User Reviews

I had very high hopes for this film, despite thinking it was too soon for another adaptation. I mean, the 2006 BBC miniseries was released less than five years before this one! As much as I love Jane Eyre, I do think think there's such a thing as adaptation overload. I can't help but feel that they could have adapted another work instead.

Overall, my view on the film is that it is a disappointment. It could have been great but it did not meet my expectations. One of my main problems was the structure. The film starts out with Jane fleeing Thornfield and being found by the Rivers. Any scenes from before that point are flashbacks, occasionally coming back to a scene in the "present" at Moor House. I remember reading about this choice before the film came out and being hesitant, but I thought it might come out better than I expected. Unfortunately, it did not. The flashback structure was confusing for my friends who did not read the book. To me, it was just an annoyance. I get that they were trying to do something different, but it just didn't work for me in practice. I think that the film could have benefited from about 10-20 extra minutes of run-time. A lot of the explanations and backstories are cut out. What really bothered me about this is that it looked like more things were actually originally filmed, but left on the cutting room floor. The DVD confirmed my suspicions on some of this- plenty of deleted scenes on it should have been left in the film, IMO! I do not know why some of them were cut. Because I saw the film with several people who did not read the book, I know that a lot of it was confusing. And for me, even though I knew the backstory, I was just irritated not to see it! One major thing I felt they should have done with extra time would be to show more buildup to Jane and Rochester's relationship. Some of their scenes together are great, but they needed more of these before they actually got engaged to show and explain their growing attraction more.

As to the actors, I found much of the acting to be understated. In some cases I liked this approach more than in others. Mia Wasikowska is not plain, but I thought they made her look the part well enough in terms of age and stature. I found her acting, however, to be underwhelming. I thought her performance was too restrained. In the proposal scene, in particular, I thought she held back too much. I don't want Jane to be over the top, but I wanted a little more passion. A lot of focus in this version seemed to be put on Jane wanting freedom and developing into a woman, but I could have done without the scene of her examining the painting of a naked lady. Not that I had any issues with the picture, but the scene accomplished nothing (that time could have been better spent elsewhere) and this "nude image" was part of the reason the film got a PG-13 rating. While Michael Fassbender was also a bit more restrained than some other actors (especially compared to Timothy Dalton, my favorite), I liked his performance more than Mia's. The two did have good chemistry, but there just weren't enough scenes to show them falling in love. Bertha, I felt to have not enough of a presence. Grace Poole was really just in the background and so there was never any of Jane suspecting her. Bertha herself was not as menacing as she could have been. I suppose they did not want to be offensive but she just wasn't scary enough. The Rivers siblings were all good in their roles, but I was not a fan of the change made to their relationship with Jane.

I don't want to make it seem like I completely hated this film, because I didn't. I thought that the scenes of Jane's childhood were particularly well-done, especially given the short time-frame. Many individual scenes were great. On the whole, I just found it to be slightly lacking. I want a director's cut!

I'm very surprised to read the glowing reviews this version of Jane Eyre is receiving. Like other reviewers, Jane Eyre is my absolute favorite book and so I've seen every TV/movie version of it starting with the Orson Welles version. I will agree that the scenery was gorgeous, but other than that, I was pretty disappointed. There's no way to condense this fantastic story into a two-hour movie and do it justice; there's just too much detail and when left out, it makes for a choppy retelling. While watching it, at first I kept "filling in" all the parts that were left out. Then I'd try to watch it as someone who had never read the book, but that left me too confused because of the speed at which the story was told, and the flashback retelling of the story.

Also, this version has Jane becoming an heiress, but what about the fact that St. John and his sisters truly *are* Jane's relatives??? Her generosity to them wasn't just a nice gesture for taking her in when she showed up at their door.

The ending completely irritated me. Jane and Rochester's reunion at the end was a second love story, and it received all of 1-2 minutes before cutting off.

I also agree with other reviewers who didn't see/feel any passion between this Jane and Rochester. While I did like their looks for the parts, their scenes together felt like they were reciting lines, not falling in love with each other. And I didn't see any of the passion in Michael Fassbender that you could see with Timothy Dalton or Toby Stephens. If anything, he made me think that Daniel Day-Lewis would make for an excellent Rochester by bringing more depth to the character.

All in all, I would recommend people to use their money to rent the Timothy Dalton or Toby Stephens version of this story vs. using it to attend this version.

This is the umpteenth version of Charlotte Bronte's classic novel of a plain, obscure and poor orphan girl who lands a job as a governess and eventually captures the heart of her mysterious employer. This 22nd version of the timeless Gothic romance is a visually sumptuous and handsomely mounted production, but it is also quite bland and dull. Technical contributions are excellent, from Adriano Goldman's gorgeous cinematography, to Will Hughes-Jones' stunning production design and Michael O'Connor's costumes. Director Cary Fukunaga (the excellent Mexican drama Sin Nombre, etc) brings a foreboding atmosphere to Thornfield, Rochester's imposing, dark and brooding home. When we first meet Jane she is scrambling across a rain soaked and windswept moor before arriving at the home of St John Rivers (Jamie Bell), who takes her in and cares for her. Then in an extended flashback we learn how she came to be there. Cast out of home by her spiteful aunt (Sally Hawkins) Jane is sent to the austere Lowood Charity School and orphanage. We get a brief glimpse of the appalling conditions and treatment she endures before she is hired as governess to Rochester's young ward. Having previously played Alice in Tim Burton's visually bold version of Alice In Wonderland, Australian actress Mia Wasikowska seems to be the current go to girl for playing virginal heroines of English literature. And she delivers a nicely nuanced performance in a role that has previously been played by the likes of Joan Fontaine, Charlotte Gainsbourg and the late Susannah York. Michael Fassbender (from the recent X-Men First Class, etc) makes for a handsome Mr Rochester, but his performance is fairly perfunctory. In previous versions Mr Rochester has been far more formidable and overbearing, and quite often older. In previous versions the character has been played by George C Scott, Timothy Dalton, Ciaran Hinds and, in the memorable 1943 adaptation, Orson Welles brought his own unique power to the role. There is a lack of passion and fire between the two leads, which also holds the film back. Judi Dench brings her usual class to her performance as Mrs Fairfax, the kindly housekeeper. Moira Buffini's screenplay is surprisingly atmospheric and literate, and has pared the novel back to the essentials. However, it is virtually impossible to fit Bronte's novel into a two-hour movie, which is why the tale is best suited to the mini-series format, and the 1973 epic mini-series is arguably the best version. We are still waiting for the definitive big screen adaptation of Jane Eyre.

This most recent adaptation of "Jane Eyre" is a visual masterpiece. The setting is carefully planned to represent characterisations and emotional states through nature or objects. Heavy rain underscores the turbulence within Jane as she runs from Thornfield. Fog mysteriously veils her first meeting with Mr Rochester, bright sunlight showcases the happiness of the couple during and after the proposal. Windows sometimes obstruct the view when Jane feels trapped. Darkness falls when she is confused or thinking. Colourful flowers and fluttering leaves frame her playful interactions with her fiancée. Yes, visually, there is next to nothing that could still be wished for.

One pivotal element of "Jane Eyre" is the mystery of Mr Rochester's past. There is a ghost at Thornfield Hall, the identity of which is crucial to further developments in the plot. Bertha Rochester, although never seen, must be felt at all times; her presence is the key to understanding Rochester's behaviour. This is one aspect where the adaptation fell woefully short. Adéle tells her new governess that a woman haunts the corridors at times, but no clues are given as to who she might be. Grace Poole, the infamous scapegoat Rochester uses in the novel to explain the terrifying events at Thornfield Hall, is not seen or even spoken of until the day of the wedding. All of this could be overlooked had the actual encounter with Bertha left more of an impact. There is a dream-like quality about that scene, aided by the sudden inclusion of echoes. I felt, however, that this decision softened the impact; meeting Mr Rochester's wife should have had a brutal effect on Jane and the watcher. It was underwhelming. They also forfeited the chance to depict Bertha setting Thornfield Hall on fire and instead had Mrs Fairfax tell Jane what had transpired. At the end of the film, we do not know who Bertha really is; her development should have aided that of Jane.

"Jane Eyre", the novel, is not a tragedy. In fact, it exudes strength, energy and a positive attitude in spite of unhappy times and circumstances. It was therefore discomfiting to see so much restraint and gloominess well after the first scene had played out. Everybody spoke in hushed voices, even the Rivers, as if they, too, had a Bertha lurking in their attic. In fact, there are only two instances where someone actually speaks in a loud voice: once at the wedding, once when St John tells Jane that they must marry. The actors are thus given little opportunity to act through their voices, e.g. by varying intonation. This is also a problem of the script. Rochester makes one joke to Adéle about her and her mother's charm; there could easily have been more instances of that. The ending, too, should have involved pronounced happiness; Mia Wasikowska's Jane shed tears where she should have been the woman in control. By the end of the novel, she has the strength to draw Mr Rochester out and alleviate his gloomy state. Here, she is toned down too much and thus misrepresented.

Another aspect that might have been handled better concerns the characters. The Reeds, Helen Burns, Bertha and Grace Poole are gone almost as soon as they are introduced. Adéle is disturbingly quiet; Mrs Fairfax is much too clever. Of the Rivers family, only St John is fleshed out to some degree; Miss Oliver was left out completely, however. St John merely relates to Jane that his struggles in the past are similar to hers. This is an unfortunate statement, as it creates the impression that he once truly loved and had his heart broken due to regrettable circumstances. A wholly different light could have been shed on him easily had his sisters been given a line or two. As it is, Jane observes that her concept of love differs from St John's, yet it is not shown how she arrived at that conclusion.

Blanche Ingram is underplayed to a point where she becomes unbelievable as a threat to Jane's happiness. In the novel, she is a foil to Jane, possessing the status and the cruel traits Jane lacks. The audience of this film is shown little more than her beautiful profile; Jane's neck fills so much of the screen that Miss Ingram gets little chance to shine. Gone is Mr Rochester's careful scheming. He openly acts in a confused manner when Jane speaks of Blanche as his love interest.

The film succeeded, on the other hand, in the depiction of a believable love story between its leads. Fassbender and Wasikowska have chemistry; especially the post-wedding scenes show how much better they could have been throughout the film had the blandness in the script not harmed them. Jane taking off her wedding dress in tears is one of the most moving scenes. It is followed by Rochester lying on the floor in a rather funny posture; there, his anxiety and his concern for her translate extremely well. It is a pity that they had so few of these opportunities; at times, I found myself wondering whether they understood their characters fully. My misgivings about the proposal scene were happily only confirmed to some extent. I would have liked to see more of an emotional outburst on Wasikowska's side, but she did handle it fairly well.

To conclude, it was certainly not the worst adaptation ever, in spite of its shortcomings. It must be stated, however, that it is a far cry from what it could have been. The limited running time does not explain everything that went wrong; I had to push my knowledge of the novel to the back of my mind, because I did not feel it was translated accurately to the big screen. As a standalone piece, it is marvellous. I will be happy to give it another chance when it comes out on DVD.

Let me preface this by saying I'm a hardcore Bronte devotee, obsessed with the book, and have seen pretty much every filmed version out there. I really enjoyed the film- acting, cinematography, costumes, etc. I loved Mia and Michael- awesome together, good chemistry, making an excellent Jane and Rochester. My main criticism would be that there were several key scenes that were omitted, primarily between when Rochester and Jane meet and when he proposes, which kind of gives short shrift to their relationship. They don't really have time to establish the bond that makes their relationship so powerful, so that it comes slightly out of left field when they confess their love to each other. Many other omissions make this feel like the Cliff Notes version, and my movie companion was left missing a lot of the magic and nuance because he hasn't read the book and was confused by some of the leaps and 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 it into the movie, don't put it in the trailer! Argh! It always feels like false advertising to me. But anyways, back to the positives...

The scenes between Jane and Rochester feel pretty electric. Jane is sharp as a whip, which is right on target. In my opinion, the best thing about this movie is that they FINALLY showed the scene portrayed in Chapter 27, which is my absolute favorite chapter which they never do justice to in the films. They even included the "I could bend her with my finger and my thumb" line, where a desperate Rochester notes that he could physically force Jane to submit to his will, but he still wouldn't control what he cherishes most: her soul. In the film, it felt somewhat natural and organic, too, which is a hard thing to pull off. Loved it! Also, showing Rochester bursting into Jane's room the morning after, frantic to discover Jane is gone-- awesome! It's so much better than Rochester impotently watching Jane walk away, which is what some other film versions have done.

The ending is romantic but abrupt-- I like more closure to my happy endings, and Jane and Rochester need more happiness after a lifetime of misery.

Final critique- by switching up the chronology, you don't meet Rochester until halfway through the movie, and he's sort of the fire of the piece. Without Rochester, there's not much story, and I think the film would've benefited by introducing him a little earlier.

Loved that Rochester puts his pants on AFTER he and Jane put out the fire. I'd always wondered if he was fully dressed...