After a bleak childhood, Jane Eyre goes out into the world to become a governess. As she lives happily in her new position at Thornfield Hall, she meet the dark, cold, and abrupt master of the house, Mr. Rochester. Jane and her employer grow close in friendship and she soon finds herself falling in love with him. Happiness seems to have found Jane at last, but could Mr. Rochester's terrible secret be about to destroy it forever?
Highly Overrated But Still Good
The film never slows down or bores, plunging from one harrowing sequence to the next.
It's a feast for the eyes. But what really makes this dramedy work is the acting.
This is one of the best movies I’ve seen in a very long time. You have to go and see this on the big screen.
I really thought that this version is gonna be better...
But only the visual effects were better.
Performance worse than in 2006th movie of BBC.
Many details are gone.
But the difference of age were noticeable, really, as it has to be.
Jane Eyre was a decent movie. The acting was very good. Especially from Mia and Michael. It was very visually pleasing and the lighting was amazing in most of the movie. It took about an hour for me to actually get involved with the story and it was a rather long movie. For that reason alone did it lose points for me. A great family film. The costumes were pretty great as well.
Jane Eyre is a story that is very near and dear to my heart. The first time I ever experienced JE, I watched the 2006 Toby Stephens version with my mother, when I was around 12/13. I was dazzled by that version. The scenery was beautiful, it had a kind of spooky feeling, the story was intriguing, but what got me hooked on Jane Eyre was the relationship between Jane and Edward.In the 2006 version, Stephens and Wilson are passionate, and they convey so much through their exchange of glances and subtle expressions. The delivery of the lines is fantastic, and so much feeling. Wilson does a perfect job of displaying Jane's passionate and romantic nature, while also showing her inner strength and clear sightedness. Toby Stephens was an excellent Rochester. You could see how tortured he was, and he was amazing at going from charming and pleasant one second, to brooding and rude the next.After the 2006 version, I read JE, and got wrapped up in the book too! After years of loving the book and the 2006 version, I decided to expand my horizons and watch other adaptations. I watched the 1983 version with Timothy Dalton and Zelah Clarke, and I loved that one too. It comes in close second to the 2006 version. Timothy Dalton was excellent, and Zelah Clarke was pretty good. In my humble opinion not as good as Ruth Wilson, but still. when I watched both the 1983 version and the 2006, I felt I was watching the book come to life before my eyes, like I was really seeing Jane and Rochester as they were meant to be seen.With 2011 version, I was so let down. A few points of the movie were okay, mostly I didn't like it. The scenery was fine. I've read some reviews saying how much they loved the "Gothic" feeling of the movie, but I have to disagree. Visually, the film looked Gothic, but it didn't have that same creepy FEELING that I got watching 2006. JE is supposed to be sort of Gothic, but it's also very colourful and vibrant at points. This film seemed like it was trying too hard to be creepy and haunting, and instead ended up feeling very dull. I thought Fassbender's Rochester was interesting. He was good at being brooding, and not bad to look at. Many people complain that he was too good looking for Rochester, which is true, but whenever you get an adaptation of Jane Eyre, especially a more modern one, it's pretty much a given that Rochester is going to be too handsome. I thought there were some moments where Fassbender did well, and I think if he had had a better script, his Rochester could've turned out better.Things I felt were wrong...:Rushed storyline. The whole plot of the movie felt like a project done by an English student who didn't read the book, and just read the cliff-notes. Important scenes were cut, and dialog was choppy, and I found myself muttering lines that should've been included. AND THE ENDING. It felt like Pride and Prejudice 2005 all over again. The epilogue, that's the best part, with some of the most emotional scenes!! They completely butchered it, trying to go for a dramatic ending that fell flat. They really screwed Jane and Edward's relationship. JE is first and foremost, a story about love, passion, and equality. Wasikowska and Fassbender failed to deliver the passion and emotion that was needed in their characters. I feel this wasn't entirely their fault. The script was lacking, and they didn't have much to work with. Also think the director, or whoever was telling them how to act in each scene didn't know what they were doing. There were moments during the movie, where we saw a little bit of passion. The scene after the "wedding" where Rochester is pleading with Jane to stay, they did alright in that scene. You could see what could've been, if the script had been longer and better.I also felt that with the rushed storyline, the love between Jane and Rochester didn't seem real. With the proposal scene, it felt like the movie was saying, "Yep! He loves her now. This makes sense!" It wasn't authentic. In other versions of JE, Rochester is fascinated by Jane. You see them develop friendship, and you see them fall in love. SLOWLY. The reason Rochester has the house party with Blanche at Thornfield is to try and make Jane jealous. At this point he is already in love with her, and is sure he wants to be with her. He is trying to see if Jane wants him back. The 2011 version feels like by the point Blanche arrives, Edward and Jane don't really know each other.They cut out Jane being related to St. John, Diana and Mary, which was an important part of the story. The whole reason Jane gave them all some inheritance was because she didn't want the money as much she wanted family. And also, she felt they were entitled to it as they were related to the uncle as well. THE FORTUNE TELLER SCENE. I was upset about that being cut out.Grace Poole is just completely out of the picture??I was also very mad about the bed fire scene. This is supposed to be a frantic scene. Jane and Rochester were too calm trying to put out the flames. They were just like "Oh no, a fire. We'd better put that out. Wow."I have more things I didn't enjoy, but this is too long. To finish, if you want a good quality adaptation of Jane Eyre, watch the 1983 version, or the 2006 version. I would recommend the 2006 version first, because it's my favourite, but the 1983 version was great too. Or you could watch them both!
Disappointing. I haven't read the book, so had no prior knowledge of the plot, and can't comment on how faithful the movie is to the book. However, for all its potential, the movie ends up feeling quite listless, especially in the latter half. It started well - Jane's background and upbringing was heart- wrenching, giving the movie an edge and the feeling that this was to be a rising-above-one's-background sort of story. However, from a point it stops being a human drama, and is just a romantic drama, dully told. It drifts and when the end comes, it is a relief.Cinematography and costumes are great.Performances are OK. Mia Wasikowska's performance is solid, though her accent seems to vary from scene to scene. Michael Fassbender is intense, maybe too much so. Found him a bit irritating.Surely there are better adaptations out there.