Jane Eyre (2011)

A lot of fun.

Simple and well acted, it has tension enough to knot the stomach.

In truth, there is barely enough story here to make a film.

A great movie, one of the best of this year. There was a bit of confusion at one point in the plot, but nothing serious.

I wonder if the higher reviews are from people who have never read the book, or seen other adaptations. This movie did not capture 1/10 of what was possible, with this story.The actors are clearly capable, but have the limits and boundaries of the direction and screenplay and of time restrictions.Although I appreciated the cinematoghraphy, (and the score was wonderful) it was like the rest of the film, went in a direction that when it came together just lacked the HEART of the story and of the other adaptations. The Quality and Intent was there....but in the end,it just fizzled for me.

Imagine a story where a young lady, fresh out of school, having endured a terrible childhood; experiences true love for the first time. Then, not only will you see her conquer her past by forgiving her enemies, but also be strong enough to walk away from her love; soul mate and equal and still remain true to her character. Despite her poverty, she is benevolent. She is not bitter nor an atheist; she has faith in God and believes He has a plan for her. She is willing to endure her hardships with a thankful heart, and in the end, she is given a family with the man she loves and who love her in return. This is the story of Jane Eyre.Now this is the movie, which I am convinced, just coincidentally had the same name. The story is about a young girl, abused as a child and unable to get past it, is sexually uninformed about herself and is afraid of never seeing the world or being able to talk to a man. Being so naïve and weak, she takes up a job as a governess only to fall victim to her employer's advances. This mister Rochester, whom has taken an unhealthy interest in her body, toys with her emotions and breaks her down to the point where she sees herself in love with him. After she discovers he is already married to a lady he drove to madness, she tries to break free and run away, only to find herself walking back to him a few years later and you yourself are uncertain if this reunion was a happy ending or a tragedy. Not once is God mentioned in the film and the whole thing was like a pointless experience where the message was, 'your childhood was bad, so your whole life will be bad.'Oh my gosh, what is this crap? The whole film had this Goth look the director was going for. Even the characters lost their sense of humanity just so they can fit into this atmosphere. There was no growth of relationship or character, in fact the beautiful love story of two equals; Edward and Jane, was turned into this unrealistic tale where Edward just wants Jane as his 'next edition'. At one point even, get this; he puts his hands aggressively around Jane's neck because she wanted to leave. Mr. Rochester 'chokes' Jane; that should never have been a sentence! And lets not forget the scene where he flashed her; something that's 'also' not in the book.I'm not even going to consider this as an adaptation it was just disgusting. It was so off and sexually hyped; and to my abhorrence even riddled with perverted undertones that were placed there by the director himself; it sounds strange but here's one example. At the beginning Jane finds herself wandering the moor as an amnesiac until she is taken in by a kind family who wishes to help her. While staying with them, she regains her memories and you see her drawing pictures of two key points in her life; the first being her life at school which was hard and cold and the only good thing about it was her only friend, a girl named Helen Burns whom you see Jane drawing. What disturbs me about this is that in that same scene, you also see her drawing a picture of a man who I think was Mister Rochester, her love interest in the story. I'm confused as to why she would draw an old childhood friend alongside a man she thinks she loves as if she was comparing the two and pinning for the other. I found all her scenes with Helen even, to have a weird almost sexual feel, which both shocked and disturbed me, because I never got that with the other adaptations of Jane Eyre. I got this sense that the director was saying Jane was having regrets from her relationship with Edward and was contemplating the 'other' option. Not only that, but I felt that all the scenes that featured little girls; portrayed them in a way which made me want to barf. Not only did the young girls in the film share uncanny similarities in facial appearance as if purposely selected that way out of 'preference' but the shots the director choose to show them in, seemed wrong; like why would I see child Jane getting her dress removed? Or Adele pretending to bite Jane's neck and later sitting like a pet next to Mr. Rochester? It just felt sick.Well whatever this horrible atrocity was at least it's not Jane Eyre and even as its own movie, it was vacant. It was just this cinematic display of hopelessness, there was nothing redeemable about this film. The only thing about it that I liked was that I can watch the 2006 adaptation after it ends. Seeing Ruth and Toby kiss lovingly on screen as Jane and Edward, is the only thing I'm looking forward to right now.My rating. -5 out of 10. I came to watch a good film and honestly feel so attacked right now.

I felt that this was the best Jane Eyre adaption I've seen. It portrayed the characters well (except that Rochester was more attractive than described in the book) and the acting was quite good. It left out a few important characters and plot revelations and added some Hollywood theme, but overall it was pretty accurate. They did a great job of generalizing the important parts of the book and making the plot flow. Overall, would recommend. I liked Rochester better in the movie than in the book. Even if you don't like historical fiction, I would try to watch it.

Charlotte Brontë's Jane Eyre provides a catharsis for love and romance in its pure and concentrated form. It is nearly impossible to portray it fully in a movie of 2 hours. Cary Fukunaga (The Director) has done a very good job considering these difficulties.The casting of Mia Wasikowska (Jane Eyre) and Michael Fassbender (Edward Rochester) are appropriate. Mia's subtle expressions of yearning, love and despair are beautiful. I cannot think of a better actress than Mia to play the role of Jane Eyre. Though Michael Fassbender does not fit Brontë's description of a manly and not-so- handsome figure, he does a perfect portrayal of Rochester's character otherwise. Jamie Bell's performance seems to be dwarfed by the acting of the two lead actors, which is otherwise a decent performance.The ending of the movie, in my opinion was a bit abrupt – considering the way it is narrated in the novel.Overall this movie is one of the best adaptations of classical literature I have seen.10 out of 10.