fukanaga has given "Jane Eyre" a photorealistic makeover devoid of frills and fiercely au naturel, but no less gripping than the story's "livelier" retellings.

Fictional period dramas often feel overtly pristine and glazed over to the point of fairytale, but in watching this film, you get the sense that this is quite possibly how the story would have looked and felt if it had been true. All the way down to accents, this rendition has clearly labored over historical authenticity and it shows in the finished product.

Mia Wasikowska ("The Kids Are All Right") continues to choose spot-on independent films despite leading the billion-dollar "Alice in Wonderland" of 2010 and it continues to pay off. She's clearly adept at embodying literary characters, or at least at recreating them within herself rather than worrying about trying to become the way the majority perceives them. Her modest looks suit Jane perfectly and she can play both the fragile girl who has been so often wronged by those who were supposed to care for her and the somewhat self-assured young woman who so plainly understands right from wrong.

Buffini ("Tamara Drewe") tells "Jane Eyre" in an un-narrated flashback. The film opens with Jane dashing away from the spectre of the Thornfield estate and stumbling through the beautifully captured but cold and desolate English countryside in a state of total anguish. She arrives at the Rivers' place where they enquire as to her identity. As the voice of Mr. Rochester (Michael Fassbender) beckons her, she cannot block out the memories of her journey. The film then catches up to that point in real time and continues on to the end.

Other than a terrific performance from Amelia Clarkson as young Jane, the early chapters involving Lowood School seem to be of less significance in this version other than the very clear point to establish Mr. Brocklehurst as an insensitive headmaster and clearly spell out Jane's early traumas that have affected her perspective. The love story between Jane and Mr. Rochester and the way it affects Jane takes supreme precedence in this film and with a two- hour run time, rightfully so. Nevertheless, the short beginnings prevent the film from showing the whole scope of Jane's troubled life.

Fassbender and Wasikowska work terrifically and manage to communicate the class and age discrepancy that made "Jane Eyre" a juicy read back in the 19th Century. Fassbender does seem to let Rochester's guard down quicker than expected, but I enjoyed his choice to be less standoffish and more brooding; he determines his secret to be more a responsibility of an unfortunate nature than a loathsome burden. His love for Jane then feels more sincere.

An actress as magnetizing as Judi Dench choosing to play the caretaker Mrs. Fairfax sums up the humble attitude of this "Jane Eyre." She uses her gravitas to the effect of being the film's lone comic relief and complements the scenes rather than stealing them from Wasikowska, who is 55 years her junior.

The film itself aims for subtlety and chooses not to amp up the shock value of the story's most pivotal scenes. There's some manufactured suspense, but it's mostly natural. It ends up being the most commendable aspect of Fukunaga's vision, but maybe the most hampering as well. He creates exceptional tone and mood with the help of his wonderful cast and this seizes our interest, but his "Jane" never takes a chance with any emotional punches. A superbly crafted film, just not a resonant one.

~Steven C

Charlotte Brontë's "Jane Eyre" has been my favorite book since I was 11 years old. The tale of a feisty orphan-girl-turned-governess who finds true love in a spooky mansion and ultimately redeems a tormented hero has made it to the top of every "Best Love Stories" list since it was first published in 1847, and with good reason. It's the perfect Gothic novel, melding mystery, horror, and the classic medieval castle setting with heart-stopping romance.

There have been at least 18 film versions of "Jane Eyre" and 9 made-for-television movies--27 in all! I have seen most of them, some multiple times–-both out of my deep love for the tale, and as part of the research for my novel "The Secret Diaries of Charlotte Brontë," the true story of Charlotte's remarkable life, her inspiration behind "Jane Eyre," and her turbulent, real-life romance.

Every screen version of JANE EYRE has its merits. I especially loved Timothy Dalton's portrayal of Mr. Rochester in the 1983 mini-series, and the 2006 Masterpiece Theatre mini-series starring Ruth Wilson and Toby Stephens. I was very curious to see how the new JANE EYRE adaptation from Focus Films would measure up. I am happy to report that the film, which I saw last night at an advance screening, is very good indeed, with marvelous visuals, terrific performances, and enough unique elements to make it a worthy new addition.

The most notable distinction that sets this film apart from the rest is its structure. Rather than telling the tale in a linear fashion, it begins at a crisis moment later in the story, and tells the majority of the tale in flashback–-which works wonderfully well, enabling screenwriter Moira Buffini to effectively compress a long novel into a two-hour time span.

The movie opens as Jane is fleeing Thornfield after having discovered Mr. Rochester's dark and heartbreaking secret. We fear for her as she becomes lost on the stormy moor. The mystery continues as St. John Rivers (well-played by a sympathetic yet appropriately stern Jamie Bell) and his sisters take her in. As Jane ruminates about the past events that led to her escape, we are treated to the story in flashback.

The casting of Mia Wasikowska as Jane Eyre also sets this production apart, since she is closer in age than most actresses who've played the role to the character in the novel, who was about 18 years old in the Thornfield section. Although I wish Mia's Jane was a bit more "swoony" over Mr. Rochester earlier on (yes, she is supposed to be stoic, but I missed that phase where we get to see her blossom as she falls in love with him, and then is utterly crushed when she believes him to be in love with Miss Ingram), Mia truly inhabits the role, beautifully portraying Jane's sense of self-respect, integrity, and restraint, as well as her passion and vulnerability.

Michael Fassbender embodies Mr. Rochester with the ideal blend of charisma and sinister brooding, while at the same time allowing glimpses of his underlying desperation and the wounded depths of his soul. Sally Hawkins as Mrs. Reed effectively portrays the icy ogre who menaces the young Jane (a spirited and appealing Amelia Clarkson.) And Judi Dench, as always, gives a superb performance as housekeeper Mrs. Fairfax.

The film's locations do justice to the novel's often gloomy, atmospheric tone. Director Cary Fukunaga makes excellent use of Haddon Hall in Derbyshire, one of the oldest houses in England, as Thornfield Hall, emphasizing its dark, Gothic, masculine feel. The exterior locations--gardens, cliffs, craggy rocks, stone walls, and seemingly endless fields--make an arresting, dramatic backdrop for the story. You truly feel as though you are in the middle of nowhere.

My only minor gripes are that when Mr. Rochester's secret is revealed, it feels a little too prettified, and the ending was too abrupt for me. But that aside, the filmmakers have done a masterful job translating the novel to the screen. I highly recommend it! --Syrie James

First off, I'm a huge fan of the book. I think it may be one of the most 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 I could ever imagine. He's got the "ugly" that the character needs while not bothering to try and hide his good looks. He brings a certain something to the character that wasn't in the books.

Mia...whatever her last name was okay. She's young so at least they kept that in the movie. But she's quiet and meek which is what Jane is really like.

But there is zero chemistry between them. And what there is, is forced.

2) The music- absolutely wonderful!! 3) The scenery- Gorgeous! Just the Thornfield I had imagined in my head come to life.

Now for the bad: 1) Pacing- The movie went by way to fast. It missed the whole buildup and friendship between Jane and Rochester so when it came 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 of family. Then, we find out that the Rivers family is actually her family as well.

The movie completely ignored this! And they made John into an admirer of Jane! WTF? Jane's background is barely touched on. Where is her friendship with Helen? And what about Lowood and the Reed girls? 3) Timing- Again, it was rushed. But the timing of the story is all over the place. I didn't mind that they told it as a backstory, but it was kind 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. And really, was it that hard to include a few extra scenes that are important (such as Adele and Rochester's connection)? Those scenes would've made the movie maybe 10-12 minutes longer, which the movie desperately could've used.

4) The Ending- Um...what? I thought I was watching Jane Eyre and not Pride and Prejudice. There was an epilogue at the end of the book which shows what happened to Rochester and Jane. Instead, the writers went for 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 very harsh and real love story.

How can a true fan of the book say this is great? They leave out just about 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 no problem separating book from film, but this was ridiculous. They filmed most of those parts that I mentioned then deleted them.

What a waste.

As an avid fan of the novel, I was very excited to see this preview and I have waited anxiously for the film. I finally saw it today at the threatre and it was wonderful! Excellent. This is the best film version of "Jane Eyre" yet (and I've seen most of them.) This is hands-down the best CASTING for "Jane Eyre" yet. I have never seen a more perfect Jane Eyre, Edward Rochester, or Mrs. Fairfax. Period. Jane brought tears to my eyes so many, many times in this film. She was simply perfect. Small, soft-spoken, young, composed, graceful, dignified, and lovely in her uniquely plain way. And Edward Rochester? Wow --what a ruggedly handsome man! He was certainly not "pretty-boy handsome"; but rugged, masculine, with sharp features, a deep voice, and a sometimes abrupt and harsh manner. He was exactly as described in "Jane Eyre!" BRAVO to you both, Michael Fassbender and Mia Wasikowska!

In my opinion, Fassbender and Wasikowska have finally given us perfect embodiments of all we adored in them.... Jane Eyre and Edward Rochester--two of the most beloved fictional characters of all time. Brilliant performances, really. I am truly delighted.

The sets, costumes, lighting, art, mood, cinematography, and score were all excellent. I hope the Academy Award is awake and paying attention!

Loving the novel as I do, I found a few flaws I must mention: I didn't think Blanche was nearly pretty enough; Bertha was not frightening enough; Rochester's kindnesses to Jane were not displayed here (an audience member might wonder why she loved him as she did); St. John Rivers was a much harsher character here --not gentle and lovable as he was in the book; and lastly, the film was less than two hours long and therefore too much was left out of the story. I fervently wish it could have been 20 or 30 minutes longer. Another 20 or 30 minutes might have helped the audience understand even better Jane's desolate past, her fierce love for Rochester, and her bright future.

That may sound like a lot of criticism, but you must consider what a masterpiece the novel "Jane Eyre" is. The novel is often considered ahead of its time due to its masterful portrayal of the development of a thinking and passionate young woman who is individualistic, desiring for a full life, while also highly moral.

Overall, I highly recommend the film. It was artfully told. I cried; I gasped; I laughed; I flinched; and I cried some more. I know I'll enjoy watching it again and again.

THANK YOU to the actors, director, and everyone involved in bringing this film to its fruition. Hopefully, it will prompt new generations of fans to read the novel and fall in love with Jane Eyre, as so many of us have since it was published in 1847.

This film is beautiful, romantic, frightening, sometimes funny, and ultimately very moving. See it on the big screen at the theatre. I think you'll love it!

In 1829, the nine year-old orphan girl Jane Eyre is sent by her despicable aunt Mrs. Reed (Sally Hawkins) to Lowood Institution, a charity school directed by the cruel Mr. Henry Brocklehurst (Simon McBurney). Jane has a harsh childhood in the boarding school, where she loses her best friend Helen Burns (Freya Parks). After ten years, she is hired by Mrs. Fairfax (Judi Dench) as the governess of Adele Varens, who is the protégée of the master of Thornfield, Edward Rochester, and she leaves Lowood.

Jane (Mia Wasikowska) moves to the manor and sooner she feels an unrequited love by her master. Despite their different social classes and ages, they become friends. Mr. Rochester breaks with his fiancée Blanche and proposes Jane. However, a gloomy secret from Mr. Rochester's past affects their lives and Jane Eyre does not marry her dearly beloved Mr. Rochester.

Jane leaves the property and wanders, and is saved by the religious St. John Rivers (Jamie Bell) and his two sisters. St. John Rivers is a man of God and wants to marry Jane Eyre and travel with her to India. But Jane still loves Mr. Rochester and feels only fraternal love for St. John Rivers.

"Jane Eyre" is a visually stunning adaptation of the classic romance of Charlotte Brontë, with a perfect lead actress in the role of Jane Eyre but missing important parts of the story. The romance takes place in "a harsh time of change in England, when money and position seemed all that mattered; charity was a cold and disagreeable word; and religion too often wore a mask of bigotry and cruelty." However, this version ignores the period when Jane Eyre stays in the orphanage and the cruelties that she is submitted.

This is the fourth version of "Jane Eyre" that I have watched and the 1943 version by Robert Stevenson is unbeatable, with the impressive atmosphere in black and white that fits to the Gothic fiction of the novel. Further, the powerful performance of Orson Welles is incomparable in the role of Edward Rochester.. The 1970 version is more faithful to the novel after the unsuccessful marriage of Jane Eyre and Edward Rochester, with an adult discussion of the couple and more accurate fate of Jane. The 1996 version by Franco Zeffirelli is the weakest adaptation of the classic romance by Charlotte Brontë. My vote is six.

Title (Brazil): "Jane Eyre"

I saw a sneak preview of Jane Eyre last night at AFI/Silver in Silver Spring MD. This is a beautifully filmed, engrossing, and haunting version of the classic Charlotte Bronte novel Jane Eyre. This film is worth seeing and it will leave you thinking about it long after you have left the theater. It captures that otherworldly and isolated environment that Jane inhabits in her lonely life. After you witness the unloved childhood and brutal boarding school you can understand how Jane can not only adapt to her isolated employment but revel in a world where the absence of abuse is a relief. One thing that struck me was the way the actress portraying Jane Eyre, Mia Wasikowska, inhabited Jane's being. The quiet stillness, the dignity, the steely nerves under the mask of composure. I have been trying to recall another actress who portrayed the physicality of a woman, a governess, in that time period so perfectly. She wasn't a modern actress in a corset, she moved like a young woman who is used to the corset and layers of cloth, and the expectations on a young woman in Victorian England. I also particularly enjoyed the portrayal of a vibrant, intelligent, woman who knows she is caged by the norms of her society and her position in it. Miss Wasikowska did a wonderful portrayal of Jane, giving her great depth while still letting the emotions flit across her usually stoic face. I also liked Mrs Reed - she is a wholly human villain, petty, cruel, insecure, and resentful. You can see her in Miss Ingram, a petty woman who could turn hateful. The young Jane is a stand out performance, all spit and fury, you realize that Jane's survival is due to her courage. That the intensity of the child is coiled inside the adult Jane. The cinematography is beautiful, the sets and costumes look accurate, the screenplay handled well, and the directing outstanding. I also appreciate that no character was over done. This film will age well, where some other versions can make you cringe now. This film is going to make me pick up the novel and read it again after a very long time. Not a bad recommendation for a movie.

I certainly can't fault much of Cary Fukunaga's interpretation of Charlotte Bronte's timeless story of a woman who resents being anyone's property and is one of literature's first women to seek independence from men, but I can't say that I found this film particularly entertaining.

The story of an orphan girl who was mistreated for most of her life until she finds love in the arms of Mr. Rochester, Fukunaga's film follows the original novel quite closely, though some important details were seemingly deleted for no reason, and can be found in the special features of the DVD.

Mia Wasikowska, in a very strong yet dreary performance (also seen this year flexing some excellent acting muscle in "Albert Nobbs") plays the titular character in a very honest, earnest fashion, but never seems to enrapture her enough to truly click with the viewer. Michael Fassbender, so strong in a bunch of films this year, including "X-Men: First Class," "A Dangerous Method" and "Shame" (for which many feel he was robbed of an Oscar nomination), makes it terribly easy to understand why anyone, not just Jane, would fall in love with his terribly handsome face and masculine demeanour. With a cast that is rounded out by incredible names like Judi Dench, Sally Hawkins and Jamie Bell, you'd think the film would be far more enrapturing.

However, I just found it very slow moving and dreary and just barely keeping my attention. It is a well-acted and beautifully filmed period piece and the Oscar-nominated costumes are well done, but just like the rest of the film, they are grey and depressing and just not all that attention-grabbing.

This movie is exquisite. It is an example of how a dramatic movie should be made. Far from being corny or contrived, this movie is about integrity, courage, loyalty, and friendship. The movie is beautifully filmed and conveys the moodiness and foreboding associated with the story. The acting is great by all members of the cast. This movie tells a story and tells it well. It provides a glimpse of nineteenth century English society and how people looked and acted at that time. Yet the movie is more than a period piece; its themes are timeless. At no time does the story drag. Jane Eyre is heroic. She is the epitome of human goodness, not the kind that's candy-coated but the kind that is genuine. She transcends a harsh childhood to become a source of great strength for everyone around her. Unlike most Hollywood movies today, Jane Eyre is story-driven, and the story is strong. This movie is well worth watching and the title character is a role model for adolescents or young adults of all ages to emulate.

I've seen JANE EYRE in many versions, holding the Susannah York/George C. Scott edition on a special pedestal, but this new atmospheric adaptation proves to be worthwhile. It should introduce a new audience to the classic tale.

After scoring in the title role in Tim Burton's ALICE IN WONDERLAND, Aussie thesp Mia Wasikowska is compelling with a plain Jane styling here again as title character, with her story told effectively in flashback, starting with her escape from the Gothic mansion of Rochester (Michael Fassbender), getting a school marm's gig from sympathetic young pastor "Sin-jin" (St. John, played by Mr. BILLY ELLIOT himself, Jamie Bell).

Her "tale of woe", as Rochester mockingly describes it before even hearing a word, is the familiar Charlotte Bronte yarn -suffering a scary childhood at the hands of such ogres as Mrs. Reed (Sally Hawkins, in her least giggly role to date -very effective). Years at a school for castoff girls, where corporal punishment is de rigeur, merely season Jane for life's hard knocks.

The romantic sweep of her dealings with Rochester are well portrayed, and director Cary Joji Fukunaga makes terrific use of the stark locations, shot in painterly fashion. The visuals alone make this remake worthwhile, backed by the BBC but definitely not a "Masterpiece Theatre" small-screen effort like the recent re-dos of all of Jane Austen.

The big reveal regarding Rochester's "secret" is well-done, though I was a bit disappointed that the hindsight of two versions of Jean Rhys' prequel WIDE SARGASSO SEA was not taken into account here. I guess screenwriter Moira Buffini adhered to a more purist approach.

Fassbender has already suffered casting criticism as being too good looking, but his acting carries the day -combining the right amount of sinister to temper the matinée idol veneer. After all, Jane is going to fall for him eventually. I still prefer Scott or Orson Welles in the role -tough competition indeed.

Besides the principals, Dame Judi Dench is solid as a rock as Rochester's housekeeper, giving it her always-A-game approach and adding nuance to what could be merely a stock role.

I read the reviews of this film a few days before it was released, and one critic said it was the best JE adaptation she had ever seen. Well, then. I had high expectations.

WOW. It totally surpassed my expectations.

I'm a huge fan of the book, so I was a bit unsure of this film (before I saw it, of course) because it may have altered some main details. Not true. Yes, some parts were altered, but not altered so much that it was a fallacy. Not in any way were the changes a fallacy. The changes were minor.

The acting is wonderful, you can really sense the chemistry between Wasikowska's Jane and Fassbender's Rochester. It's well written, and the screen-writer has added in some quirky little moments that made everyone in my theatre laugh out loud.

In other words, I loved this movie. It was a beautiful film, and it was well worth the two hour car ride to see it. I can't wait for the DVD.

5/5

Jane Eyre (Mia Wasikowska) runs away from Thornfield Hall and finds shelter with St John Rivers (Jamie Bell), and his sisters Diana (Holliday Grainger) and Mary (Tamzin Merchant). As an orphan child, she was mistreated by her aunt Mrs Reed (Sally Hawkins) and her son. She was sent to Lowood School for Girls ruled by the cruel Mr Brocklehurst and branded as a liar by Mrs Reed. She leaves the school to be a governess for French orphan Adèle Varens at Thornfield. Mrs Fairfax (Judi Dench) is the housekeeper. Edward Fairfax Rochester (Michael Fassbender) is the often absent owner.

Cary Fukunaga brings a haunting cinematic brutal beauty to this Charlotte Brontë classic. The script has been stripped down to the needed scope. Mia Wasikowska has her sense of fragile determination. The acting is impeccable. This is less a costume romance and more a Gothic theater. It is really a painting of mood and deep feeling.

An ok production but my major gripe, along with every other version apart from the Orson Welles and Timothy Dalton ones, is portraying Rochester as handsome. Rochester is meant to be quite, not ugly, but rugged and more masculine. Orson Welles was the original and best.

This is less a review than an impression that I've been posting at a few sites - I'm an avowed cinephile so I hope that counts for something, but for people who have not seen this film yet, I only want to give a thumbnail. Sometimes a short emotionally-infused impression is better: Oh my. I'm just back from the film and espresso afterward. Never cried so much at any film version of this story. Finally, the best-paired two actors, a writer who knew how to bring out the best of the novel, and a director to pull it all together. Somehow, Director Fukunaga found a way to make it fresh without any modernism at all, with help from Screenwriter Moira Buffini. I do not want to go into detail - I want you to discover this film for yourself. I will say, for me, they mined everything that was important and gave it beautiful expression and downplayed the melodramatic elements of Bronte's story. They simply aren't necessary. We now have a definitive version of Jane Eyre for the ages.

It is always so difficult to adapt great literature into the movie. Sometimes the literature is chopped, distorted, and modified horribly, missing out the important epiphany or failing to connect each episode smoothly. At least, 'Jane Eyre' does not make this kind of mistake. It captures most of the important developments of the story and stays faithful to the original. The problem is the lack of emotions of character and of the storyline. I'm sure Wasikowska worked hard to portray untroubled and reserved Jane Eyre wiser than her age. However, within the continuity of calmness, the character Jane Eyre should be allowed to display some subtle emotions. After all, Mr. Rochester loves Eyre's smile in the book. The plot development is so plain and flat without any dynamics, opposite of the literature as well.

I also want to mention the lack of chemistry between Eyre and Rochester and abrupt ending. If Jane Eyre had a little bitty more cheerfulness and emotions, it would have been better chemistry. AND the ending is very unkind, wrapping up the whole thing without giving time to process (which was supposed to be) moving moment of reunion. (Again, the lack of emotion is a problem)

Here we are again. Another adaptation of the novel Jane Eyre written by Charlotte Bronte. This time Mia Wasikowska (Alice in Wonderland) plays the main character, Jane Eyre, and Michael Fassbender (Inglorious Basterds) plays her love interest, Edward Rochester. The big question, surrounding the film, is, well, is this film worth seeing since it has practically been done to death already. Overall, I would say yes.

For starters the film's beautiful cinematography alone makes the film worth seeing. In fact, that's the best thing the film has to offer and that is no insult to the actors and actresses that starred in the film. There are plenty of beautiful shots showing the open countryside of England as Jane wanders around, trying to find her place. Even inside the mansions the cinematography is just breathtaking and it truly adds to the film. The cinematography of the film creates a unique atmosphere that at times makes the film almost seem like a horror flick and it adds to the Gothic nature of the film.

One of the major standouts that I took notice to was the film's score. The score was done by Dario Marianelli, and he did a magnificent job. The score added tension to many scenes and, like the cinematography, added greatly to the atmosphere of the film. I feel without the strong score the film would have, at times, fallen flat and completely lost the interest of its audience and been a disaster.

Another strong point of the movie is the acting. Wasikowska plays a strong Jane Eyre and is definitely worthy of playing the role. She holds her own against the likes of Judi Dench and other great actors. Fassbender is equally, if not better, as great as Wasikowska and the two have wonderful chemistry together and it adds to the quality of the film. If the chemistry was absent between the two lead parts the film could have easily fallen apart and been a major disappointment. There are several scenes where the chemistry between Wasikowska and Fassbender truly shines and makes the film come to life.

However, while the film may have great cinematography, acting and a phenomenal score one cannot help but feel that the film seemed rushed. Too many crucial scenes of the film felt either short or rushed and ultimately it hurt the film. At times the scenes between Wasikowska and Fassbender didn't feel right even though the two had great chemistry. The film didn't leave enough time for their love to truly develop and feel natural. Instead, their love felt forced and at times unbelievable although the both connected well. It was not the actor's fault in this film it was the screenwriters fault who didn't let the love grow appropriately.

Overall, if you're a fan of the novel you won't be disappointed. There is enough in the film to keep the audience interested and that is what matters when all is said is done. Mia Wasikowska plays, what could be, the finest portrayal of Jane Eyre yet and is not let down by her fellow cast members. The film has wonderful cinematography and score that add to the film's atmosphere. If you haven't read the novel, like me, and you're interested in this type of movie I would easily recommend it.

I'll never understand why filmmakers don't make use of actual dialogue in the book. Where it strays, it strays badly, almost completely reinterpreting the characters. There's also an added melancholic tone to the movie that lacks the excitement of the connection I of these two characters. The casting is decent but Rochester is too dour and lacking the wicked humour and deep passion and charm of the character. On the book he's described as being the life of the party and making every room happier. You don't see that here. I won't go through all the characters but it all felt lacklustre. I also think a feature length movie will never be long enough to do justice to the story.