Directed by:
Cary Joji FukunagaScreenplay:
Moira BuffiniCinematography:
Adriano GoldmanComposer:
Dario MarianelliCast:
Mia Wasikowska, Michael Fassbender, Judi Dench, Jamie Bell, Su Elliot, Holliday Grainger, Tamzin Merchant, Amelia Clarkson, Craig Roberts, Sally Hawkins (more)VOD (1)
Plots(1)
Based on Charlotte Brontë's classic novel, Jane Eyre flees Thornfield House, where she works as a governess for wealthy Edward Rochester. The isolated and imposing residence, and Mr. Rochester's coldness, have sorely tested the young woman's resilience, forged years earlier when she was orphaned. As Jane reflects upon her past and recovers her natural curiosity, she will return to Mr. Rochester, and the terrible secret that he is hiding... Starring Mia Wasikowska( as Jane Eyre), Michael Fassbender (as Mr.Rochester) and Jamie Bell (as St. John rivers). (official distributor synopsis)
(more)Videos (2)
Reviews (12)
Why "only" three stars? The problem is with the actors, specifically the central couple. I didn't believe in Michael Fassbender's Rochester one bit. I don't know, maybe he's too much of a "pretty boy" for the role, maybe it's something else, but he wasn't nearly as cold and inhuman as I imagined him to be and as portrayed in the book, and I got the impression he got the role mainly because of his current popularity and not based on any casting. I kept thinking about Ralph Fiennes and what he did in The Duchess. That's kind of how I imagine Rochester. And then there's Mia Wasikowska - she's suitable for the role of Jana and plays it well, but I don't think she and the aforementioned M.F. go together at all and I felt minimal (no) emotion from their scenes together. That’s really too bad. Otherwise, the film is well shot, especially the "preconceived" camera makes beautiful pictures, but it didn't save me from boredom. Even Dario Marianelli didn't do much this time.
()
I knew the story, and I sort of knew what to expect from it. I'd actually seen the 1996 film, which I thought was only slightly worse than this one. After all, this one had a bigger cast, a bigger budget, and I dare say a better story setup that would make you watch the movie even if you had no idea what it's about. And yet in truth, the sequence of events was fast-paced, with no concept of time and for no chance to capture a meaningful feeling. Fortunately, this was occasionally helped by the music, so then again the lack of feeling wasn’t too bad. Mr. Rochester and Jane had an interesting rapport, you could enjoy them. But even so, the film was perhaps a bit drawn out (St. Someone, getting the siblings, etc.) and cluttered. I’m giving it those four stars for the fact that it left a feeling in me, even though I don’t know how. When the credits started running across the screen, I knew it definitely hadn’t been a waste of time to see this old Victorian romance story again. Still, I can't help but like her sister Emily and her Wuthering Heights much better. A weak 4 stars and "my, their English...!".
()
Extreme romanticism via an atmosphere à la Gothic horror. Simply gestures instead of speeches. Courting by the fireplace through verbal exchanges that make Nadal versus Federer a boring watch. It’s hopes of being movie theatre experience of the year are dashed by the emotionally chilly ending where gestures gave way to speeches and other maladies very familiar in most adaptations of the classics of Romanticism.
()
As a viewer and reader who has always somehow avoided Jane Eyre, I couldn't have chosen a better version for our first meeting. However, this satisfied realization weighed on me quite heavily. After half an hour of the main heroine's suffering, almost in the style of Oliver Twist, I was shaking my head at the dysfunctionality of the events on the screen and the contradictory atmosphere that wouldn't let me properly engage in the story. But as soon as Michael Fassbender comes on the scene, the 19th century tableau takes on completely different colors, whether in the colorful reflections of twisted romance, the captivating small dialogue, or the darker shades in provocative scenes of the castle's mystery. And when I reached the reveal and the perfectly fitting ending, I felt relieved. The heart's melody plays loudly enough, Fassbender slowly conquers the wide Hollywood set, and there is a new (and very resonating) piece of complex historical romance in the world.
()
Jane Eyre is a timeless classic from the pen of one of the most famous female writers of her time, which comes to life once again in an extraordinarily impressive film adaptation. An orphan, who has been pushed from one evil to another since he was a young child, grows up to become a young and intelligent woman who will not be intimidated even by the seemingly terrifying owner of a vast estate that is surrounded by more than one mystery. The cast deserves kudos all the way down to the floor. Mia Wasikowska gives her most convincing performance to date, Michael Fassbender is increasingly winning my sympathy with his chameleon-like acting, and casting Judi Dench and Jamie Bell in supporting roles was the right decision and I give them both a thumbs up. The setting of England has always appealed to me in many ways and in this film everything is perfectly captured thanks to the great production design and cinematography. And the music, which is only slight, subtly adds to the already chilling atmosphere of the film, but paradoxically warms the heart. In short, a film that delivered exactly what I expected and then some, which for me, as a viewer, is the most important thing.
()
Ads