arthera09

18 May 2012

Visually capturing and great performances, but I kind of hate the story

I remembering reading Jane Eyre a few years ago and loved the writingstyle, the characters, and visual style evoked by Bronte, but hatingthe story. I think this summarizes how I feel about the movie. Thestory to me is boring and so overdone that I do not care one bit aboutit. This might have to do with the fact that I am a man, becauseeveryone women I have talked to love this book, but every other male Ihave talked to has a similar sentiment about the story. I think I am tired of seeing movies beginning with a scene from thelast third of the movie and then building up to it. For most of uswatching this movie we already know the storyline so foreshadowing doeslittle for the movie. This movie is a fairly straight forwardadaptation of the book in terms of story, but I think Fukunaga hascaptured the visual style of the book almost spot on. Bronte had a wayof describing environments that I think Fukunaga really captured. Hischoice of using natural lighting worked extremely effectively and wasby far the most impressive part of the movie. I would really love tosee what Fukunaga and his DP could do with a movie shot in black andwhite. The soft candle light and how often times the faces were almostcomplete covered in shadow was extremely effective at creatingatmosphere. I really did not feel a lot of the tension that went with discoveringthe wife in the attic and there was little build up to the finalreveal. Perhaps that is because I already knew what was in the attic,but the tension from the book was lost here. Mia Wasikowska is obviously is a beautiful young women who managed totransform herself into the plain Jane that she needed to be whilemaintaining the allure that would draw Rochester in. She was absolutelyfantastic in the role and it would not surprise me if she is nominatedfor a few awards for this performance. Fassbender was not as good, butwas still alluring in his own way. I really missed some of the deeperconversations that Rochester and Jane share with each other in the bookand I think the inclusion of some more of their dialog with each otherwould have fleshed out Rochester as a character a bit more. It was notcompletely convincing to me that the two of them should fall in love,but that is possibly because I am cynical. I loved this movie visually and the lighting really captured how Iimagined Bronte's world. Bookended by two fantastic lead performancesthe movie can be a real treat to watch. If I did not hate the story somuch then I am sure this would rank higher. This is really a shame thatI feel like this because this is a truly impressive film, but I willrecommend to some of my friends just to see how they feel about thelighting.

saternbaby

18 May 2012

A beautiful illusion revealing plain truths

Coming to this material fresh, this is less a review than a personalreaction described.Where my artistic curiosities lead me is often a dark and discouragingplace. If a gentle tug into another realm, less interesting in itssurface appeal, takes me from egotistic reminders of pain and universalinsignificance to richer pastures…this is when the potential of film asan art form is once again revealed to me.Possibly I am being pretentious in the afterglow. What I mean to say isthat this film is a welcome pleasure in a system of commerce drivenart. Beautiful to look at (if often oppressively muted and somber) thisvision of Jane Eyre is about as excellent an example of a positivesocial criticism in a veil of Gothic romance one could hope for incontemporary cinema. Not quite an 'art film' but more a thoughtfullywritten, skillfully acted and well directed commercial venture.A story involving the theme of feminine strength and love for person orsoul over persona and conventional beauty told in a highly atmosphericfashion is not going to make much of a financial impact, but it will,as told here, please people who might otherwise avoid artisticintegrity in the medium. To be certain there are pretensions to theproduction that I am commenting on, but these are (I believe)pretensions largely fulfilled. My own attempts at manufacturing animpression in others concerning the work are probably doomed tofailure, though, as the story is less interesting to me than the mannerin which it is told.But I am commenting in sway of theme as well, and perhaps this is moreof a relevant point for public praise. It is refreshing to see a femalecharacter who rises above base caricature and superficial glamour todominate a story with her internal presence and fortitude. Regardlessof what she runs from and where she runs to, there is a respect for heras a being beyond mere reproductive service. This is not a lofty poeticprelude to an inevitable consummation but an acknowledgment of theindependent spirit beneath the flesh of a woman. Of course one couldread cynically into this film and find an illusory feminist dirgeinstead. Thankfully I cannot see it this way as it has some wonderfuland uplifting things to say about the complicated nature of love andself, and it says these things quite well.The centerpiece and heart of the film seems to me to be a brief butengaging conversation between a woman and man in which both the mysteryand adversity of both characters is revealed. With the aid of makeup,lighting and photography a dramatic dynamic is created solely upon theidea that simple conversation (the magic of words and the manner inwhich they are spoken) is every bit as viscerally potent to observe asany special effect or cluttered spectacle. There is a sense of magic,both dark and light, in the natural world of this story as well, butcentral is the theme of human nature. And as I am often quitemisogynistic through experience, I applaud the producers of Jane Eyrefor (in this case at least) reminding me that there is much more beyondthe petty and cruel surface of human life. There is the science,sophistication and poetry of what we call 'the soul'.

16 May 2012

Beautifully filmed

This is such a beautiful film and I have strongly suggested to my firends that they too, watch it. I love the casting, all the actors did a superb job. The chemistry, the relationship portrayed by Micheal and Mia seemed so real.

degrimstead-1

15 May 2012

Films of this book have always been good

Because I adored the book I've found all film versions of this story tobe enjoyable, though I think I enjoyed the 2006 TV mini-series best.But maybe that was just because they drew it out in four separateepisodes; it's such an engrossing story. These actors were quite good,with Mia Wasikowska's eyes and face being a perfect canvas for Jane'semotions and Michael Fassbender playing a fine Rochester. My onecriticism would be that, rather than telling the story chronologicallyas is done in the book, and in all other filmed versions I've seen,here they chose to jump around in time, even starting the film in themiddle. Maybe this is what led to their leaving out Jane staying on atLowood and becoming a teacher (though they referred to this they didn'tshow it, which was disappointing). And they didn't show how her youngfriend at school contracted her illness, either. Still, a very good twohours and I do recommend it.

Eternality

14 May 2012

Fukunaga's Jane Eyre stars Mia Wasikowska in an extraordinary performance.

I don't think anyone would be bothered to count how many book-to-screenadaptations of Jane Eyre there have been since the dawn of cinema. Restassured, there have been many. The latest by director Cary Fukunaga,who won the top directing award for Sin Nombre (2009) at Sundance,appears to be another in a long line of such adaptations. But in truth,it could be one of the best versions ever. Based on the influentialnovel of the same name by Charlotte Bronte published in England in themid-19th century, Fukunaga's Jane Eyre stars Mia Wasikowska in anextraordinary performance.Very much a bleak love story (at least in the context of this film) setin a time of formality and restrain, Jane Eyre is a period piececostume drama that despite its slow pacing and abstract dialoguemanages to be self-sustaining without going too far in indulging intheatrics. Wasikowska plays the title role Jane who is righteous,moral, compassionate, and mature. She meets a man (her employer really)with a troubled past and feels attracted to him. His name is EdwardRochester (Michael Fassbender). Pain and conflict ensues when heunwillingly confesses a terrible secret to her.Screenwriter Moira Buffini has a lot of material to cover, but thechoice to focus on the love story and relegate Jane's backstory toseveral flashbacks is still effective as it is inevitable. Like everyother screen adaptation of a literature novel, it is impossible toshoot a picture without some form of expository condensation.Wasikowska's Oscar-worthy performance is near flawless. She brings toher character a perpetual sense of psychological unease. Jane is aconfident young lady, but moments of self-doubt and fear remainconsistent blights in her understanding of the world she was broughtinto.Fukunaga's direction is as composed as the camera that beautifullycaptures the idyllic lifestyle of the film's characters. Yet, thereseems to be a constant cast of gloom, brought about by dark skies,heavy rain, and claustrophobic corridors lit up by the eerie glows ofcandlelight, all of which builds up to a suspenseful mood that reflectsthe novel's brooding quality. There are some scenes that feel more athome in a Gothic-inspired horror film like The Others (2001) than anorthodox costume drama, at times putting viewers unnecessarily on edge.For all of its supposed secret passion and forbidden love, Jane Eyreremains surprisingly tame in its portrayal of the Jane-Edwardrelationship, which not only fails to convince us of their unequivocallove for each other, but also seems curiously half-baked. Fortunately,the redeeming factor that is Wasikowska's singular heartbreakingperformance, and the picturesque backdrop of which this tale is setensure that the coldness of the romantic relationship does not dilutethe quality of this quite excellent Jane Eyre adaptation.GRADE: B+ (8/10 or 3.5 stars)www.filmnomenon.blogspot.comAll rights reserved.

nampak

13 May 2012

Why remake if not to make it better?

I agree with many of the other reviews. Don't fix what's not broken.The 2006 Jane Eyre was the best and most moving adaptation of the book.The two main characters had great chemistry and you could see themfalling in love. In this version, I was actually bored during the movieeven though I adore this book and its love story. I was sodisappointed. I never sensed that they were falling in love and whenthe 'big' scene came I felt nothing. I wonder if they even looked atthe other versions to see what they were up against. If you're going todo a remake at least be daring enough to do something different. Fromthe trailer, I thought it would be much darker, much scarier, muchmore... something! Instead, it was much less... something. As they say,'there's nothing like a good romance movie and this was nothing likea...' you know the rest.

09 May 2012

Jane Eyre (Miramax) Can't we all bleed inwardly?

In reading some other reviews, it seems that no interpretation can be exactly like the author envisioned the story; nor can it match the expectations we have after reading a favorite story. Let's face it: We idealize our favorite literary characters in our minds. Any visual representation meets tough critics because we're all sure that our interpretation is the most accurate. Filmmakers and actors definitely have their work cut out for them, and I respect all who set out to attempt this romantic masterpiece.I only have the following minor points to make about this movie: Mia W. looks angry during the most famous lines (you know the ones, in the first proposal scene). The book tells us that a "vehemence of emotion" claimed "mastery" over Jane. I would think the dialogue in that scene is not so much with one emotion (in Mia's case, mostly anger) but rather a combination of so many of them. For instance, there was relief for feeling at liberty to say anything on the subject. So yes, a very impassioned (and maybe long overdue) declaration, but her face is over-the-top uncomfortable in that scene. Some discomfort due to being taken off guard, but there's too much. I'm picky about that scene. Anyway, I do like this version and admire its brevity. What I liked most about Mia W. is that she portrays the inner strength perfectly. I liked the portrayal of Rochester overall too, with a few misgivings: Michael F. doesn't seem weary of life enough to me. The portrayal of R. is integral since Jane wouldn't be the same without him, and I did like Fassbender's degree of anger. Like Mia, though, he needs more passion to show. This version is dark, which it is a gothic romance, but the darkness really shouldn't oppress throughout. The Halloween ambiance isn't required to sell this story. And I'd seen on the movie posters that they were emphasizing plain. It seems that the plain was overpowering to the extent that it made Jane a little bit boring. The point of her plainness is that it is deceiving with her. It obscures someone anything but plain. Nonetheless, I would like to own this version. It was a treat to actually see Jane Eyre in a movie theater, which was a first for me. One more thing: For a romance with outstanding dialogue, this movie must have fewer lines than any other version. I understand trying to innovate by using other means to tell the story, and this dynamic of this movie is extremely bold. It worked. Maybe because the parts with dialogue make use of heavy-hitting lines. Four stars. This was definitely outstanding and a beautiful movie!

09 May 2012

Good but not great

I'm a huge Jane Eyre fan. I own several copies of the book & have seen various adaptions of the movie. I first fell in love with the 1944 movie with Orson Welles & Joan Fontaine. I was looking forward to watching this, I like the choice of actors & trailers seemed promising. I can say that overall, I enjoyed the movie. I understand that no movie will ever be able to show the entire story unless they want to make a 4 hour movie so I try to keep my expectations realistic. The actors were wonderful. The movie did a great job of making you like the characters & feel their desire to be together. Even though I know what happens, I still found my heart pounding the first time Mr. Rochester touched Jane's hand. This adaption largely focused on Mr. Rochester & Jane's relationship. My only disappointment is that we didn't see more of what Jane went through as a child. There are other areas skimmed over that I won't mention for those that aren't already familiar with the story. Perhaps just an additional 30 minutes added to the film would have allowed for these parts to be shown more. However, overall, I think this movie did the story justice & I enjoyed it.

KCHGeorgia

06 May 2012

Excellent film! Finally, a perfect Jane and Edward

As an avid fan of the novel "Jane Eyre", I highly recommend this movie. FINALLY, someone cast the perfect Jane Eyre and Edward Rochester (and Mrs. Fairfax). I could have drunk the scenes when they were together, some of them were so divine. The performances by those three lead actors were simply remarkable. I hope the Academy Awards are paying attention!Although an excellent film, it varies from the book somewhat and will therefore disappoint the novel's "purists"...... mainly because they tried to cram so much in to so little time! That is my biggest complaint --that they should have gone ahead and let the film be 3 hours or at least 2-1/2; to try to capture more of magic and essence of the beloved, timeless novel. However, for a mere two hours, it is gripping, emotional, moving, sometimes funny, frightening, and unforgettable.See it while it's on the big screen! It's definitely worth it.

kburditt

06 May 2012

Wonderful new Jane Eyre

I saw a sneak preview of Jane Eyre last night at AFI/Silver in SilverSpring MD. This is a beautifully filmed, engrossing, and hauntingversion of the classic Charlotte Bronte novel Jane Eyre. This film isworth seeing and it will leave you thinking about it long after youhave left the theater. It captures that otherworldly and isolatedenvironment that Jane inhabits in her lonely life. After you witnessthe unloved childhood and brutal boarding school you can understand howJane can not only adapt to her isolated employment but revel in a worldwhere the absence of abuse is a relief. One thing that struck me wasthe way the actress portraying Jane Eyre, Mia Wasikowska, inhabitedJane's being. The quiet stillness, the dignity, the steely nerves underthe mask of composure. I have been trying to recall another actress whoportrayed the physicality of a woman, a governess, in that time periodso perfectly. She wasn't a modern actress in a corset, she moved like ayoung woman who is used to the corset and layers of cloth, and theexpectations on a young woman in Victorian England. I also particularlyenjoyed the portrayal of a vibrant, intelligent, woman who knows she iscaged by the norms of her society and her position in it. MissWasikowska did a wonderful portrayal of Jane, giving her great depthwhile still letting the emotions flit across her usually stoic face. Ialso liked Mrs Reed - she is a wholly human villain, petty, cruel,insecure, and resentful. You can see her in Miss Ingram, a petty womanwho could turn hateful. The young Jane is a stand out performance, allspit 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. Thecinematography is beautiful, the sets and costumes look accurate, thescreenplay handled well, and the directing outstanding. I alsoappreciate that no character was over done. This film will age well,where some other versions can make you cringe now. This film is goingto make me pick up the novel and read it again after a very long time.Not a bad recommendation for a movie.

03 May 2012

I HAD VERY MIXED FEELINGS ABOUT THIS REMAKE BUT ADMIT I WAS ENTERTAINED.

I am giving this one four stars simply because it entertained me, the scenery and props were great and I am rather fond of this particular story. This is of course the most recent remake of the wonderful Bronte classic. I am not sure how many shootings of this film have been made over the years but it is probably one of the most done and done again stories available. As I said, I am not sure how many of them there are but I do know, due to my wife, that I have seen them all down through the years. There are many reasons for this of course but there are great pitfalls for the producers, directors and actors.The first of course is that viewers will be constantly comparing it to the last remake or the original. There have been some splendid versions of this movie already made and lets face it, they are tough acts to follow. If you read the reviews here you will find there are a lot of unhappy movie watchers due to this remake thing.Second, there are Bronte purists...a hardcore bunch of folks who show no quarter in their distain for anything that slightly deviates from the original novel. I know how they feel. I am a Tolkien purist and even though the movie, Lord of the Rings was a fine film, I still fussed and whined each and ever time the story line was not the one I had in my head after reading the books (many times).This particular film did leave quite a number of key scenes out from both the book and the previous movies. I will be honest and tell you that I was not happy about this. On the other hand, had I not seen those other versions or read the book, then I would have thought this film to be just fine and dandy. There is also the actors. While I applauded the fact that the makers used Mia Wasikowska in the staring role, I was not all that happy with Michael Rassbender. Mia is not a raving beauty...I love her looks and find them fascinating but lets face it, she could be considered by many to be just a bit on the plan side. This was how the original book character was. As to Michael - I like his acting but for the life of me I simply could not place him in this role in my mind. He simply is not ruthless and hard looking like the character of the book. I felt at times there could have been a bit more passion displayed between the leading lady and man. But hey, this is just me. Obviously and rightly there are other opinions as to the casting.I was not happy with the tinkering of scenes and events that took place and have to admit to having been thrown off until I picked up the rhythm of the movie.But overall, I simply blocked from my mind (what little of that there is) past versions of this book and indeed, the book itself, and simply tried to enjoy the movie as a stand-alone. I was entertained and to be quite frank, that is really the only reason I bother watching movies for.I debated between the four star rating and a three star rating and decided to give it the benefit of a doubt. This is one of those movies I wish I did not have to give a star rating to as it is the sort that you will either love or hat it....each will have to make their own mind up on that count.The quality of the DVD was quite good and I encountered no problems.Don BlankenshipThe Ozarks

02 May 2012

Choppy - could have been better...

I agree with other reviewers - 2 hours is insufficient. It seems like the movie is broken into 3-5 minute segments of the most important scenes in the book. It's very choppy, rushed, and doesn't really explain anything. If you watch this (and haven't read the book), you're going to wonder what the hell happened between certain scenes. I thought the cast was great, but the movie just didn't flow. If you're looking for a good adaptation, check out one of the BBC/Masterpiece Theatre productions; they never disappoint.

29 April 2012

A little too literal

This review is from: Jane Eyre (Amazon Instant Video) The visuals and score are lovely...but the movie plays more like a stage play, with much of the characters inner thoughts made plain in dialog. I would have preferred less words and more atmosphere created by acting...a la the kiss from Last of the Mohicans.Absolutely no bodice ripping in this one --in case any one was wondering.

28 April 2012

Jane Eyre

This review is from: Jane Eyre (DVD) I think this is a great version of Jane Eyre. It's been a long time since I read the book but I felt like a lot was left out. Of course, the book is very long and there is no way everything could have fit into a 90 minute movie. However, the movie is great and I really like how they bounced back and forth between past, present and future. Sometimes it felt like the movie moved way too fast and their relationship progressed too quickly.

27 April 2012

i love BUT

What is up with the naked women picture in the hall? I love Jane Eyre and was looking forward to this movie. Earlier version had some things morally i did not want in my movie collection so i was really excited about this adaption. Well I have males in my home naked woman picture in the hall keeps me from owning this movie...:(

26 April 2012

Beautiful Movie

This review is from: Jane Eyre (DVD) I love Jane Eyre! I have the novel, the parody Jane Slayer, and several versions of the movie. This is by far my favorite of the movies. I thought it was going to be more indy and edgy but it turned out to be a very convincing portrait of what Jane's life must have really been like. It is such a true representation of the book that after the movie was over I could think of nothing important that they had left out or skimmed over. It is such a smart movie with a heroine that proves witty and self restrained all at once. The casting is perfect and the pace is neither rushed nor does it drag along like many other period movies. Though the bleak grey landscape of the movie does not reveal it, this is a story of all consuming passion. Instead of the premise of other romances where the woman is swept away and saved my her hero, this book has a heroine who saves herself time and time again. Self-reliance and determination give Jane the ability to realize what she wants and wait until the time is right to claim it. I would recommend this movie to any romantic whether male or female.

23 April 2012

A Different Look at Jane Eyre

This review is from: Jane Eyre [Blu-ray] (Blu-ray) I loved this version of Jane Eyre, and I went in to it fully expecting not to. I disagree with those who said Jane didn't spend enough time with Mr. Rochester to fall in love with him - I was in love with him inside of 10 minutes. I thought both Mia Wasikowska and Michael Fassbender were excellent in their respective roles, the scenery was gorgeous, and it was pretty much perfect. This is just one interpretation of the story. There are other versions of Jane Eyre that are as good or perhaps better than this one, but that doesn't make this version anything less than excellent in its own right.

23 April 2012

The Best Jane Eyre Movie yet!

This review is from: Jane Eyre (DVD) I've seen every Jane Eyre movie made and this one is my favorite one so far. It is fabulous. If you haven't seen a Jane Eyre movie, this one might be a little confusing the first time around, but once you know the story line, you will thoroughly enjoy it. It was creative, the scenery was beautiful, and the music score was wonderful. The story line stayed true to the book, which I always enjoy.

23 April 2012

A Jane Eyre purist

I have seen almost every adaptation of Jane Eyre and have remained a steadfast fan of the now-dated but still fully realized and well-done 1985 BBC production. (Timothy Dalton is the epitome of Rochester to me. Unlike so many, I'm not a fan of Toby Stephens, no matter how pretty is his furrowed brow). HOWEVER, this adaptation is a truly fine distillation of the novel. Through it's direction, acting, landscapes, dialogue, and current of emotions, it took me into the pulse and spirit of Jane Eyre. After watching this movie, I feel like I have lived the story of Jane Eyre that I loved as a seventh-grader: Rochester is frustrating, sensitive, and passionate; the setting is gorgeous, desolate, and strange; and Jane is strong, open-eyed yet innocent, open-hearted yet guarded, and intelligent. This was the Jane Eyre I wanted to be when I was a young girl.

22 April 2012

Jane Eyre for Dummies

This review is from: Jane Eyre (Amazon Instant Video) Filmmakers: Before tackling the Brontes, Dickens, Austen, and other literary classics, it would be good to familiarize yourself with this audience. We have no problem committing our time and considerable attention span to these stories. In fact, we crave it. If you short-change us, we will be irritated. If you meddle with the context or make some needless contrivance of modernity, or attempt to inject your own dialog on feminism or make other social commentary, we will look for the nearest open carriage door in which to slam your stupid fingers. I didn't think we could sink any lower than the 1996 Zeffirelli JE, but this considerably worse. A key aspect of this story is the plainness/roughness of the main characters. Jane is also meant to be very small due to bad nutrition as a child. Mia Wasikowska is far from homely, and through some trick of the camera, she usually appears 6 feet tall. She'd have been better cast as Blanche Ingram, for heaven's sake. Bad casting can usually be gotten around if the story is intact. This thing was little more than a slideshow. Utterly flat. Jane: Miserable/aunt's house. Jane: Miserable/school. Jane: Content/Thornfield. Jane: Miserable/on the moors. Jane: Hopeful/school, etc. Don't bother with this. Watch the 2007 Masterpiece version, which is wonderful despite its happy ending (none of them can resist this fatal flaw). It's also worth seeing the 1997 version directed by Robert Young. While the storyline gets chewed up a bit, Ciaran Hinds' portrayal of the Rochester character is really wonderful.