Top News
WE CONTINUE TO SUPPORT MICHAEL-AN AWARD WINNING ACTOR

Congratulations to the cast and crew of "12 Years a Slave" winning an Oscar for Best Picture

Michael is currently filming "MacBeth"

Watch "12 Years A Slave" and "Frank" in theaters

Watch "The Counselor" and "12 Years A Slave" on DVD available now

Michael is set to star and produce on a film version of the video game "Assassin's Creed"

Completed projects: X-Men, Untitled Malik project

Upcoming projects Assassin's Creed, Prometheus 2, MacBeth,and more!

Header credit here

MFmultiply's Disclaimer


Order region 1 dvds-Amazon store

Order region 2-UK dvds-Amazon Shoppe

Please check the calender for films on TV, Theater, or dvd releases
August 2019
SunMonTueWedThuFriSat
    123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
25262728293031

Calendar Calendar


Jane Eyre reviews and spoilers 2

Page 2 of 6 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next

Go down

Jane Eyre reviews and spoilers 2 - Page 2 Empty Re: Jane Eyre reviews and spoilers 2

Post by Admin on Wed Mar 16, 2011 1:21 am

http://spotlightelora.ca/2011/03/14/jane-eyre.html

Jane Eyre

Director: Cary Fukanawa
115 min, PG

Based on Charlotte Bronte’s classic novel, the romantic drama stars Mia Wasikowska and Michael Fassbender in the lead roles. In the story, Jane Eyre flees Thornfield House, where she worked as a governess for wealthy Edward Rochester. The islolated and imposing residence, combining with 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 Thornfield House and the terrible secret Mr. Rochester is hiding. With a top supporting cast including Judi Dench, Sally Hawkins and Jamie Bell. Recommended.
Admin
Admin
Admin

Posts : 27093
Join date : 2009-09-20
Location : California

Back to top Go down

Jane Eyre reviews and spoilers 2 - Page 2 Empty Re: Jane Eyre reviews and spoilers 2

Post by Admin on Wed Mar 16, 2011 9:08 pm

http://www.dallasobserver.com/2011-03-17/film/jane-eyre-a-woman-of-independent-means/

Jane Eyre: A Woman of Independent Means.
A A A Comments (0) By Karina Longworth Thursday, Mar 17 2011

If Jane Eyre is not the greatest of the Great Books with a permanent position on required-reading lists, it may be the most frequently filmed: At least 10 cinematic versions of the story have been made dating back to the dawn of the silent era—more, if you count made-for-TV adaptations and loose glosses such as Jacques Tourneur's I Walked With a Zombie.

Considering the glut of Jane Eyres available to anyone with a Netflix account, there may be no more compelling reason for this new version of the story—directed by Cary Fukunaga and starring Mia Wasikowska and Michael Fassbender—than timing. In 1996, when Franco Zeffirelli had the last big-screen go at Charlotte Brontë's novel, the Merchant Ivory era of prestige period-pic catnip for Academy voters and AP English students was just past its peak; 15 years later, if there's anything hotter in Hollywood than dull British respectability, it's Gothic romances about teen girls.
Mia Wasikowska, one in a train of Janes.
Mia Wasikowska, one in a train of Janes.
Details
Jane Eyre Directed by Cary Fukunaga. Written by Moira Buffini. Based on the novel by Charlotte Brontë. Starring Mia Wasikowska, Michael Fassbender, Sally Hawkins and Jamie Bell.

The moment may be right to cash in on Jane Eyre's blend of girl-to-woman rites of passage, supernatural/psychological paranoia, tragic love and English accents, but Fukunaga's film is anything but trendy. Rather than Twilight-izing a classic tale—as Catherine Hardwicke appears to have done with Red Riding Hood, which also opens this week but wasn't screened in time for our deadline—Fukunaga has made his Jane Eyre an intimate, thoughtful epic, anchored by strong lead performances and the gorgeous, moody 100-shades-of-gray cinematography of Adriano Goldman.

Fukunaga (whose only previous feature is the 2009 Sundance Prize-winning Sin Nombre) fragments the narrative, introducing us to Jane (Wasikowska) as a young woman run ragged, fleeing an unspecified threat. She is taken in by young clergyman St. John Rivers (Jamie Bell) and nursed back to health by his sisters; from there, Jane flashes back to her beginnings. Setting up Jane's tale as a mystery—what was she running from, and why?—Fukunaga skips back and forth across years at the speed of memory. This lends an urgency to character-driven vignettes that demonstrate how Jane's identity has been shaped through hardships: the petty cruelty and eventual abandonment by her aunt (Sally Hawkins), Jane's guardian after her parents die; the cherished female friend who dies in her arms at charity school; and, finally, the loneliness of life as governess to Adele, a French orphan who lives in a spooky country house alone but for servants and occasional visits from her ostensible caretaker, the mysterious Mr. Rochester (Fassbender).

It's in the latter phase that Jane longingly states what Fukunaga and screenwriter Moira Buffini have isolated as one of the story's key themes: "I wish a woman could have action in her life, like a man." In her station, the best she can hope for is action through a man—and so when Rochester begins calling her to join him for fireside chats, it upends Jane's world. Fukunaga never overplays Jane's sexual awakening, allowing it instead to become evident through her restless distraction. Even after a real romance with Rochester begins, Jane is ever conscious of the social strata and years that separate her and her beloved; their union feels "unreal," every moment of bliss tinged with paranoia. (The brilliantly evocative sound design deepens the sense of the unknown lurking in every scene, from wind through a chimney to thunder rumbling under a first kiss.)

Jane Eyre hits its glorious Gothic peak with Jane in flight from that romance—alone in a storm in a deserted field, the pain of having opened her heart only to have it broken twinned with literal sickness resulting from "exposure." Though she has hit rock bottom, it's this "action" that will ultimately lead Jane to what she's been looking for. Even as it romanticizes agony, Fukunaga's Jane Eyre plays as a correction to the Twilight series—in which a teenage girl idolizes mystically powerful boys—arguing that love, in its perfect state, is a meeting between equals. Using Brontë's text as the basis for an inquiry into free will versus servitude, Fukunaga mounts a subtly shaded, yet emotionally devastating examination of what it really means to choose one's own way.
Admin
Admin
Admin

Posts : 27093
Join date : 2009-09-20
Location : California

Back to top Go down

Jane Eyre reviews and spoilers 2 - Page 2 Empty Re: Jane Eyre reviews and spoilers 2

Post by Admin on Wed Mar 16, 2011 9:21 pm

http://www.nctimes.com/entertainment/movies/article_f9cb9f1a-09a5-5d79-a196-01e0db2d9e3c.html

MOVIE REVIEW: 'Jane Eyre' feasts on its intense settings

By DAN BENNETT - For the North County Times North County Times - The Californian | Posted: Wednesday, March 16, 2011 11:43 am

buy this photo Mia Wasikowska stars in a new production of "Jane Eyre." (Photo courtesy Focus Features)

It's been done almost a couple of dozen times previously on film, in various styles and with varying results ---- but the gritty and visually arresting new version is one that inspires.

The latest take on Charlotte Bronte's classic novel offers a gripping series of visuals from director Cary Fukunaga, who presents both the cold, sweeping range of the countryside moors and the tightly congested interiors with equal care and intensity.

The story remains the same, with the tough young orphan Jane (Mia Wasikowska) finally growing old enough to leave the harassing confines of the orphanage to become governess for Mr. Rochester (Michael Fassbender). In time ---- much time ---- the two distinctly different people find more in common than they realized, and a slowly burning relationship develops. It's all played out under seething emotion and gray skies, the look of the film a consistent and welcome presence.

This "Jane Eyre" may or may not sit well with purists, but it appears to be as resolute in presenting its characters and setting as realistically as possible, while also using that realism as dynamically as possible. The film opens Friday at the Hillcrest Cinemas in San Diego.

"Jane Eyre"

*** 1/2

Starring: Mia Wasikowska. Michael Fassbender. Judi Dench

Director: Cary Fukunaga

Studio: Focus Features

Rated: PG-13 (for some thematic elements, including a nude image and brief violent content)

Running time: 121 minutes

Copyright 2011 North County Times - The Californian. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

Posted in Movies on Wednesday, March 16, 2011 11:43 am
Admin
Admin
Admin

Posts : 27093
Join date : 2009-09-20
Location : California

Back to top Go down

Jane Eyre reviews and spoilers 2 - Page 2 Empty Re: Jane Eyre reviews and spoilers 2

Post by Admin on Wed Mar 16, 2011 10:40 pm

http://www.eastbayexpress.com/ebx/jane-eyre/Content?oid=2519710

March 16, 2011
Jane Eyre
Cary Joji Fukunaga maintains the property value of the much-filmed English-lit franchise.
By Kelly Vance

Jane Eyre
Directed by Cary Joji Fukunaga. With Mia Wasikowska and Michael Fassbender. Opens Friday.

Jane Eyre is sure to send the nation's few remaining English lit majors (hello out there!) and devotees of coffee-table films in general into paroxysms of joy. As everyone knows, Charlotte Brontë's novel is not only arguably the mother of all romantic bodice-rippers and a prime fountainhead of Chick Lit, but also one the most-filmed properties in existence.

Depending on whom you believe, Ms. Brontë's 1847 tale of our long-suffering, headstrong heroine's love patiently waiting to be consummated has been the subject of a near-record number of screen adaptations — IMDB lists some 22 movie and TV versions. It's positively unavoidable. People who have studiously resisted reading the book nevertheless have a favorite Jane Eyre movie.

The 1943 Joan Fontaine/20th Century Fox version from Hollywood, with Orson Welles as a brooding (what else?) Rochester and Agnes Moorehead as the cruel Mrs. Reed, is probably one of the best known, but they come in all shapes and sizes, as long as the shape is Gothic and the size can contain a swelling bosom. Second City Television's scrumptious parody, Jane Eyrehead, may have turned the novel into a lowbrow tribute to 1950s TV — pitting Andrea Martin as Jane against a caterwauling Rochester played by Joe Flaherty as Eddie "Rochester" Anderson from the Jack Benny Show — but even that slapstick spinoff wouldn't dare neglect the misty moors and somber wardrobe.

Neither would Cary Joji Fukunaga. The director of the striking 2009 illegal-immigrant drama Sin Nombre enshrines Brontë's story in a scrupulously maintained 19th-century setting, with carefully modulated performances by Mia Wasikowska and Michael Fassbender in the lead roles and a distinct lack of tinkering with the franchise.

Ms. Wasikowska is a pleasant surprise as Jane. The 21-year-old Australian actor seems to have aged ten years since her ingénue starring role in Alice in Wonderland — released just last year. Her pale European features and mild manner were well suited for that fanciful part as well as her turn as a Belarus resistance maiden in 2008's Defiance. But it was in The Kids Are All Right, a household sitcom devoid of costumed camouflage, that she had a chance to show off her dramatic nimbleness. Filmmaker Fukunaga, who took care to establish fully dimensional female protagonists in Sin Nombre, and screenplay adaptor Moira Buffini (Tamara Drewe) imagine Jane Eyre as a willful, intelligent, discreetly calculating young woman who is aware that she must play the cards that she's been dealt very carefully, and cry about her misfortune later.

The perils of a penniless, orphaned, adolescent, middle-class girl in the English Midlands during the Industrial Revolution are numerous. Fukunaga sketches in the indignities Jane faces in the house of her aunt, the spiteful Mrs. Reed (Sally Hawkins), and in the dreary Lowood School for disadvantaged girls, with the same attention to detail he used to describe the Mexican gangster life in Sin Nombre. The class antagonism is unmistakable. When you're poor, people can mistreat you with impunity and you have to endure it. But Jane takes matters into her own hands, more or less.

Fassbender handles Rochester in the approved fashion, as a humorless, careworn yet vulnerable man with a guilty secret and a secret room. The rest of the supporting cast rises to the Victorian occasion with gusto: Judi Dench as kindly Mrs. Fairfax, Jamie Bell as St. John Rivers the accommodating missionary, Freya Parks as Jane's doomed friend Helen, squirrelly Simon McBurney as Mr. Brocklehurst, Imogen Poots as bubbly Blanche Ingram, and Valentina Cervi as mad Bertha Mason. The old dark house, Thornfield Hall, is of course a character unto itself.

These are well-trained actors performing a classic of English literature, and they could do it in their sleep — which doesn't mean we should nod off while watching them. Fukunaga's Jane Eyre has a slight touch of the embalmed about it, despite Wasikowska's intense role-playing (with her red hair, she reminds us of Isabelle Huppert's costumed frolics) and the able scene-setting.

Forthright Jane demands passion and will settle for nothing less. The banked fire behind Wasikowska's eyes somehow doesn't blaze with frustrated desire — it's up to us to read into her gaze all the emotion she suppresses — and yet it's perfectly in character for a young woman on a serious mission. In the meantime, 33-year-old Fukunaga, a native of Oakland, performs his own mission: a quantum leap from tense, topical actioners to sedate prestige productions.
Admin
Admin
Admin

Posts : 27093
Join date : 2009-09-20
Location : California

Back to top Go down

Jane Eyre reviews and spoilers 2 - Page 2 Empty Re: Jane Eyre reviews and spoilers 2

Post by Admin on Wed Mar 16, 2011 10:40 pm

http://reelanswers.net/2011/03/16/the-adjustment-bureau-and-jane-eyre-existential-romances/

Jane Eyre
Directed by Cary Joji Fukunaga
Starring Mia Wasikowska, Michael Fassbender, and Judy Dench

I’m very familiar with the story of Jane Eyre. What’s special about this version?

Jane Eyre is the classic story of an impossible love, one of the most romantic ever told. Young American director Cary Joji Fukunaga and his screenwriter Moira Buffini do a good job of translating the wonderfully wordy novel into a much more cinematic form—with the still, straight figure of Jane Eyre always at the center of the stately homes and vast, hilly landscapes.

For those who know the story, the movie touches satisfyingly on all the pivotal points, perhaps moving more quickly to Thornfield Hall and its moody lord than previous versions (a good thing). I attended the film with someone unfamiliar with the story, and he was utterly absorbed and moved by the characters’ unforeseen predicaments, marveling at how much ground the movie covered—from Jane’s difficult childhood to womanhood—in two hours.

How are Mia Wasikowska as Jane and Michael Fassbender as Rochester?

Jane Eyre is a grave and intense young woman, and Australian actress Mia Wasikowska (The Kids Are All Right, Alice in Wonderland) is able to play that perfectly, displaying a shining intelligence that really fits the character. She conveys more with the bow of her head than most young actresses do with their whole bodies.

Wasikowska has a wonderful chemistry with the Irish actor Michael Fassbender (Inglorious Basterds), who looks like a cross between Daniel Day Lewis and Kevin Kline, and plays Rochester as a secretive, cynical man who comes to recognize a kindred soul in young Jane. The scenes between the two of them, with some great lines taken directly from Charlotte Bronte, are mesmerizing for their quiet ferocity, and leave you wanting more. You truly care about this film’s depiction of the pair, and when the inevitable reversals of fortune come, so do the waterworks.
Admin
Admin
Admin

Posts : 27093
Join date : 2009-09-20
Location : California

Back to top Go down

Jane Eyre reviews and spoilers 2 - Page 2 Empty Re: Jane Eyre reviews and spoilers 2

Post by Admin on Wed Mar 16, 2011 10:48 pm

http://takimag.com/article/an_agreeably_plain_jane_eyre

An Agreeably Plain Jane Eyre

by Steve Sailer

March 16, 2011

The latest movie adaptation of Jane Eyre is slowly rolling out nationally via art-house theaters, but the plot of Charlotte Brontë’s three-volume novel remains wonderfully commercial.

The spookily pale Mia Wasikowska (Alice in Wonderland) plays the poor but plucky governess, while Michael Fassbender is her rich but moody employer, the Byronic Mr. Rochester.

Wasikowska, 21, is made up to look as old-fashioned and Plain Jane as possible. When illuminated by candlelight, she resembles the subject of a Vermeer painting or of Leonardo’s Lady with an Ermine. Wasikowska delivers her dialogue with the impassioned precision required to render Brontë’s highly august lines comprehensible: “If God had gifted me with some beauty and much wealth, I should have made it as hard for you to leave me as it is now for me to leave you.”

Appropriately for Mr. Rochester, whose secret misfortune has led to dissipation, Fassbender is 33 but looks 40. In a role made famous by Orson Welles in 1944, this previously obscure actor is also terrific.

Dame Judi Dench portrays Mr. Rochester’s head housekeeper, a character rather like Angela Lansbury’s Mrs. Potts in Disney’s cartoon Beauty and the Beast. Indeed, Jane Eyre resembles a sternly Victorian feminist retelling of that famous fairytale.
“What we are left with seems rather like Jane Eyre if Jane Austen had written it.”

In the Brontë sisters’ annus mirabilis of 1847, Emily Brontë’s wilder, crazier Wuthering Heights took longer to catch on, while Charlotte’s Jane Eyre was an immediate bestseller.

The primary markets for 19th-century novels were commercial lending libraries, which operated much like the now-fading Blockbuster video stores. They preferred novels that were long enough to be split into three books, each of which could be lent out simultaneously. This gave Charlotte a sizable canvas.

In an era when images were expensive to reproduce and novelists were paid to create pictures in the mind, Charlotte went a little lighter than expected on the landscape descriptions, leaving her more room for story. So she shoved in every damn thing imaginable, mashing up numerous genres—romance, social criticism, Bildungsroman, Gothic horror, and even proto-detective. Yet somehow, Charlotte made it compulsively readable.

Some of the plot will seem peculiar today, such as that staple of Victorian literature, the (164-year-old Spoiler Alert!) unexpected bequest of a fortune by a distant relative. By making Jane Eyre an heir, this windfall allows the heroine to marry Mr. Rochester not as a Cinderella, but as an equal partner in that emerging Victorian England ideal: the companionate marriage of two intertwined souls.

Not many people in the 21st century are lucky enough to receive a surprise inheritance. Then again, not many of us are unlucky enough to have all our more likely heirs die before us. The high death rates among the young in 19th-century England would more often trigger a series of increasingly implausible if-then-else instructions written into wills.

The topic of inheritances seems strikingly underexploited in 21st-century fiction. We like to think we’re beyond all that. Unlike 19th-century heroines such as Jane Eyre and Elizabeth Bennet in Jane Austen’s Pride and Prejudice, we simply go out and earn our own fortunes. Yet in my own experience, the question of who inherits what remains a hot button, albeit one we consider distasteful to push.

The main question in adapting Jane Eyre into a 115-minute movie is what to exclude. This latest Jane Eyre skimps on the novel’s more Romantic and Gothic aspects, such as the ghostly scratching on the walls of the isolated country estate. Similarly, Jane’s gift (or curse) of hearing loved ones’ voices in her head is reduced to one tasteful scene. Mr. Rochester’s dog Pilot, a significant figure in the book, gets merely a cursory shout-out at the end. The most bizarre plot twist, Rochester cross-dressing as a Gypsy fortune-teller, is tastefully excised.

What we are left with seems rather like Jane Eyre if Jane Austen had written it. Austen, who died in 1817, was a witty, levelheaded product of the 18th century. She would have gotten along well with Ben Franklin. In contrast, the Brontës were the quintessence of the 19th century’s Romantic mood.

After the neo-Romanticism of the 1960s-70s, tastes have moved away from the Brontës and toward Austen. (The name “Emma,” Austen’s second-most-famous heroine, was merely the 448th most popular girl’s baby name in the 1970s. By 2003, it was the 2nd.) Thus, the new movie features much about the Austen-like topics of class and gender battles. Fassbender’s Mr. Rochester comes across more like a bigger, bolder version of Pride and Prejudice’s Mr. Darcy than like Wuthering Heights’ demonic Heathcliff. Yet Jane Eyre is so expansive and lively a source that this rendition remains authentic and entertaining.
Admin
Admin
Admin

Posts : 27093
Join date : 2009-09-20
Location : California

Back to top Go down

Jane Eyre reviews and spoilers 2 - Page 2 Empty Re: Jane Eyre reviews and spoilers 2

Post by Admin on Wed Mar 16, 2011 10:50 pm

http://icantgetlaidinthistown.blogspot.com/2011/03/jane-eyre.html

Tuesday, March 15, 2011
Jane Eyre
Jane Eyre opens in Toronto on Friday, March 18th. It expands to other cities across Canada and the U.S. on March 25th and April 1st.

Much like any book or play that has been deemed "a classic," Jane Eyre is particularly tough source material to nail down. The story is very well known, but can be played out in different ways. The story contains a key plot twist that can very easily catch a viewer off guard if they are unfamiliar with the material and how the film plays hinges almost entirely upon how this twist is conveyed. Everyone from Robert Stevenson to Delbert Mann to Franco Zeffirelli to countless television miniseries creators have had a go at this tale of a young woman orphan who finds shelter in her darkest hour at the estate of the mysterious Mr. Rochester. People have been trying to make the definitive version of Jane Eyre on screen since as early as 1910. Some are as short as 10 minutes and some are as long as seven hours.

But if you are reading this, you probably already know what the film is about and you did not come here for a half assed history lesson from a blogger who normally talks about things like The Garbage Pail Kids Movie. Much like the audience that flocks to a grindhouse style film, Jane Eyre caters to a certain type of film goer. All you want to know at this point is if the film is good and if it captures the source material in an adequate and tasteful manner. Having seen several versions of Jane Eyre previously and having read the Bronte novel 3 times (never once for pleasure, mind you) I can say that director Cary Joji Fukunaga has created one of the best versions of Jane Eyre to be seen on the big screen. Is it entirely necessary or does it have anything new to add that hasn't been covered on radio, television, or film before? No, not really. But Fukunaga's Eyre does have a tone all it's own and as a result it might be the easiest adaptation of the material to sit through.

Mia Wasikowska (Alice in Wonderland, The Kids Are All Right) delivers the best performance of her young career as the titular plain Jane; fully embodying Jane with all the warmth, innocence and mousy mannerisms that the character has in the novel. These are all key for the plot of the film to actually work. Michael Fassbender (who seems to have finally found his way out of genre fare for the time being) is, quite possibly next to Orson Welles the best actor to ever portray Rochester. He relishes every word that comes out of his mouth and he knows very well that he will have to show just how capable he is of acting unspeakably cruel at times and still make the audience feel something for him. Together they make the heavy sexual overtones of Bronte's work come to glorious life. Great supporting performances also come from Sally Hawkins as young Jane's cruel aunt and from the always capable Judi Dench, playing the housekeeper role as impartial and grounded as possible.

Fukunaga shows a clear love for the material in every frame of the film and he directs everything with a sure hand and a sense of conviction. Cinematographer Adriano Goldman has also managed to lens the best looking film of the year thus far. The color, and sometimes the lack of color, simply pops and the film is gorgeous to look at. Moira Buffini's screenplay, however, is the film's only stumbling block; adapting an already worn out use of flashing back and forward does nothing to really help the story and some key plot elements from the story have been jettisoned while other inconsequential moments have been added back in. These added moments that are often forgotten about and use of a different style of plot structure than previous versions does nothing to really add or detract from the film in any way, which brings us back to my opening question.

Upon leaving the theatre I wondered if what I just watched was really all that necessary. At first I was tempted to write the film off as just another competent adaptation of a book that has been filmed well over 30 times and played out on radio and stage in almost 100 different variations. I eventually became at ease with my liking of Jane Eyre. It was very well made and I was actually entertained by how it all came together despite knowing everything that was going to happen. I was always going to give it a favorable review, but after having sat on it for a couple of days, it deserves the extra half a star.

Rating (out of four stars): ***1/2
Posted by Andrew at 9:48 PM
Admin
Admin
Admin

Posts : 27093
Join date : 2009-09-20
Location : California

Back to top Go down

Jane Eyre reviews and spoilers 2 - Page 2 Empty Re: Jane Eyre reviews and spoilers 2

Post by Admin on Wed Mar 16, 2011 10:55 pm

http://www.sugarbang.com/film/2011/3/15/the-bottom-line-jane-eyre.html

Tuesday, March 15, 2011 at 2:45PM AuthorHenry De La Rosa

STARRING: Mia Wasikowska, Michael Fassbender, Judi Dench and Jamie Bell

DIRECTOR: Cary Fukunaga

COUNTRY: UK

GENRE: Drama

SYNOPSIS: A young governess, in love with her employer, learns too late that he hides a terrible secret.

RATING: PG-13

RUNNING TIME: 115 Mins

THE GOOD: Lush production values highlight this latest version of the famous novel.

Mia Wasilowska (THE KIDS ARE ALL RIGHT, ALICE IN WONDERLAND) continues to upgrade her resume with another haunting performance. Michael Fassbender (300, CENTURION) follows suit.

Judi Dench and Jamie Bell make the most of their short screen time.

THE BAD: The main character is hard to like.

THE UGLY: Unfortunately, Charlotte Bronte’s acclaimed novel does not translate well on the big screen. I have seen several versions and have never been blown away.

MY SCORE: ***

(3 OUT OF 5 STARS)
Admin
Admin
Admin

Posts : 27093
Join date : 2009-09-20
Location : California

Back to top Go down

Jane Eyre reviews and spoilers 2 - Page 2 Empty Re: Jane Eyre reviews and spoilers 2

Post by Admin on Thu Mar 17, 2011 1:31 am

http://www.thestar.com/entertainment/movies/article/955082--the-name-is-eyre-jane-eyre

The name is Eyre, Jane Eyre
Published 1 hour 6 minutes ago

The luminous Mia Wasikowska makes drab seem rad as Jane Eyre.

Starring Mia Wasikowska, Michael Fassbender, Judi Dench and Jamie Bell. Directed by Cary Fukunaga. 118 minutes. Opens March 18 at the Varsity. PG

At 19 features and counting, the big-screen adaptations of Jane Eyre are almost as numerous as the 22 official James Bond movies.

The comparison is not idle, but rather idol: Charlotte Brontë’s protofeminist and Ian Fleming’s suave spy strike common and archetypal chords of self-determination, making them as heroically relevant to 21st-century strivers as they were to people of previous eras.

And with Mia Wasikowska in the title role for the 19th Jane Eyre, you have a heroine who both shakes and stirs. Luminous in The Kids are All Right and Alice in Wonderland, Wasikowska makes drab seem rad in director Cary Fukunaga’s insightful rendering of Brontë’s gothic love story, a new classic version of this oft-told tale.

She’s superbly matched with Michael Fassbender, the charming chameleon of Hunger and Inglourious Basterds, who as Jane’s mysterious swain Edward Rochester is a figure at once menacing and vulnerable.

Rounding out the impeccable cast are Judi Dench as Rochester’s loyal housekeeper Mrs. Fairfax, and Jamie Bell as the starched clergyman St. John Rivers.

Fukunaga’s presence behind the camera might seem odd, given that his only other major feature was Sin Nombre, a Sundance-feted 2009 drama about illegal Mexican immigrants seeking entry to the U.S.

The mystery vanishes when you see his vision of Jane Eyre, in concert with screenwriter Moira Buffini (Tamara Drewe), which strips the Brontë novel to its dark roots. Wasikowska’s Jane is by turns every bit as desperate and determined as Paulina Gaitán’s Sayra, Sin Nombre’s female protagonist.

With cinematographer Adriano Goldman bathing the frame in muted hues of blue, black, grey and brown, this Jane Eyre seems coldly forbidding at first. Young orphan Jane (Amelia Clarkson) chafes under the loveless rule of her cruel aunt Mrs. Reed (Sally Hawkins) and scornful school headmaster Mr. Brocklehurst (Simon McBurney).

Jane’s relocation to Thornfield Hall, where she secures employment as a governess under Mrs. Fairfax’s steady gaze, brings her into the warmer company of Rochester, the estate’s capricious owner.

Seeing past Jane’s frumpy hair and attire (Wasikowska’s beauty is well hid), Rochester at first declares her to be a witch, not entirely in jest, for the way she intrigues both his horse and himself: “Your gaze is very direct,” he tells her.

Well might it be, since even at age 18, Jane is firm enough of mind to not be treated as anyone’s mere dalliance. She is grateful to Rochester for giving her a roof and a job, and she is beguiled by his roguish charm, but she is not going to make it easy for him — or for herself.

Love of any kind has eluded Jane for so long, she has learned to live without it, an island of resolve in a churning sea of unhappiness. Still, she can’t help being curious about Rochester and his intentions, which seem both amorous and dismissive — and also downright deceitful, since he already has a prospective wife immediately at hand.

Those familiar with the story know that Jane’s misgivings are well-founded, especially when Thornfield Hall proves itself to be a place not only of clandestine footsteps but also of dark secrets.

The two main protagonists have been given small but significant personality makeovers: Jane is less pious and Rochester is less verbose than in the novel. Wasikowska and Fassbender do such a superb job in their roles, and match together so well, that no one need fear any disservice to Brontë’s everlasting intention: a love story where the woman is the equal to the man.

Key to this is Jane’s fierce refusal, like that of the many empowered women who have followed her, to accept compromise in the name of romance.

“I must respect myself,” she says, and the words ring out over the dark English moors.
Admin
Admin
Admin

Posts : 27093
Join date : 2009-09-20
Location : California

Back to top Go down

Jane Eyre reviews and spoilers 2 - Page 2 Empty Re: Jane Eyre reviews and spoilers 2

Post by Admin on Thu Mar 17, 2011 1:37 am

http://thecodeiszeek.blogspot.com/2011/03/plain-jane-eyre-has-new-good-looking.html

Wednesday, March 16, 2011
Plain ‘Jane Eyre’ Has A New Good Looking Adaptation

Jane Eyre = 3 ½ out of 5

Edward Rochester: Your gaze is very direct Ms. Eyre, do you think me handsome?
Jane Eyre: No sir.
Edward Rochester: You’re afraid of me.
Jane Eyre: I’m not afraid.

Jane Eyre is the umpteenth adaptation of the famous English novel by Charlotte Bronte. Strangely, this latest version features the most explosions and gratuitous sex scenes yet. That is a lie; this version of the film is very focused on its visuals. Along with some very good cinematography, the film moves along through visual plot development, as opposed to relying on voiceover narration. While I can admire a film, drenched in the Victorian England atmosphere, making it up to me to follow all that is going on, there is also the factor of how invested I felt I wanted to be in the film. Despite fine performances, among other factors, I still remained fairly indifferent towards this film overall, but that doesn’t mean I can’t admire what is being presented.


Jane Eyre plays around with its continuity a little bit, but after an extended prologue that will come into play later on, the film straightens out. After experiencing a bleak childhood, complete with harsh relatives (including Sally Hawkins as her spiteful aunt) and very strict schooling, Jane Eyre (Mia Wasikowska) goes out in the world to become a governess. Set in Victorian England, Jane begins work in the house of Thornfield Hall. There she meets Mrs. Fairfax (Judi Dench), an elderly widow and housekeeper, who is also seemingly the first person who treats Jane with respect. The master of the house, Mr. Edward Fairfax Rochester (Michael Fassbender), eventually encounters Jane as well.


Rochester is cold, abrupt, and brooding, but finds Jane to be quite unique in the way she addresses him. Rochester is also quite aware of his rugged handsomeness versus Jane’s plainness, but that does not stop him from acknowledging his affections for Jane. Jane soon finds herself falling for Rochester, but there is a mysterious side to him, that may not be to the delight of anyone. A detour also has Jane winding up in the house of clergyman St. John Rivers (Jamie Bell), for a time, which only seems to complicate things further, once more is revealed.


Mia Wasikowska is growing on me. After hearing how good she was on the HBO series In Treatment, I was disappointed to find her as one of the weaker elements in Alice in Wonderland. Then, she returned in the wonderful film, The Kids Are All Right, which made me looking forward to seeing her future roles. Here, she is quite good as the conscientious Jane Eyre. The way she interacts with the different characters of different class and gender is done well enough to create a fine ease with those she can easily speak to and be more on edge take to those she cannot. It is all in the way Jane presents herself in the story, which is to the benefit of the film.


Not much else to be said about the great Michael Fassbender, who is bound to become a huge star by this year’s end, given the number of projects he is involved in (including X-Men: First Class). It is the attitude that Fassbender manages to bring to Rochester that works very well in the film. He has a way of being very forward and surly, as well as mysterious, which is one of the few aspects that kept me intrigued to learn more of his story as the film unfolded. It is also hard not to like Judi Dench, as she is an old pro at making scenes feel more interesting. Jamie Bell’s role in this film follows what the character is supposed to be in the novel; however, I tend to like Bell’s stronger character work in other films, and here he is tasked with playing a pretty whiny character. It is what is required, but I still found it off putting.


The film was directed by Cary Fukunaga, who previously directed the acclaimed Honduran drama, Sin Nombre. For this film, Fukunaga brings a dash of horror like filmmaking to the story. It is enough to keep the film in a fairly somber mood throughout, and it certainly gets you to feel for Jane. It also keeps a subtle layer of suspense, which is aided by the score as well, and seems to attempt to bridge a gap between a period film such as this and the notions of a light thriller. Not being one who is well versed in the story by Charlotte Bronte, beyond a recollection of the plot and the knowledge of the many other adaptations, I am not quite sure how effective the direction reflects the source material. Still, it was made well enough to be quite visually interesting and very stunning in some of the cinematography that has been presented.


Really, what it came down to in how I would assess this film is how involved I was with it and how affecting it felt to me afterwards. I can say that I was certainly intrigued by the performances and look of the film, but reflecting on it, I cannot say that I was engaged enough by what I had gathered from this story to really praise it. Writing this now, it has been more than a week since I saw the film, and I have barely thought of it since. I am aware of the cuts that this film made from the original novel, but I am not really sure if that would have made much of a difference to me. Seeing it for the imagery was good enough and Fassbender is an actor I am a big fan of, but I was not as absorbed in the film as I would have liked to have been to really sing its praise. Probably good for fans of the novel, or at least completionists looking to see every adaptation.

Mrs. Fairfax: This is a grand, old house, but it can be a little…dreary.

Posted by Aaron Neuwirth at 8:32 PM
Admin
Admin
Admin

Posts : 27093
Join date : 2009-09-20
Location : California

Back to top Go down

Jane Eyre reviews and spoilers 2 - Page 2 Empty Re: Jane Eyre reviews and spoilers 2

Post by Admin on Thu Mar 17, 2011 1:38 am

http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20110316/REVIEWS/110319990

Jane Eyre (PG-13)
Ebert: Users: Be the first to rate this movie

Mia Wasikowska and Michael Fassbender.

Jane Eyre

BY ROGER EBERT / March 16, 2011

Cast & Credits
Jane Eyre Mia Wasikowska
Rochester Michael Fassbender
St. John Rivers Jamie Bell
Mrs. Reed Sally Hawkins
Mr. Brocklehurst Simon McBurney
Bertha Valentina Cervi
Mrs. Fairfax Judi Dench

Focus Features presents a film directed by Cary Joji Fukunaga. Written by Moira Buffini, based on the novel by Charlotte Bronte. Running time: 120 minutes. Rated PG-13 (for some thematic elements including a nude image and brief violent content).

Gothic romance attracts us with a deep tidal force. Part of its appeal is the sense of ungovernable eroticism squirming to escape from just beneath the surface. Its chaste heroines and dark brooding heroes prowl the gloomy shadows of crepuscular castles, and doomy secrets stir in the corners. Charlotte’s Bronte’s Jane Eyre is among the greatest of gothic novels, a page turner of such startling power, it leaves its pale latter-day imitators like Twilight flopping for air like a stranded fish.

To be sure, the dark hero of the story, Rochester, is not a vampire, but that’s only a technicality. The tension in the genre is often generated by a virginal girl’s attraction to a dangerous man. The more pitiful and helpless the heroine the better, but she must also be proud and virtuous, brave and idealistic. Her attraction to the ominous hero must be based on pity, not fear; he must deserve her idealism.

This atmospheric new “Jane Eyre,” the latest of many adaptations, understands those qualities, and also the very architecture and landscape that embody the gothic notion. The film opens with Jane Eyre fearfully fleeing across the bleak moors, where even nature conspires against her. This is not the opening we expect, with Jane already fully grown, but later in flashbacks, we’ll be reminded of her Dickensian girlhood, her cruel aunt, her sadistic boarding school, and her need as a girl without means to earn her own way as a governess.

Jane is described in the novel as a plain girl; is that where the phrase “plain Jane” comes from? Here she’s played by Mia Wasikowska (of Tim Burton’s “Alice in Wonderland”), who is far from plain but transforms herself into a pale, severe creature who needs to be watered with love. She is employed by the intimidating Rochester (Michael Fassbender) to supervise the care of his “ward,” Adele Varens (Romy Settbon Moore), who is being raised in his isolated manor, Thornfield. How he came into the possession of a young girl as his “ward” is an excellent question, one among many that could probably be answered by Thornfield’s dedicated housekeeper, Mrs. Fairfax (Judi Dench).

The classic “Jane Eyre” is the 1944 version with Joan Fontaine and Orson Welles. Fontaine was 27, Welles was 29. Mia Wasikowska is 22 and Michael Fassbender is 34. In the novel, Jane is scarily 20 and Rochester is … older. Whether in any version he is old enough to accomplish what he has done in life is a good question, but this film is correct in making their age difference obvious; Jane in every sense must be intimidated by her fierce employer. No version I know of has ever made Rochester as unattractive as he is described in the book.

Rochester is absent a good deal of the time, although represented by the foreboding atmosphere of Thornhill, the enigmatic loyalty of Mrs. Fairfax, and the sense that something is amiss in the enormous manor. Here Judi Dench’s contribution is significant; the tone of her voice conveys so much more about Rochester than her words.

Either you know the plot or not. Its secret is a red herring with all the significance of “Rosebud.” It functions only to provide Rochester with an honorable reason to propose a dishonorable thing, and thus preserve the moral standards of the time. The novel is actually about forbidden sexual attraction on both sides, and its interest is in the tension of Jane and Rochester as they desire sex but deny themselves. Much of the power comes from repressed emotions, and perhaps Charlotte Bronte was writing in code about the feelings nice women of her time were not supposed to feel.

The director here is Cary Fukunaga, whose “Sin Nombre” was one of the best films of 2009. Its story, based on fearsome Mexican gangs, scarcely resembles “Jane Eyre,” but it showed an emotional intensity between characters who live mostly locked within themselves. He’s a director with a sure visual sense, here expressed in voluptuous visuals and ambitious art direction.

Michael Fassbender is an Irish actor who can have a threatening charm; did you see him in “Fish Tank” (2010), a quite different film about a seductive man who takes advantage of a teenage girl? Mia Wasikowska, from Australia, is a relative newcomer who must essentially carry “Jane Eyre,” and succeeds with restraint, expressing a strong moral compass. Judi Dench is firm, as a housekeeper must be firm, and observes everything, as a housekeeper must. All of the rest is decoration. Without the costumes, sets, locations, sound design and the wind and rain, gothic romance cannot exist.
Admin
Admin
Admin

Posts : 27093
Join date : 2009-09-20
Location : California

Back to top Go down

Jane Eyre reviews and spoilers 2 - Page 2 Empty Re: Jane Eyre reviews and spoilers 2

Post by Admin on Thu Mar 17, 2011 4:38 pm

http://www.boston.com/ae/movies/articles/2011/03/18/in_new_jane_eyre_director_cary_joji_fukunaga_and_star_mia_wasikowska_offer_a_fresh_look_at_bronts_heroine/

Jane Eyre
‘Jane Eyre,’ a new cinematic chapter: Director, star offer fresh look at Brontë’s heroine
Michael Fassbender and Mia Wasikowska in the latest dramatization of Charlotte Brontë’s “Jane Eyre,’’ directed by Cary Joji Fukunaga. (Laurie Sparham/Focus Features) Michael Fassbender and Mia Wasikowska in the latest dramatization of Charlotte Brontë’s “Jane Eyre,’’ directed by Cary Joji Fukunaga. (Laurie Sparham/Focus Features)

By Ty Burr
Globe Staff / March 18, 2011

The new “Jane Eyre’’ apparently stars Mia Wasikowska in the title role. If you’re looking for the long, blond, post-adolescent gazelle of “Alice in Wonderland’’ and “The Kids Are All Right,’’ you’ll search in vain. This Jane has dull brown hair and a hard, level gaze; she suggests nothing so much as a lethal mouse. How does an actress make herself appear shorter? I have no idea, but I do know this is one of the better Jane Eyres I’ve seen onscreen, a conception that forsakes movie-groomed glamour for a plainer, less compromised beauty.

The same could be said of this adaptation from director Cary Joji Fukunaga (“Sin Nombre’’), an unexpected but quietly confident second feature that dramatizes Charlotte Brontë’s classic gothic romance from the inside out. Emotions, repressed and then set free, drive this “Jane Eyre,’’ and what the film loses in epic resonance it gains in inner strength. This may not be the greatest movie version of the novel, but it’s possibly the truest.

“What’s your tale of woe? All governesses have a tale of woe,’’ Rochester (Michael Fassbender) teases his new employee, and the film dutifully sketches in the Dickensian cruelties that Brontë used to give young Jane her heart and spine. The film stints on these early sequences, with such expert players as Sally Hawkins (mean Mrs. Reed) and Simon McBurney (meaner Mr. Brocklehurst) shuttled on and off stage, and little Helen Burns (Freya Parks) kicking the bucket before she’s even had a proper cough.

But everyone wants to get to Thornfield Hall, that jumble of battlements and guilt lorded over by Edward Fairfax Rochester and haunted by a living ghost. Here “Jane Eyre’’ doesn’t disappoint. The estate is swathed in beautiful gloom, and its master is enigmatic, brooding, rudely perceptive. Movie Rochesters are never as plug-ugly as Brontë wrote him — producers figure he has to be handsome if we’re to fall for him — but Fassbender (“Inglourious Basterds’’) isn’t a matinee idol and he conveys the wounded privateness of the man. His Rochester and Wasikowska’s Jane are so eerily attuned to each other that the film lacks much of the romantic suspense we associate with the story. Everyone else just falls away; even Judi Dench takes a rare back seat as the warmhearted housekeeper, Mrs. Fairfax.

Still, there are flaming drapes and shrieks in the dark and something locked away upstairs. Fukunaga has fiddled with the novel’s structure to the extent of opening with Jane fleeing Thornfield after the dark-and-stormy-night revelations that close the book’s second act. She washes up at the doorstep of the humble missionary St. John Rivers (Jamie Bell) and his sisters (Holliday Grainger and Tamzin Merchant), and while the film quickly flashes back to earlier events, it peeks in on its heroine’s spiritual healing from time to time. This will probably displease Brontë purists, as will the disappearance of the odd character, scene, or plot twist — Rochester doesn’t dress up as a gypsy in this one, for which we should all be thankful — but it adds greatly to the almost trance-like mood of banked passion.

By contrast, moviegoers who don’t know the book or their literary history will probably come to this expecting another Jane Austen art-house special. Hardly. Fukunaga’s “Jane Eyre’’ is both wilder and more muted, and in tone and pacing it most closely resembles 2009’s “Bright Star.’’ Instead of the usual Miramax trappings — the clip-clop of enameled horse-drawn carriages, the topiary vanishing into morning mist, the dresses, the estates — “Jane Eyre’’ avails itself of stark Derbyshire locations and rough-hewn people and props. Fukunaga and his cameraman, Adriano Goldman, use shallow focus to isolate Jane from the luxuriant backgrounds and to lend the story the indeterminacy of a dream. The sound design pays great care to the creak of the trees. Don’t come to this hoping to get your period-movie freak on.

Instead, the drama is where it should be, in Jane’s growing certainty and in the recognition of same by her employer. “Jane Eyre’’ is really about a woman carving a moral and psychological place in an uncaring world — how this “creeping creature,’’ in the words of one upper-class character, is actually a “rare, unearthly thing’’ to herself and anyone else astute enough to notice.

Wasikowska’s portrayal is so flinty yet so finely calibrated it seems freshly felt. The performance lacks self-pity or swooning — for that, look to the 1943 Hollywood version, a magnificent folly featuring Joan Fontaine and Orson Welles — and it insists, despite Jane’s love for him, that Rochester come to her on her terms and no one else’s. She accepts being different as the price of being true to herself; the shock is only that someone wants to join her there.

Those shock waves carry over to the audience. For all its period details, the movie feels perched momentously on the threshold of a sense of self-worth that feels strikingly modern. Fukunaga may have made the first “Jane Eyre’’ to draw the connection between gothic and Goth.

3.5/4 stars

JANE EYRE Directed by: Cary Joji Fukunaga

Written by: Moira Buffini, based on the novel by Charlotte Brontë

Starring: Mia Wasikowska, Michael Fassbender, Jamie Bell, Judi Dench, Sally Hawkins

At: Kendall Square, West Newton

Running time: 120 minutes

Rated: PG-13 (some thematic elements, including a nude image and brief violent content)
Admin
Admin
Admin

Posts : 27093
Join date : 2009-09-20
Location : California

Back to top Go down

Jane Eyre reviews and spoilers 2 - Page 2 Empty Re: Jane Eyre reviews and spoilers 2

Post by Admin on Thu Mar 17, 2011 4:41 pm

http://www.azcentral.com/thingstodo/movies/articles/2011/03/17/20110317jane-eyre-review-mia-wasikowska-michael-fassbender.html

'Jane Eyre,' 3.5 stars

by Kerry Lengel - Mar. 17, 2011 08:58 AM
The Arizona Republic

Cary Joji Fukunaga made his bloody first splash in filmdom with "Sin Nombre," a mythic odyssey through Mexican gangland violence.

Naturally, his follow-up is a polished costume drama, "Jane Eyre," featuring fresh-faced starlet Mia Wasikowska. If it is a success, the young-gun director no doubt will move on to a superhero franchise, and his journey to the dark side will be complete.

The many previous screen versions of Charlotte Bronte's 1847 novel are testament enough to its cinematic staying power, with the wide-open English moors serving double duty as picturesque canvas for the director of photography and as reverse metaphor for the tightly constrained lives of the characters.

On the other hand, the constraints of time - the relative brevity of even a leisurely paced film, and the ever-growing distance between the Victorian setting and contemporary audiences - inevitably do violence to the story.

On the page, "Jane Eyre" is a full life, chronicling the title character's upbringing in a hostile home and an oppressive boarding school before settling into the Gothic romance. Fukunaga and screenwriter Moira Buffini ("Tamara Drewe") condense the material into a frame-story structure, with flashbacks to young Jane (Amelia Clarkson, excellent) deftly defining the stakes for an orphan girl clinging to her position on the bottom rung of high society.

Wasikowska ("The Kids Are All Right") proves her chops in her first genuinely challenging role, solving the puzzle of how to suggest the depth of feeling that hides underneath her proverbial stiff upper lip. It's a fine performance despite the giggle factor every time someone repeats that her character is a plain Jane; dour costumes and makeup hardly disguise the elfin beauty that earned the actress her breakout role in Tim Burton's "Alice in Wonderland."

Of course, beauty, along with a sense of mystery, is what audiences expect in a Gothic romance, and Fukunaga delivers with carefully composed shots of austere landscapes and shadowy Victorian opulence. What he doesn't deliver, however, is a fresh take on an often-told love story.

It doesn't help that Michael Fassbender ("Inglourious Basterds") indulges in a bit too much scenery chewing as the dashing Mr. Rochester. But the real problem is the too-familiar dynamic between the iron-willed good girl and the charismatic bad boy whose dark secret will inevitably reveal his heart of gold.

"Jane Eyre" has been called a proto-feminist novel because of its defiant heroine and its frank portrayal of inequality. But a century and a half later, the message seems to be that a woman can achieve independence on her own, but to be happy, she will always need a rich man in a big house.

'Jane Eyre'

Fair to good: 3 half stars

Director: Cary Joji Fukunaga.

Cast: Mia Wasikowska, Michael Fassbender, Judi Dench, Jamie Bell.

Rating: PG-13 for some thematic elements including a nude image and brief violent content.

Note: At Harkins Camelview.
Admin
Admin
Admin

Posts : 27093
Join date : 2009-09-20
Location : California

Back to top Go down

Jane Eyre reviews and spoilers 2 - Page 2 Empty Re: Jane Eyre reviews and spoilers 2

Post by Admin on Thu Mar 17, 2011 4:43 pm

http://www.kansascw.com/kscw/sns-mobile-movie-review-jane-eyre,0,5606530.story

Movie review: 'Jane Eyre'
'Jane Eyre'

'Jane Eyre' (Distributed by Focus Features)

by Michael Phillips Movie critic

Rating: 3 stars

Recap: The pretty, moody, well-acted new adaptation of Charlotte Bronte's "Jane Eyre" rests on a key early scene between Mia Wasikowska as Bronte's protagonist and narrator and Michael Fassbender as the storm warning known as Edward Rochester. This is one of the most famous getting-to-know-you passages in 19th century literature, chronicling the second encounter and first civil conversation between the new governess of Thornfield Hall and her employer.

Review: "The screenwriter Moira Buffini has restructured Bronte's narrative so that the story begins near the end, and then flashes back. This works well. What is lacking? I hesitate to use the most hackneyed two words in English, but: character development ... And to no one's surprise, the story still works like Gothic gangbusters, thanks in part to reliable back-court support from Judi Dench (as Mrs. Fairfax) and Sally Hawkins (as Jane's venal guardian). I couldn't help but feel this adaptation needed more of the thing for which Jane herself yearns: a sense of freedom." --Michael Phillips, Tribune movie critic
Admin
Admin
Admin

Posts : 27093
Join date : 2009-09-20
Location : California

Back to top Go down

Jane Eyre reviews and spoilers 2 - Page 2 Empty Re: Jane Eyre reviews and spoilers 2

Post by Admin on Thu Mar 17, 2011 4:44 pm

http://www.chicagotribune.com/entertainment/movies/sc-mov-0315-jane-eyre-20110317,0,7586039.column

Back to Thornfield Charlotte Bronte's leads may fall in love too easily here, but the actors don't let her down

'Jane Eyre' (March 17, 2011)

'Jane Eyre' — 3 stars
Michael Phillips Movie critic

8:50 a.m. CDT, March 17, 2011

The pretty, moody, well-acted new adaptation of Charlotte Bronte's "Jane Eyre" rests on a key early scene between Mia Wasikowska as Bronte's protagonist and narrator and Michael Fassbender as the storm warning known as Edward Rochester. This is one of the most famous getting-to-know-you passages in 19th century literature, chronicling the second encounter and first civil conversation between the new governess of Thornfield Hall and her employer. With a disarming mixture of candor and restraint, Jane acquits herself so nimbly in the face of so much bluff it's as if the charismatic bad boy with a secret were discovering a new species — a rare object of fascination and adoration.

Thanks to the enduring draw of Bronte's 1847 two-volume novel, generation upon generation of readers have made the same discovery. Without making any provocative new discoveries, the latest film version of the novel, directed by Cary Joji Fukunaga, honors the source material. It's certainly a start and, if you have the right actors, sometimes it's enough for a satisfying finish.

We'll get to what's missing from this "Jane Eyre" in a minute. Here's what works, and what makes it worth seeing.

For starters, Wasikowska. If the actress playing Jane Eyre, the only potential pity party in popular fiction to rival Oliver Twist, begs for our sympathy in any direct fashion, the story dies faster than you can say "Helen Burns." Bronte's Jane is bullied, beaten, cowed, humiliated and — worst of all — marginalized by her guardians, her Lowood schoolmasters and the wider world around her. Then she arrives at Thornfield Hall and her destiny.

Wasikowska, who starred in the recent "Alice in Wonderland" and co-starred in "The Kids Are All Right," has many virtues as an actress, but above all, she is as honest as the day is long. She seems to act very little, which sounds lazy or easy, but in fact requires great skill. Fassbender's Rochester has the dash and spirit of a Byronic antihero; crucially, he also has a sense of humor about his harrumphing character's unexpected attraction to this pale, watchful governess. In their lengthy scene by the fireside Wasikowska and Fassbender appear to be sussing each other out, pushing each other's buttons, in all the right ways. It is a crisply paced highlight.
Need basic training in SEO and social media? Sign up for 435 Digital seminars at Tribune Tower >>

The screenwriter Moira Buffini has restructured Bronte's narrative so that the story begins near the end, and then flashes back. This works well. What is lacking? I hesitate to use the most hackneyed two words in English, but: character development. The 1944 Robert Stevenson version of "Jane Eyre," a wild-eyed, visually striking black-and-white affair starring Joan Fontaine (post-"Rebecca") and Orson Welles (more effective in his uncredited design contributions than in his performance), has many flaws but its screenplay manages a gradual and convincing coming-together of the main characters. This latest version radically condenses the process. Here, it's one scene and bam: love, hard and fast. Bronte wrote of the "cord of communion" between Jane and Rochester, pulling them toward one another almost against their will. The movie gives that cord a strong yank early on — too strong, I think.

Director Fukunaga's previous film was "Sin Nombre," about Honduran nationals trekking north, perilously, to Mexico and eventually America. That film's mixture of realism and melodrama was very much like the unsteady world Fukunaga creates in "Jane Eyre," veering from windswept, hand-held-camera walks against the gray skyline of Derbyshire to classically minded camera swoops and glides. The results are all over the place visually.

And to no one's surprise, the story still works like Gothic gangbusters, thanks in part to reliable back-court support from Judi Dench (as Mrs. Fairfax) and Sally Hawkins (as Jane's venal guardian). I couldn't help but feel this adaptation needed more of the thing for which Jane herself yearns: a sense of freedom. At their best, though, Wasikowska and Fassbender hint at their well-worn characters' inner lives, which are complex, unruly and impervious to time.

mjphillips@tribune.com

MPAA rating: PG-13 (for thematic elements including a nude image and brief violent content)

Cast: Mia Wasikowska (Jane Eyre); Michael Fassbender (Edward Rochester); Judi Dench (Mrs. Fairfax); Jamie Bell (St. John Rivers); Imogen Poots (Blanche Ingram); Amelia Clarkson (Jane, age 10); Sally Hawkins (Mrs. Reed)

Credits: Directed by Cary Joji Fukunaga; written by Moira Buffini, based on the novel by Charlotte Bronte; produced by Alison Owen and Paul Trijbits. A Focus Features release. Running time: 2:00.
Admin
Admin
Admin

Posts : 27093
Join date : 2009-09-20
Location : California

Back to top Go down

Jane Eyre reviews and spoilers 2 - Page 2 Empty Re: Jane Eyre reviews and spoilers 2

Post by Admin on Thu Mar 17, 2011 4:50 pm

http://clatl.com/atlanta/jane-eyre-adaptation-schools-twilight-in-tragic-gothic-love-story/Content?oid=2953052

Jane Eyre adaptation schools Twilight in tragic, gothic love story
Director Cary Fukunaga delivers a cerebral and passionate adaptation
by Curt Holman
UP IN THE EYRE: Mia Wasikowska stars as the title role in Jane Eyre

LAURIE SPARHAM

UP IN THE EYRE: Mia Wasikowska stars as the title role in Jane Eyre
Tools

Jane Eyre
o ****
o Rated PG-13 - Drama, Romance
o Directed by Cary Fukunaga
o Stars Mia Wasikowska, Jamie Bell, Michael Fassbender and Judi Dench
o Opens Fri. Mar. 18 in area theaters

Official Site: www.JaneEyretheMovie.com
Director: Cary Fukunaga
Writer: Charlotte Brontë and Moira Buffini
Cast: Mia Wasikowska, Jamie Bell, Michael Fassbender, Judi Dench, Tamzin Merchant, Sally Hawkins, Imogen Poots, Simon McBurney, Sophie Ward and Harry Lloyd

"All governesses have a tale of woe. What's yours?" the brooding Mr. Rochester (Michael Fassbender) asks his new employee, Jane Eyre, in the latest screen adaptation of Charlotte Brontë's gothic novel. Jane (Mia Wasikowska) doesn't take Mr. Rochester's bait. Despite the governess's miserable girlhood, Jane voices no complaints. She clearly believes that to confess a sob story would be like sacrificing some of her integrity.

Director Cary Fukunaga's cerebral and passionate version of Jane Eyre stirringly traces the heroine's slow yet determined attempt to earn personal liberation. Moira Buffini's screenplay traces how Jane endured an unusually harsh upbringing during a time when young women had precious little power or opportunity. Played as a girl by Amelia Clarkson, Jane grows up parentless and despised by a rich, icy aunt (Sally Hawkins) who sends her niece from a loveless mansion to an even more severe girl's school. At one point, young Jane spends a day standing on "the pedestal of infamy" for a trivial rebellion. The film sets up a tension between 19th-century rural England's hell-and-damnation religion and the superstitions that seem to lurk in the shadows.

Spooky tales echo in the halls of Mr. Rochester's sprawling manor Thornfield, where Jane takes her first job after leaving school. Jane spends her days teaching Mr. Rochester's young French ward, who could be his daughter, although the film leaves the implication vague. Mr. Rochester alludes to a dark secret in his past, while rumor holds that a spectral figure stalks the halls at night. The script includes red herrings, such as a set of neck wounds that hint at vampirism.

Fukunaga places the heart of Jane Eyre in the volleying conversations between Jane and Mr. Rochester, whose budding attraction and mutual respect bloom almost subliminally. In the second half of the film, the pair discusses Jane's wages, and Mr. Rochester asks, "Do you trust me to keep it?" "Not a whit, sir," she replies, with just the faintest twinkle in her eye.

Jane Eyre's banter seldom feels like forward, modern-day flirtation. Throughout the film, we empathize with Jane's fraught position and her uncertainty about her intimidating but sexy employer. Despite its deliberately paced approach to some oft-filmed material, Jane Eyre effectively puts the modern moviegoer inside its heroine's metaphorical corset.

While Jane Eyre hews closely to Brontë's plot, it arrives in theaters at a time when Twilight mania has launched numerous imitators, including Beastly and Red Riding Hood. Jane Eyre's depths offer a lesson in tortured romance and gothic mood to Edward and Bella fans. The rugged, implosive Fassbender conveys Mr. Rochester's mercurial complexities, making the character sympathetic yet difficult to forgive. His moodiness isn't just a pose.

Fukunaga photographs Wasikowska to emphasize her pallor. "She's white as death!" exclaims a Good Samaritan early on. The Alice in Wonderland actress has beautiful, delicate features, but also a haunted aspect, as if her roles have lived through terrible ordeals. She captures Jane's sense of self-preservation, but also her dawning pleasures. When she and Mr. Rochester hold hands for the first time, there's an almost erotic sense of transgression; you want to applaud the first time they kiss and the winds start sweeping across the hills.

Mr. Rochester's secrets eventually come out, but Jane Eyre keeps the plot's lurid, Poe-like aspects to Jane's self-discovery and personal empowerment. Recurring shots of Jane's window at Thornfield illustrate her changing fortunes. First we see her through the cage-like frame. Later we notice the window cracked open and a curtain fluttering in the wind like an invitation. Finally, it's thrown open completely and the distant horizon beckons with a promise of freedom.
Admin
Admin
Admin

Posts : 27093
Join date : 2009-09-20
Location : California

Back to top Go down

Jane Eyre reviews and spoilers 2 - Page 2 Empty Re: Jane Eyre reviews and spoilers 2

Post by Admin on Thu Mar 17, 2011 5:09 pm

http://www.giraffedays.com/?p=7412

Movie Review: Jane Eyre

As I mentioned in an earlier post, I went to see the premier of the new Jane Eyre film last night with a friend from work – I got free tickets through my book club (thanks again Shelby!).

The film stars Australian actress Mia Wasikowska – who had her break-out role as Alice in Alice in Wonderland – as Jane and German-Irishman Michael Fassbender as Mr Rochester – I don’t think I’ve seen him before but he was in Inglourious Basterds among other things. Jane was perfectly cast: plain but with something ethereal and slightly other-worldly about her, the kind of person who becomes beautiful and compelling (in looks) only after knowing her and opening yourself to her. She was much more openly emotional in this adaptation than I’ve seen her acted before, but she was calm and stoic when she’s meant to be so it didn’t bother me all that much.

Fassbender’s Rochester had all glower and gruffness, brooding moodiness and short-tempered surliness that he should have, along with wit, cheekiness and that mischievous sparkle in his eye when he teases. He also had the melodramatic side of Rochester that he has in the book – they usually avoid that in the adaptations ’cause seeing a strong man on his knees, moaning and saying melodramatic things doesn’t sit well in our era, but the emotional intensity of the scene was such that it seemed perfectly suited and more heartfelt and soul-deep than melodramatic. (Jane Eyre is one of my all-time favourite books but that scene in the book where Jane talks about leaving him and he throws himself on the couch and carries on like a boy has always set uneasily with me – I think I can read it better now thanks to this film.)

The film was beautifully shot, and in general the rest of the cast was solid – I have to say that Jamie Bell, who played St John Rivers (right), wasn’t nearly handsome enough (he’s meant to be quite beautiful; I just found him mulish), and his sanctimonious, priggish side was there but not enough – what it comes down to is the screenplay.

With the screenplay, they did a great job of condensing the novel into a two-hour movie, and I didn’t mind the cuts they made, in general. My friend had not only never seen an adaptation nor read the book before, she actually had no idea what the story was about and had never heard of Jane Eyre (I know!), and she really enjoyed the film and had no trouble following it – she didn’t have any questions afterwards that show there are gaps in the plot or anything, and that’s good. But she agreed with me that the big flaw of the movie was not spending enough time building chemistry between Jane and Rochester. It all happened far too fast, and without building a solid foundation for their high-strung emotions, their decisions don’t really gel. The actors did a great job with the scenes they had; there just wasn’t enough time.

They also condensed the whole haunted-hall part of the plot, and while they made the entire film quite spooky – set almost entirely in winter, unlike the book, with bits that make you jump – I felt that the mystery was sort of tacked-on as it were, and also condensed too much. The other element that wasn’t built up enough was Jane’s imagination – all you get are the paintings that Rochester criticises, but I felt that Jane came across as too placid and dull. It’s the image she presents, but the whole thing between her and Rochester centres around how he can discern that the inner Jane is so much more, and the facade is just a protective front.

They also began the movie with the end, more or less – with Jane fleeing Thornfield Hall and roaming the moors before coming across the Rivers’ cottage. I can see why they would do this – there’s dramatic effect, and also that portion of the novel is always the worst, like the dry fibre in a meal: important to the overall but not fun to read. It’s not a bad idea to break it up and spread it around a bit. But my friend, being wholly unfamiliar with the story, said it didn’t make her feel anything because she didn’t know the backstory – in essence, it had no effect at all. For me, I was sitting there thinking “oh god, please don’t tell me they’re going to do the film in flashbacks!” It wasn’t that bad, but I think I prefer a continuous, chronological story as it is in the book and other adaptations.

Speaking of other adaptations, I’ve seen the old BBC six-part series with Timothy Dalton, and he’s definitely the perfect Rochester, but the series also suffers from being 80s and very brown. Spread out over six episodes, it’s a bit slow and dark – as in, the lighting is dark and drab and brown.

I’ve successfully avoided watching the previous movie adaptation, from 1996, the one with Anna Paquin – my sister saw it and said it was really bad.

By far the absolute best adaptation to watch is the 2006 BBC mini-series starting Toby Stephens. It’s a superb adaptation, containing all the bits it should have, wonderfully acted, with tangible passion and emotional intensity. They took artistic licence with a couple of major scenes but they did it very well and it’s what you should expect from an adaptation – it has to speak differently because the visual medium is so different from the textual one. And I actually thought that Fassbender was channelling Stephens in this movie version – same accent, same voice at times, which just made me want to watch the other more!

While I didn’t love this adaptation (and I thought – hoped – I would, because I really enjoyed the recent Pride and Prejudice movie; but then again, I don’t love that book like I do this one), it was one of the better ones. If you do go and see it, I’d love to hear what you think!
March 17th, 2011 |
Admin
Admin
Admin

Posts : 27093
Join date : 2009-09-20
Location : California

Back to top Go down

Jane Eyre reviews and spoilers 2 - Page 2 Empty Re: Jane Eyre reviews and spoilers 2

Post by Admin on Thu Mar 17, 2011 5:10 pm

http://spectrum.columbiaspectator.com/arts/what-movies-to-go-see-over-spring-break

Arts | Mar. 17 3:10 pm EST
MOVIES
What movies to go see over spring break
Courtesy of Wikimedia Commons
By Maricela Gonzalez

For those of you spring breakers who are stuck at home while your friends are soaking up the sun on an exotic island somewhere, Spec’s Maricela Gonzalez is supplying a list of some must-sees movies. Get off that couch and head to the theater because this post-Oscar lull period may finally be coming to an end. Movie recs after the jump.

“Battle: LA”
“Battle: LA” may not be high art but it is an exhilarating, explosive ride tiding moviegoers over until the wave of summer blockbusters crashes in May. Starring Aaron Eckhart, Michelle Rodriguez, and newcomer Shaffer Chimere Smith aka Ne-Yo, the fast-paced film follows a Marine troop struggling to stave off the invading alien threat in Los Angeles. It’s also refreshing to see an invasion movie where New York City isn’t being destroyed for once.

“Jane Eyre”
The latest adaptation of the Bronte classic, “Jane Eyre” highlights the dark, Gothic elements of the novel that most film adaptations gloss over. But let’s be real, the most appealing aspect of this version is Michael Fassbender who exudes the brooding and rugged sex appeal that Mr. Rochester should radiate. Mia Wasikowska also stands out in the titular role, conveying the character’s modest yet unflinching tenacity.
Admin
Admin
Admin

Posts : 27093
Join date : 2009-09-20
Location : California

Back to top Go down

Jane Eyre reviews and spoilers 2 - Page 2 Empty Re: Jane Eyre reviews and spoilers 2

Post by Admin on Thu Mar 17, 2011 5:32 pm

http://onyxbookdvd.com/2011/03/jane-eyre-12-pg-13/

Jane Eyre / ***1/2 (PG-13)
Written on March 17, 2011 by admin in Movie Reviews

“Jane Eyre” (PG-13, 118 minutes). A voluptuous adaptation of the 1847 novel that remains enormously popular, expressing a forbidden attraction between a powerless young woman and her fierce and distant employer. Mia Wasikowska and Michael Fassbender embody Jane and Rochester with a firm sense of who they are; neither is unattractive, although the novel says they are, but then this is the movies. Directed by Cary Joji Fukunaga, a rising star whose “Sin Nombre” was one of the best films of 2009. Three and a half stars

RogerEbert Headlines
Admin
Admin
Admin

Posts : 27093
Join date : 2009-09-20
Location : California

Back to top Go down

Jane Eyre reviews and spoilers 2 - Page 2 Empty Re: Jane Eyre reviews and spoilers 2

Post by Admin on Thu Mar 17, 2011 5:35 pm

http://a-fair-substitute-for-heaven.blogspot.com/2011/03/advanced-screening-of-jane-eyre-yes.html

Thursday, March 17, 2011
Advanced Screening of Jane Eyre? YES PLEASE

From Eye Weekly ""Their tonal differences amount to a perfectly realized chemistry, rendering one of the most tragic literary love stories indelible and, though appropriately chaste, viscerally hot."

I was thrilled to attend an advanced screening of Jane Eyre last night in Toronto and I am even more thrilled to express that I genuinely respected the new adaptation.

The last Jane Eyre we have is (my personal favourite) the 4 hour BBC 2006 version with Toby Stephens and Ruth Wilson. If this is the last Jane Eyre you have seen and considering that the director mentioned that his preferred cut was 3.5 hours in length, you can do nought but acknowledge the story’s brevity.

It is framed by Jane’s arrival at St. John Rivers’ house, traces back to her childhood at Mrs. Reed’s and Lowood and progresses forward to the pivotal year at Thornfield.

We have a quiet, somewhat abrupt and languid Jane Eyre that heavily plays up on its gothic sense. Things go bump in the night, shadows dance on the actor’s faces and Thornfield is an elegant maze of strange, curtained drawing rooms and creaky nooks and paths.

This element helps make this adaptation the most accessible I have seen for those uninitiated. It is craftily filmed and draws on the same use of colour lightening last year’s stunning Bright Star.

Judi Dench plays a venerable Mrs. Fairfax and Jamie Bell does what he can with the thankless role of St. John Rivers.

Mia Wasikowska is a challenging, pure, resolute and straightforward Jane whose iron will is displayed in beautifully rendered scenes when her moral fibre is challenged.

Rochester, of course, is the make-or-break of any Jane Eyre adaptation ( from the disturbing Orson Welles through the nonchalant William Hurt to the barking Ciaran Hinds who yelled his way through his relationship with Samantha Morton to the wholly miscast Timothy Dalton). Michael Fassbender is cognizant that he is playing into the putty of the Byronic ideal and that this character has been defined, often by playing up its aggressive and violent elements, countless times before. This recognition forces him to play with his eyes. Watch his physiognomy as he livens to Jane’s quick responses and his desperation to penetrate her every thought.

The best scene in the film is the scene after the house fire when Jane and Rochester stand in his half-lit chamber. They did this remarkably well and there is a palpable tension.

The dialogue is stripped directly from the novel and the language is delicious and well executed. My main concern comes with the witling of staple plot points like Grace Poole. They evade the Gypsy scene altogether (don’t blame them. That is a tough one).

When the major conflict arises it does so powerfully and yet in a straightforward manner. Jane’s resolution following it is magnificent to behold.

Those who love their Jane drawn out, languid and lovely might be off-set by the abrupt ending and the quick advancement of Rochester and Jane’s relationship. But, this is a condensed version which certainly captures the spirit and essence of the tale in snippets: in scenery, character and feel.

I really enjoyed this interpretation and, like the best stories that you have internalized, that have coloured your psyche and informed your world view, your sense of ownership seems precariously threatened by the unraveling of it in a different medium. Fortunately, Jane Eyre hits the right notes, offers something fresh and inventive and exposes the great, mind-blowing romanticism that has kept it at the forefront of the Western Canon since 1847.

note: fellow Torontonians, Jane Eyre is playing EXCLUSIVELY at the Varsity ( where I saw it last night), so, you know how fast this theatre sells out.... buy tickets early :-)

posted by Rachel @ 9:13 AM
Admin
Admin
Admin

Posts : 27093
Join date : 2009-09-20
Location : California

Back to top Go down

Jane Eyre reviews and spoilers 2 - Page 2 Empty Re: Jane Eyre reviews and spoilers 2

Post by Admin on Thu Mar 17, 2011 7:38 pm

http://hypnosis4weight.net/blog/limitless-an-addiction-movie/

Jane Eyre

Do we need another Jane Eyre? There was a 2006 mini-series, and 15 years ago brought Franco Zeffirelli’s version with Charlotte Gainsbourg and William Hurt. Susannah York and George C. Scott did it on TV, and in 1943 there was Robert Stevenson’s edition, starring Joan Fontaine. In that one, Orson Welles was an emotional stormfront as Rochester. It’s too bad that Christian McKay doesn’t star in the new film of Charlotte Brontë’s story, since McKay is bold and English and was a bravura Orson in Me and Orson Welles.

Cary Fukunaga directed in the BBC/PBS tradition of perfect costumes, grand homes rich in ancestry, and dialogue such as, “On these distant horizons you will find all manner of men.” There is an attempt to be faithful to a classic novel that is also flamboyant melodrama (if you love Jane Eyre, you probably love soap opera). Fukunaga and adapter Moira Buffini are like grad students cramming for finals. They structure the story so that Jane’s dismal youth, her time at Rochester’s gloomy Thornfield Hall (actually Haddon Hall in Derbyshire), and the scenes when she finds uneasy solace from a young minister tend to jam and elbow each other rather clumsily.

Michael Fassbender broods with a haggard hauteur as Edward Rochester, the rich, glum squire with too much time on his hands and a Gothic skeleton in his closet. He sizes up Jane as his rescuer, and romantic suspense builds in coy increments as mean weather agitates their mood swings. With Judi Dench as a devoted housekeeper, Jamie Bell as the snippy minister, Sally Hawkins as a nasty piece of work, and little Romy Settbon Moore as the story’s French-speaking mascot, our attention is credibly assured.

The hard sell is Mia Wasikowska. Fine in Alice in Wonderland and The Kids Are All Right, Wasikowska is often simply unfathomable as plain-pretty Jane. She survives, without evident neurosis, a girlhood that might have caused psychosis. Primly fitted into tight, homely outfits, she could almost be starring in Little House on the Moors. Jane is such a totem of saintly, virginal endurance that her growing interest in Rochester comes off like a challenge project at a tough finishing school. The truth is, she’s a little dull.

★★
Admin
Admin
Admin

Posts : 27093
Join date : 2009-09-20
Location : California

Back to top Go down

Jane Eyre reviews and spoilers 2 - Page 2 Empty Re: Jane Eyre reviews and spoilers 2

Post by Admin on Thu Mar 17, 2011 7:41 pm

http://chavelaque.blogspot.com/2011/03/this-has-been-good-and-busy-week-and.html

And I loved, loved, loved the new "Jane Eyre" adaptation, partly for the fabulous period clothes and design, yes, but mostly because Mia Wasikowska and Michael Fassbender bring terrific passion and intelligence to the roles of Jane and Rochester, and make Charlotte Bronte's sometimes unwieldy or ethereal dialogue sound perfectly natural in their mouths, sweeping us viewers up in their passions as well. When I reviewed the Keira Knightley "Pride and Prejudice," I contrasted what I called Romantic and Rationalist romances, and faulted that P&P for shooting a Rationalist romance as if it were a Romantic one. Well, "Jane Eyre" is a Romantic romance par excellence (and the film gives that all the brooding atmosphere it warrants, to delicious effect) -- but I had forgotten, till I saw this adaptation, how much it is a Rationalist romance too, how much its unique intensity derives from Jane's absolute control over herself, and how much hotter the love burns for it. I want to see it again already; get your own taste on the movie page here.
Admin
Admin
Admin

Posts : 27093
Join date : 2009-09-20
Location : California

Back to top Go down

Jane Eyre reviews and spoilers 2 - Page 2 Empty Re: Jane Eyre reviews and spoilers 2

Post by Admin on Thu Mar 17, 2011 7:44 pm

http://newyorkbigcity.blogspot.com/2011/03/another-hike-on-moors-for-jane-eyre.html

Wednesday, March 16, 2011
Another Hike on the Moors for ‘Jane Eyre’

So far there have been at least 18 film versions, going back to a 1910 silent movie, and 9 made-for-television “Janes” — so many that they sometimes seem to quote from one another as much as from the novel. Several, including the current one, were even filmed on the same location: Haddon Hall, an ancient, battlemented manor house in wind-swept Derbyshire that gets pressed into service whenever British filmmakers need someplace old and dank looking.

So moviegoers may be forgiven if in recollection all the “Jane Eyres” seem to blend together in one continuous loop, with Joan Fontaine, the 1943 Jane, suddenly becoming colorized and morphing into Susannah York, while Rochester turns, like a character in a horror film, from Orson Welles into George C. Scott and then Timothy Dalton.

Certain moments occur over and over again: the stool at Lowood, the miserable boarding school for orphans; Rochester skidding and falling from his horse; the screams at night, the burning bed chamber; Jane running across the barren countryside; the voice calling her across the moors. And it always ends the same way: She marries him of course, though the movie Rochester is seldom the pitiable, damaged creature he proves to be in the book, where he loses both an eye and a hand.

If there has never been a definitive movie “Jane Eyre,” there has never been a truly rotten one. Even the sentimental 1996 Franco Zeffirelli version, with William Hurt embarrassingly miscast as a Rochester more nearly a mild eccentric than a brooding, Byronic type, has its moments. A couple of the movies have lingered a little on the sultry, Creole ancestry of Rochester’s first wife, Bertha Mason, and on a theme of colonial exploitation, but so far the one truly ground-breaking version is John Duigan’s 1993 film of “Wide Sargasso Sea,” the Jean Rhys novel that tells the story from the point of view of Bertha, the madwoman locked in the attic.

So why another “Jane Eyre,” then, with so many perfectly serviceable ones already available on DVD or download? The simplest answer is that movies get remade all the time, and the great 19th-century novelists — Austen and the Brontë sisters especially — have proved to be an inexhaustible and almost foolproof resource.

Douglas McGrath, who has directed movie versions of both Austen’s “Emma” and “Nicholas Nickleby,” by Charles Dickens, wrote recently in an e-mail message: “What makes a classic a classic is that the story always has relevance to whatever generation is reading it. If it didn’t, it wouldn’t be a classic — it would be forgotten. And I think that what gives them relevance is the human dilemma at the center of it. The period details — the pretty (or not) costumes, the great or dingy houses, the carriage and candlelight and long-lost customs — are all icing, but they are not the cake.”

Talking about classics of romantic literature, he added, “Part of the appeal is that the language still has a rich, sometimes poetic phrasing that a modern film has a tough time matching.”

In the case of “Jane Eyre,” as Alison Owen, who was the producer and driving force behind the new one, pointed out recently, there is also a simple, pragmatic reason: As period costume dramas go, “Jane” is relatively cheap to make.

“It’s set in a house in the middle of a moor,” she explained. “Jane Austen can be quite expensive. You need horses, carriages, houses, gowns. But on the whole ‘Jane Eyre’ is much more starkly peopled than most period movies. You don’t need swaths of costumes. And scenery costs nothing. Point a camera at those moors, and it looks like a David Lean film.”

But a deeper reason for wanting to make the movie, she went on, was simply her affection for the novel, and just about everyone involved in the production, which stars Mia Wasikowska and Michael Fassbender, felt much the same way. “Jane Eyre” came out in 1847, a little more than 30 years after “Pride and Prejudice,” and yet as Mr. Fukunaga pointed out, a world of difference separates the two books.

“Jane Austen is like ‘Gossip Girl,’ and Charlotte and Emily were like Goth twins,” he said. “It’s a totally different sensibility. The emotional world that Charlotte inhabited is much darker and more dangerous.”

It’s also a world that modern readers may more readily identify with. The story of an orphan who becomes a governess, sticks up for herself and finds true love in a spooky, haunted-seeming mansion, all the while pouring her heart out on the page in prose that is lush, romantic, almost hypnotic, “Jane Eyre,” is both a Gothic horror story and arguably the first and most satisfying chick-lit novel.

“It’s been my favorite book since I was 11 or so, and I’ve always felt that it has been under-served by the movies.” Ms. Owen said. “One reason is that Jane has so often been cast as an older woman, not a girl. But it’s not written from that viewpoint, which is why it so appeals to young girls. It makes a huge difference to have someone in the part who is pre-womanhood. Mia was 19 when we made this, which is exactly Jane’s age.”

Moira Buffini, who wrote the screenplay, recalled recently that when she heard Ms. Owen was remaking “Jane Eyre,” she immediately said to herself, “Oh, my God.” She went on: “It was instinctive. I just chased the job.”

View the original article here
Posted by Posterl at 9:41 PM
Admin
Admin
Admin

Posts : 27093
Join date : 2009-09-20
Location : California

Back to top Go down

Jane Eyre reviews and spoilers 2 - Page 2 Empty Re: Jane Eyre reviews and spoilers 2

Post by Admin on Thu Mar 17, 2011 7:45 pm

http://kkurman.wordpress.com/2011/03/17/jane-eyre/

Jane Eyre
Posted on March 17, 2011 by kkurman

by Charlotte Bronte – Moira Buffini, screenplay

directed by Cary Fukunaga

Focus Features

Here we have still yet another film adaptation of the classic Victorian morality play, Jane Eyre. It is an immortal story for all ages due to the universality of its aspirational, emotional core and its expression of responsibility to ones own moral values.

It would be presumptuous of me to comment on the original since the task has been handled by so many, far greater minds than my own. Since the story’s publication in 1847, it has been subject to countless settings and interpretations, both in straight readings of the original text and in adaptation to different times and points of view. The original novel has such good bones that it allows for broad social commentary and for a plea and justification for women’s rights. The proof of its success on this latter point is evidenced by the fact that the original was serialized under a masculine nom de plume, an affect no longer required pretty much anywhere in the world today.

In case you have forgotten the details, the story goes:

An orphaned girl from a good family is mistreated by her objectionable relatives, sent to an austere boarding school, then hired out as a governess. She silently falls in love with her libertine employer but refuses to give her self over to her passions despite his entreaties. When at last she does, it is discovered that he is already married to a mad woman whose existence tortures his soul. She flees and is taken in by a pious, religious man who gives her a job as the village teacher. When he proposes to her, for all the wrong reasons, she rejects him. When, in a turn of fate, she comes into a good deal of money, she returns to her first employer and true love and finds that he has lost everything, including his wife and his sight, leaving him free to accept her on her terms.

This new movie version is beautiful and evenly balanced in all its parts. The production design, cinematography and editing are all above reproach. It is exceptionally well cast from the newcomers, Mia Wasikowska as Jane, and Jamie Bell as St. John, to a commanding performance by Michael Fassbender as Rochester and Dame Judy Dench as the all seeing and permitting Mrs. Fairfax.

Where the production falls short is that the adaptation lacked verve. The director, also a newcomer, Cary Fukunaga, brought no bold stroke to the interpretation that would serve to lift a straight reading of a classic to new heights for a new audience. Just a couple of quick comparisons to illustrate the point might be, Alfred Hitchcock’s REBECCA or the 1993 Australian film WIDE SARGASSO SEA, based on Jean Rhys’s novel of the same name.

It is understandable that all the nuts and bolts might be in the right place, Fukunaga has had a respectable career as a cinematographer and no doubt he had good intentions. I especially appreciated the attempts to highlight the allusions to Jane as being of the faerie realm, not of this world, something aethereal, but they came too late and were too scattered through the narrative to stick. In the end, we were left with a movie experience that didn’t stick. A couple of days after the screening, I had pretty much forgotten that I had seen it, not a good sign.

But, all in all, it was a beautiful film with good performances of a classic story that holds up well without losing much of its inherent dramatic allure.

Keith D. Kurman

1 March 2011
Admin
Admin
Admin

Posts : 27093
Join date : 2009-09-20
Location : California

Back to top Go down

Jane Eyre reviews and spoilers 2 - Page 2 Empty Re: Jane Eyre reviews and spoilers 2

Post by Admin on Thu Mar 17, 2011 7:49 pm

http://justinapicture.blogspot.com/2011/03/jean-baptiste-mondino.html

3.16.2011
Jean-Baptiste Mondino

so i recently went to a free screening of Cary Fukunaga's Jane Eyre at the Museum of Fine Arts (in Boston). at first i was like that was all right, wasn't too special from what this period pieces are usually and that's probably still true but the day afterwards, i was like damn i wanna watch it again. i don't know what it is about these stories where it seems like they don't even like each other and then all of a sudden they declare their love and it's like a surge of love energy that you are like where the hell did that come from? and then omgosh crazy good. haha

there was a q & a session afterwards w/ mia wasikowska (girl from alice in wonderland, the kids are all right) and cary fukunaga. fukunaga was pretty funny and wasikowska was quiet but she didn't get a whole lot of questions. my friend had work to do so we left early unfortunately but it's okay.

^taken by my cellular.

it was cool anywho, what this post is leading to is that Mia and the guy who plays Mr. Rochester, Michael Fassbender (German guy in Inglourious Basterds), recently had a photoshoot of them published in W magazine. they're really good looking together or else the story has manipulated my mind to think that haha which is most likely true.

so i looked up the photographer: Jean-Baptiste Mondino.
googled his site and found out he's a french fashion photographer and music video director. he made the really hot commercial w/ Charlize Theron

he seems to have a few where there's a lot of ppl and males/females are all similar looking as one gender. it's pretty interesting.

Posted by Justina at 9:22 PM
Admin
Admin
Admin

Posts : 27093
Join date : 2009-09-20
Location : California

Back to top Go down

Jane Eyre reviews and spoilers 2 - Page 2 Empty Re: Jane Eyre reviews and spoilers 2

Post by Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

Page 2 of 6 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next

Back to top

- Similar topics

 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum