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
April 2019
SunMonTueWedThuFriSat
 123456
78910111213
14151617181920
21222324252627
282930    

Calendar Calendar


Jane Eyre reviews and spoilers 3

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

Go down

Jane Eyre reviews and spoilers 3 - Page 6 Empty Re: Jane Eyre reviews and spoilers 3

Post by Admin on Tue Mar 29, 2011 4:37 am

http://www.vancouverobserver.com/blogs/newmovies/2011/03/25/jane-eyre-certified-copy-sucker-punch-west-west-curling-hobo-shotgun

Jane Eyre, Certified Copy, Sucker Punch, West is West, Curling, Hobo With a Shotgun
Volkmar Richter
Posted: Mar 25th, 2011
Mia Wasikowska and Michael Fassbender are the all new Jane Eyre and Mr. Rochester.

You have so much choice this week, ranging from sublime art to outright junk.

Here's the list.

Jane Eyre 4 1/2 stars

Certified Copy 3 1/2

Nostalgia For the Light 4

Curling 3

West is West 3

Sucker Punch 2 1/2

Hobo With a Shotgun 1 1/2

Diary of a Wimpy Kid ---

JANE EYRE: There have been so many movie versions of this enduring tale, you’ve probably seen at least one already. Go again. This is one of the best. It’s true to Charlotte Bronte’s beloved novel and still puts a slight modern touch to it. And best of all both Jane and Mr. Rochester are portrayed perfectly. Jane, as played by Mia Wasikowska (last seen as Alice in Wonderland and as one of The Kids Are Alright) is forthright without seeming overly tough. Rochester, a character the movies hardly ever get right, is given just the right level of moodiness by Michael Fassbender.

The attraction that grows between them isn’t hot and heavy, but like in the book, subtle and refined. Similarly, the grand crazy revelation scene is restrained and avoids the gothic screeching of some versions. The film also pays due attention to Jane’s life before taking that job at Mr. Rochester’s. Some of that story at the beginning is neatly told in flashbacks and flashforwards to give the film a sprightly pace right off the top. It drags a couple of times later on, but only a couple. Some want to see more passion and fire from Jane. I think she’s just right, quietly assertive within a stiff society, which by the way is recreated nicely through some fine art direction. Cary Fukunaga, the director, is from California. His previous film was the much tougher, Sin Nombre. (The Park and International Village theatres) 4 1/2 out of 5
Admin
Admin
Admin

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

Back to top Go down

Jane Eyre reviews and spoilers 3 - Page 6 Empty Re: Jane Eyre reviews and spoilers 3

Post by Admin on Tue Mar 29, 2011 4:39 am

http://junto-2.blogspot.com/2011/03/review-jane-eyre-2011-book-lovers-film.html

Thursday, March 24, 2011
Review: Jane Eyre 2011, The Book Lover's Film

That’s the Coolidge Corner Theatre in Boston. I actually snuck out of my cave long enough last Friday to see . . .

Let me tell you, I was not disappointed – even if at some parts, I wanted to be.

(Spoilers abound!)

I guess I’ll start at the beginning, but the beginning is not the beginning. You see, this adaptation begins en media res – with Jane Running away from Thornfield the morning after her botched marriage to Rochester (Michael Fassbender). We see Jane (Mia Wasikowska) wandering across the moors, until she arrives at the Rivers’ door and collapses. Thus begins a series of flashbacks.

I, personally, adored Charlotte Bronte’s book. I’ve read it through three times. So much has been changed, but I think it actually improves the story. Here’s a running list of what really stood out to me:

• Dialogue. So much dialogue, as well as several scenes, are added. Unlike in past adaptations, though, I don’t think any steamy, contemporary romance was added to “spice up” the story --- more on that later. Maybe I’m miserly, but I’d say about 30 to 50 percent of the dialogue from the book is retained. However, what is there is very well executed and seems to be the good lines that get forgotten. What’s added services the plot (and fits the piece) very well.

• Romance. The romance between Jane and Rochester is so subtle and tender in this version that it didn’t need big, graphic scenes. Part of this is because of

o Rochester, of course! Michael Fassbender does a brilliant job portraying him. Yes, he is harsh, crass, not necessarily polite, etc. But he goes beyond Toby Stevens, I think, because he is more than boorish and brutish. He actually comes off as a deep intellectual, someone on another frequency. He cries in front of Jane. He laughs and smiles with her. I’ll say the quality of his performance is close to Timothy Dalton’s, but Fassbender edges him out because he actually looks like Rochester is supposed to.

o Jane, I think, is a great improvement on Ruth Wilson, as well as Anna Paquin. Zelah Clarke was my previous favorite, but Mia to me is Jane. She is not pretty or ugly. She is very young. She really feels like a sort of fairy with her intelligence, gravity, and strength. And get this – she’s actually nice! She smiles. She thanks Rochester and Mrs. Fairfax --- and that doesn’t make her any less of a dominatrix in my mind. It makes me realize what Rochester actually saw in her. Director Cary Fukunaga was a genius as well. In the scenes with Adele, Adele sits on Jane’s lap as they read, and Jane is very much a reflection of the new-age, inquiry-based teachers we all want kids to have today (but I think the novel supports this). She is subtle, but not passive, and she connects with Rochester on many levels --- particularly, their odd sense of humor.

• Big changes. The Rivers aren’t actually Jane’s cousins, which puts a whole new dynamic on St. John’s proposal (though he still doesn’t love her). St. John, for the record, is finally blonde. My heart rejoiced. As a character, he’s also been fleshed out. He’s not so much harsh as socially awkward and transfixed on self-denial. You can’t help but laugh nervously or feel tense when he is in scene – in the best way possible. Also, Rochester doesn’t use Blanche Ingram as a way to make Jane jealous. Instead, he sort of uses her as a diversion – his circle all think he is planning their wedding, when in fact he’s planning his wedding to Jane. Both of these changes are fantastic. Though, what you may find disappointing is what they’ve left out: no fortune teller scene!

• Gothicism. This definitely got amped up, moreso than it ever has in an adaptation before (at least in the past 25 years or so). It’s not as campy as it appears in the trailer, though – it’s actually really well done!

Okay, I can’t give everything away and I can’t be totally positive, so I’ll say that as a movie, this is a bit of a mess. So much gets left out and the pacing moves very quickly (particularly because we don’t drag through Jane’s life linearly – which I think is good). If you haven’t read the book, you will be totally lost. However, this film is almost perfect as an adaptation of a book. I never thought I’d see a movie improve upon a book, especially a book as classic and beloved as this one.

I will say, though, that I think the PG-13 rating is a bit ridiculous. The "nudity" in the film is a painting Jane looks at (Rochester is in his night shirt for the bed burning bit). The violence is for Mason's wound, which is really accurate and mortifying.

Word on the street is that the film is coming into wide release tomorrow, and I certainly hope so. Everyone should see this film --- I know I’d love to see it again!
Posted by Holly at 10:10 PM
Admin
Admin
Admin

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

Back to top Go down

Jane Eyre reviews and spoilers 3 - Page 6 Empty Re: Jane Eyre reviews and spoilers 3

Post by Admin on Tue Mar 29, 2011 4:50 am

http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2011/3/29/jane-eyre-feature/

For Fukunaga and Wasikowska, ‘Eyre’ is About Equality
New adaptation looks to distinguish itself from predecessors
By Lauren B. Paul, CRIMSON STAFF WRITER
Published: Tuesday, March 29, 2011

Mia Wasikowska plays Jane Eyre in director Cary Fukunaga’s film of Charlotte Brontë’s gothic novel.

Despite the myriad movie adaptations of Charlotte Brontë’s “Jane Eyre” dating back to 1914, both director Cary Fukunaga and actress Mia Wasikowska of the 2011 cinematic update of the novel claim to have been utterly ignorant of their existence. “I was amazed there were so many versions of film,” said Fukunaga, though he sees no reason to end the trend. “Why do we do anything? Because it’s good storytelling,” he added.

For those unfamiliar with the book, “Jane Eyre” tells the story of a young orphaned girl who lives in the moors of England with her cruel cousins and unloving aunt. She is eventually sent to an even more inhospitable boarding school, where she comes to learn that her vitality and passion for life are frowned upon among her gender. After graduating, she takes a job as governess at Thornfield Manor, the estate of the mysterious and intimidating Mr. Rochester. As Jane looks after his illegitimate foster child Adele, she begins to explore the secrets of Thornfield and its inhabitants, particularly Mr. Rochester.

Most importantly, though, “Jane Eyre” is a powerful love story centered around the principles of trust, vulnerability, and equality—qualities to which Fukunaga stays true. Fukunaga recalled that when he was growing up, “there were no racial minds or class lines in [Berkley, California].” This relative equality left him unaware of the depths of social inequality and exploitation around the world until further education in high school, college, and his time in the United Kingdom. “In the U.K., they are hyperaware of class,” he said. “I began to pick up on the sort of unspoken class prejudices there.”

In his movie “Jane Eyre,” Fukunaga emphasizes the aristocratic structures that separate Jane and Rochester. Through most of their interactions, Rochester speaks in convoluted and cryptic sentences, employing a wider vocabulary than Jane and often leaving her confused. Fukunaga also populates his film with many shots of Jane observing Rochester from afar, unable to engage fully in his life of privilege.

In her novel, Brontë portrayed Jane as a woman frustrated by her lack of physical and social mobility, and this aspect is taken up by Fukunaga in “Jane Eyre,” whose script includes key lines expressing Jane’s desire for action, her desire to be like men as well as to be around them. In her portrayal of Jane, Wasikowska delivers these lines with the urgency of someone who fears that life’s best experiences will pass her by.

The pale-faced and wide-eyed Wasikowska does an excellent job of embodying the strong yet naïve Jane. The 21-year-old actress from Australia, who resembles a cross between fellow Aussies Nicole Kidman and Cate Blanchett, is best known for her work in Tim Burton’s visually elaborate “Alice in Wonderland” and the Academy Award-nominated “The Kids Are Alright” (dir. Lisa Cholodenko). But this role has a more personal resonance; Wasikowska sought it out before she even knew if there was a film adaptation in the works. “I hadn’t actually read [“Jane Eyre”] until I picked it up in 2009,” she said. “I was halfway through and thought it was incredible, so I got in touch with my agent and asked if there was a script around.” Two months later she received Fukunaga’s script and joined his project.

The role of Wasikowska’s romantic counterpart, Rochester, however, took some searching. After seeing Michael Fassbender’s work in Steve McQueen’s “Hunger,” where he portrayed the Irish republican hunger striker Bobby Sands, Fukunaga was piqued and eventually cast him for “Jane Eyre.” Asked about her co-star, Wasikowska said that Fassbender is ideally suited for Rochester because he “has the qualities of being both potentially dangerous and also really vulnerable and loving. It’s easy to work off of him because you believe him. He’s so natural.”

The film’s strongest supporting performance comes from Hollywood veteran Judi Dench (“Quantum of Solace,” “Pride & Prejudice”), who plays Rochester’s housekeeper Mrs. Fairfax, a woman whose benevolent veneer conceals her sharp, perspicuous judgment. Dench’s Fairfax offers a sturdy anchor for Wasikowska’s Jane not just in the film, but on set as well. “She instantly disarms you,” Wasikowska said of the 76-year-old Dench, “so the intimidation didn’t last long. She’s a young spirit.”

Though the cast is strong in its own right, their characters also come alive due to the environment they inhabit. Filled with shadows and flickering candlelight, the feel of the film preserves Brontë’s gothic tendencies and casts an alluring yet frightening pall over the proceedings. “I just want to keep it as naturalistic as possible,” said Fukunaga. “You know, just keep it raw and simple.”

Fukunaga’s experience as a cinematographer becomes apparent over the course of the movie. The director said he wanted “the film to be centered around the tete-a-tete between Jane and Rochester,” and in this he succeeds. Oftentimes the audience feels as though it is intruding on the intense conversations between Jane and Rochester, as the two lean towards each other and the camera swings perilously between them and their tumultuous emotions.

Living up to Brontë’s iconic novel is a difficult task, something not lost on the makers of “Jane Eyre.” “Literary [adaptations] are more of a risk,” said Fukunaga. “You just have to hope people accept your interpretation.” Ultimately, the hope is that the film’s unique qualities of cast and production will justify it. By placing Wasikowska and Fassbender in a world full of foreboding mystery and poignantly illustrating their attempts to accept their respective vulnerabilities, Fukunaga looks to have his “Jane Eyre” do justice to its classic namesake, and take a respectable place among the long line of film versions of the story.
Admin
Admin
Admin

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

Back to top Go down

Jane Eyre reviews and spoilers 3 - Page 6 Empty Re: Jane Eyre reviews and spoilers 3

Post by Admin on Thu Mar 31, 2011 1:55 am

http://www.readthehook.com/89562/gothic-romance-new-jane-eyre-gloomily-compelling

Gothic romance: New 'Jane Eyre' gloomily compelling
By Roger Ebert | film@readthehook.com
Published 10:14am Wednesday Mar 30, 2011 in issue #1013

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 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. And her attraction to the ominous hero must be based on pity, not fear; he must deserve her idealism. Full review.
Admin
Admin
Admin

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

Back to top Go down

Jane Eyre reviews and spoilers 3 - Page 6 Empty Re: Jane Eyre reviews and spoilers 3

Post by Admin on Thu Mar 31, 2011 1:57 am

http://www.mysanantonio.com/default/article/Plain-but-spectacular-Jane-Eyre-still-alluring-1311132.php

Plain but spectacular: '
Jane Eyre' still alluring
By MAGGIE GALEHOUSE - STAFF WRITER
Updated 06:39 p.m., Tuesday, March 29, 2011

Jane Eyre is 18 and single. But she's not the type guys usually go for. Poor, small and plain, Jane lacks the creamy skin and generous bosom that scream beauty to 19th-century guys. A working girl, she's lucky to land a governess job at the gloomy English estate of Edward Fairfax Rochester.

Rochester is no looker, either. As Jane observes, he's "broad chested and thin flanked, though neither tall nor graceful." He's also old. In his late 30s - ancient by any teenager's standards - he is twice Jane's age. Still, his confidence and broodiness turn Jane on.

Other than a lack of hotness, what does this unlikely pair have in common? Sharp wits and troubled pasts.

Jane Eyre is steeped in big secrets, barren landscapes and austere characters. All that and the odd couple at its core - yes, reader, Jane marries Rochester - keep us coming back to Charlotte Brontë's book, still fresh at 164.

Filmmakers keep coming back, too. One count claims 19 films (including the new one) and nine TV productions. That would mean Jane Eyre rivals James Bond for screen time - and that's without the obvious lure of bikinis and fancy cars.

Directors can't seem to resist glamming up the lead characters. Joan Fontaine, Susannah York and Samantha Morton rank among the noteworthy Janes, all of them attractive. Hunky actors who took a crack at Rochester include a trim Orson Welles, Ciarán Hinds and Timothy Dalton, who also played the aforementioned James Bond.

The new film, starring Mia Wasikowska and Michael Fassbender, follows this great tradition. Director Cary Fukunaga doesn't quite get the ages right - Wasikowska is 21 to Fassbender's 33 - but it's close. Wasikowska looks perfect as Jane, her plainness gesturing toward the ethereal, but she's a bit placid. She delivers her lines with fire, but I wanted more smoke and flames behind her eyes.

Fassbender is too good-looking for Rochester and too slim; he's missing thickness and gravitas. But he's a great actor and nails the flirty scenes with Wasikowska's Jane. Reader, I have fallen for him, too.

The truth is, neither the actors nor the story needs any sexing-up. Jane Eyre is a delicious yarn, with all the longing, love triangles and supernatural fancy that audiences of every century crave.

For starters, Jane is anorphan, in the great tradition of Oliver Twist, Harry Potter and countless others. The thing about orphans is, their lives are their own to build or ruin. Jane's fierce independence keeps her from being a doormat. This is key to her staying power - with Rochester and nearly two centuries of readers.

Love often thrives on class conflict. Like many romances, Jane Eyre is a poor-girl-meets-rich-man story - think Cinderella - with a twist. Jane has high moral standards and a strong sense of self; Rochester has been kicked around by the world and is eager for a fresh start with Jane. They complement each other.

In the current Twilight-addled era, the supernatural is every bit as fashionable as it was in 1847. For months, Jane cannot reconcile what she sees and hears in Rochester's house. Is she dreaming? Is the house haunted? As it turns out, no. In Brontë's post-Gothic tale, nearly all the supernatural murmurs have logical explanations.

That noise in the attic? It's Bertha Mason, Rochester's savage wife, thrashing about. The only real other-worldly plot twist - and it's a biggie - is the scene in which Jane hears Rochester calling for her across the moors. At this point, Jane is a 36-hour stagecoach ride away from her beloved, so this intervention is definitely divine.

Next, throw in a windfall of cash. Jane inherits 20,000 pounds from a dead uncle she never knew. She gives most of it away, but still. With money, she no longer needs a man or a job to survive, thank you very much.

Finally, and perhaps most poignant, the Rochester to whom Jane returns at the end of the story is a sadder but wiser version of the hothead she left.

Thanks to a fire, in which his wife has perished, Rochester has lost his sight and one of his hands. Some scholars say that Brontë knocked her Byronic hero down a few pegs to put him on equal standing with his young love. And with the wife out of the way, she's free to be his Mrs., too.

And isn't that how every great love story is supposed to end?
Admin
Admin
Admin

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

Back to top Go down

Jane Eyre reviews and spoilers 3 - Page 6 Empty Re: Jane Eyre reviews and spoilers 3

Post by Admin on Thu Mar 31, 2011 1:58 am

http://www.journaltimes.com/entertainment/movies/article_9954f058-5a4b-11e0-b041-001cc4c03286.html

MOVIE REVIEW: 'Jane Eyre'

MICHEAL PHILLIPS Chicago Tribune JournalTimes.com | Posted: Thursday, March 31, 2011 12:00 am

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.

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 backcourt 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.

JANE EYRE

3 stars

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).

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.

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

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 3 - Page 6 Empty Re: Jane Eyre reviews and spoilers 3

Post by Admin on Thu Mar 31, 2011 2:02 am

http://www.hilltopviewsonline.com/film-takes-evocative-fresh-look-at-bronte-s-classic-novel-1.2131077

Film takes evocative, fresh look at Bronte’s classic novel

By Caroline Wallace

Published: Wednesday, March 30, 2011

Updated: Wednesday, March 30, 2011 12:03

She's graced the silver screen nearly two dozen times in film adaptations produced everywhere from Hong Kong to Mexico, but that has not stopped Jane Eyre from returning to the American box office this spring.

The new film, directed by Cary Fukunaga ("Sin Nombre") attempts to bring out the more gothic elements of Charlotte Bronte's classic 1847 novel. Mia Wasikowska ("Alice in Wonderland") takes on the role of Jane, with Michael Fassbender ("Inglourious Basterds") playing her tormented love interest Edward Rochester.

"Jane Eyre" is not a typically period piece. There are several elements that make it darker and less serene than previous versions of the film or more conventional remakes of films like "Pride and Prejudice" or "Sense and Sensibility." In fact, billowing smoke and haunting music at the beginning of the film make it almost flirt with elements of the supernatural.

For fans of the novel and previous film adaptations, the new "Jane Eyre" should provide a fresh, non-redundant way to revisit the classic.

However, those unfamiliar with the story may find the new adaptation a little thin on plot and lacking some character development. It's one of the most common pitfalls of adapting a novel to the screen — without hundreds of pages of character development, the love between Eyre and Rochester may seem to develop rather swiftly and shallowly. And like many classic novels of that time period, the leading male protagonist, Rochester, is not exactly likeable, so with only 115 minutes to delve into his hidden sense of humanity, he does not seem to fully redeem himself for the way he treats Jane and the others around him.

Wasikowska does an impressive job of bringing Jane's full-blooded independence, stubbornness and resilience to life. The dialogue, though period-appropriate, still seems fresh and biting, and the locations and characters are painted with mystifying cinematography. Overall, "Jane Eyre" breathes new, evocative life into this old classic.
Admin
Admin
Admin

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

Back to top Go down

Jane Eyre reviews and spoilers 3 - Page 6 Empty Re: Jane Eyre reviews and spoilers 3

Post by Admin on Thu Mar 31, 2011 2:05 am

http://blogs.endonline.com/gavin/2011/03/30/jane-eyre/

Posted by Gavin on March 30, 2011
Jane Eyre
Posted in: Dramatic

Here’s a quiz that has nothing to do with how good or bad Jane Eyre is, the film based on the classic novel most of us had to read in school by Charlotte Bronte. What’s a worse movie watching experience? A: Theater full of teenagers. B: Theater full of ethnic stereotypes (you know what I mean). C: Theater full of old people. After seeing Jane Eyre I can confidently say that the answer is C. My theater was packed with the geriatric and if they weren’t loudly snorting in through their nose every 15 seconds or trying to gnaw down their buttered popcorn, then they were loudly explaining the movie to each other. But I will try not to allow that to ruin my opinion of the film…I just had to vent. Like all movies that are based on a book, you have to prepare yourself for a lean and trimmed representation of what the pages contained. Unfortunately for director Cary Fukunaga (Sin Nombre), Jane Eyre is a really long book. What they chose to chop was selective and calculated but it was also somewhat vital to character development. If you never read the book and expect the movie to make you love Jane as much as the readers do, you will be disappointed. But this should make English teachers happy who will easily be able to catch whether or not a student read the book or saw the movie…be warned! The film has a great dreary look to it and I know it’s easy to chalk up the overcast sky and pall of gloom as…well…England, but it actually fits the mood of the story very well. Of course after sitting through two hours of that kind of atmosphere, it doesn’t make you feel romantic at all and instead makes you want to jump off a cliff. The performances from star Mia Wasikowska (Alice in Wonderland, The Kids Are Alright) and Michael Fassbender (Inglorious Basterds, 300) are very good, especially from her. She displays the reserved joy and masked misery that Jane should, although the years of torment that leads to her stoic persona are cut from the film. The problem with this adaptation is where they decided to take it. I never took Jane Eyre, the book, as a sweeping period romance but instead a gothic mystery that had romance in it. Nevertheless, a sweeping period romance is, indeed, where it ended up. I won’t give anything away but scenes of spooky noises and terrifying night visions could have made the film much more entertaining to a broader audience, but instead they were cast aside to cater to middle-aged women seeking 19th century romance. This isn’t me just hating on the movie because it’s simply not the book. I try to separate my feelings on the two. If you never read the book you will probably enjoy the film at a “take-it-or-leave-it” level. Dangerous though since if you did read the book, you will probably wish you did it again instead of see the film.
Jane Eyre (Rated PG-13)
Gavin Grade: B-
Admin
Admin
Admin

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

Back to top Go down

Jane Eyre reviews and spoilers 3 - Page 6 Empty Re: Jane Eyre reviews and spoilers 3

Post by Admin on Thu Mar 31, 2011 2:06 am

http://matineemonday.blogspot.com/2011/03/march-double-feature-butcher-chef-and.html

Wednesday, March 30, 2011
March Double Feature: The Butcher, The Chef and the Swordsman/Jane Eyre

This past Monday I did my first double feature Matinee Monday since my very first post. I made my way back downtown to my new favourite theatre, Tinseltown. They get such an interesting mix of movies in and they're about $4 cheaper than the theatres closer to me. I saw two completely opposite movies for this double feature, 'The Butcher, the Chef and the Swordsman' [TBTCTS for the rest of the review] a Chinese action flick and 'Jane Eyre' the newest adaptation of Charlotte Bronte's classic. So be prepared for a long one, you know how tend to go on...

'TBTCTS' was, well, it was kind of all over the place. I didn't dislike it, but I didn't like it as much as I thought I would. I've seen some criticism that says the plot is confusing, I disagree, it's pretty straightforward; three stories intertwine with the tale of a powerful cleaver, how it was formed, and how it has been passed down from one person to another. Each sequence, Desire, Vengeance and Greed, has its' own look and feel to it. Desire is the story set most recently and revolves around a butcher who lusts after a beautiful courtesan. We then flashback to the other two sequences. Greed is the furthest in the past and tell the the tale of a swordsman who seeks a swordsmith to make him a new sword from a lump of iron that's made of many powerful weapons melted down together. Desire is really over the top, too silly to really be engaging. The butcher, Chopper, is a completely unsympathetic character, and you could really care less whether or not he achieves his goal. Greed isn't much more interesting, although it had a very interesting visual theme; all in black and white except for things that are red. However, it does reveal the origins of the cleaver used in the next story. The middle frame, Vengeance, was the most appealing portion of the film. The renowned chef at a restaurant is going to visited by a prestigious patron, known for his love of food, and his tendency to kill the chef if he doesn't like any part of the meal. Knowing his life is on the line, he takes an apprentice, a mute, who is working off a debt. He must learn the secret of the eight courses served by the chef, and most importantly the eighth course, [that has a long name that I can't currently recall, sorry!] where the chef must skin,slice and cook a fish so that quickly that it doesn't know it's dead and continues to swim in the soup. This middle frame is genuinely engaging and very well done. In fact, I would have been happy if they had been able to stretch that story out for the rest of the flick. Like I said, didn't love it, didn't hate, probably would only recommend it to those who have odder tastes in movies, like I often do, even though this particular one didn't really appeal to me that much.

The second part of my double feature on the other hand had me enraptured from beginning to end. Let me preface this with an important fact: I haven't read 'Jane Eyre.' I was supposed to read it in school and could never get into it, so I got by with the Coles' Notes version. I've also never seen any of the other many adaptations of this classic. I was coming to this movie with a general idea of the plot, but with a fresh point of view, which very rare for me when it comes to literary adaptations, I love to read, and am more often than not one of those people who say 'The book was much better'. But like I said, that was not the case here, although needless to say, I am reading it now.

This movie has a lot going for it on paper alone, well for me at least; it's produced by my favourite broadcaster BBC and Focus Features who rarely do wrong in my books, and has an excellent cast starting with rising star Mia Wasikowska as the eponymous heroine [you might remember her as the eponymous heroine of 'Alice in Wonderland'], she's joined by Michael Fassbender, Jamie Bell, Sally Hawkins and the always wonderful Dame Judi Dench, pretty fantastic right? Well, that on paper goodness sure translates wonderfully onto the big screen under the watchful eye of director Cary Fukunaga. He wanted to bring a darker version of the book to the big screen, something I think he accomplishes perfectly, both in imagery and tone.
The film starts in media res, which is a fancy literary term for starting in the middle, with a distraught Jane wandering through the rain, alone, in the empty English countryside, finally coming upon a cottage where she is rescued. We are then launched into flashbacks, with each flashback informing the audience of how Jane has come to this place in her life. The character is on a near constant search for love and freedom, but was constantly trod upon as a child. By focussing on the darker aspects of Jane's youth, the maltreatment she receives while living with her aunt and cousins after the death of her parents, the poor conditions at the school she goes to attend, Fukunaga makes you want his plain and passionate heroine to succeed and escape from her terrible conditions. She finally seems to have found the life she's yearned for for such a long time at Thornfield Hall, as the governess to only one pupil. She loves to teach and is treated as an equal in the house, but there is something dark and ominous in Thornfield, it's not felt all the time, but is certainly there at night. And it's owner, Mr. Rochester, is as dark and moody as the estate he owns, but Jane eventually wins his heart, although not without the complications and hardships that every good romance needs.

Mia Wasikowska is pitch perfect as Jane, and I applaud director Fukunaga for choosing an actress close in age to Jane in the novel, only 19, [Wasikowska is 21] They've played down her looks to make her as plain as possible, but she has that passion that lies in Jane within her and it shines on screen. She has the ability to give Jane a naivete that older actresses might not have had the ability to do. She also easily holds her own against more veteran actors like Dame Judi and her older leading man, Michael Fassbender.

Michael Fassbender, who's name you might not recognise, was in '300' and 'Inglourious Basterds'. He's looking to have a good year, starting with his wonderful portrayal of the moody Mr. Rochester and then going on to star as Magneto in 'X-Men: First Class'. Rochester is tortured by his past, and while he is a kind employer, he keeps people at a distance. This complex type of character is not easily brought to screen and could have easily been over-acted, but Fassbender is both charming and complicated as Rochester and it's easy to see how Wasikowska's Jane could fall in love with her employer.

I'm going to leave the reveal of the climax out here for those who, like me haven't read the book. I think not being exposed to the novel might have actually been a blessing here. I was able to focus completely on the story being woven in front of me, one that bewitched me from beginning to end. It was beautiful and heart-wrenching, and I'll definitely be renting it when it comes out on DVD.
That's all for this week, and to sum up, see 'Jane Eyre' if you can, rent 'The Butcher, the Chef and the Swordsman' if you're looking for something a little odd. Until next time!

Posted by Andrea Westaway at 10:35 PM
Admin
Admin
Admin

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

Back to top Go down

Jane Eyre reviews and spoilers 3 - Page 6 Empty Re: Jane Eyre reviews and spoilers 3

Post by Admin on Thu Mar 31, 2011 2:07 am

http://men0nfilm.blogspot.com/2011/03/review-jane-eyre.html

30 March 2011
review: jane eyre

jane eyre is an ambitious book to adapt to the screen, so it's interesting to note that, according to imdb, it has been adapted no less than 20 times. the book itself is something like 600 pages long and is broken down into five or six large sections demarcated by the title character's travels in life. because of that, bronte's book lends itself particularly well to a miniseries, a collection of films or even a four or five hour gone-with-the-wind-esque epic work. however, it is clearly a difficult task to cram all of the events and characters from such an ambitious literary work into a simple, sleek two hour drama.

watching the latest jane eyre adaption, i imagine that director cary fukunaga and especially screenwriter moira buffini are tremendous admirers of the victorian novel. this is especially evident in the attention that was paid to not excising any major character, setting or storyline from the novel in this film. however, it seems to me that maybe this could have been a better film if it had been written and directed by people who weren't too attached to the source material.

the bulk of the problems i had with jane eyre appear immediately as the film begins and are most evident throughout the first third of the two hour run time. for some reason fukunaga chose to begin the film somewhere in the middle of the novel's storyline as jane arrives at the home of the rivers family. then it jumps back and forth between this scene, jane's pained childhood at home with her aunt and her time at lowood school. in the novel, these represent the first three major sections of text, representing the first three stops on jane's journeys, and this is maybe a quarter to a third of the novel. however, in the film, fukunaga crams these events into maybe 15 or 20 minutes. this entire section of the film is overly complicated, confusing (perhaps especially to viewers who read the book and trying to follow it on screen), and strangely evocative of a "last week on jane eyre. . ." tv series intro.

after jane arrives at thornfield and her storyline with mr. rochester begins, the film immediately straightens itself out and morphs into a more linear, easily discernible narrative. after the film arrives at this point, i could follow what was going on and began to really enjoy what the director was putting out. michael fassbender absolutely embodied mr. rochester, and i couldn't imagine anyone performing the role better than him. and i quite liked mia wasikowska as the tortured, melancholic and overly pale victorian heroine. all in all this was a movie with a lot of good qualities and one that i enjoyed despite its numerous flaws.

still, i would argue that this could have been a much better movie if the filmmakers had been willing to take a chance and tinker with the source material a little bit. given how much better the movie got once jane arrived at thornfield, why couldn't fukunaga just cut the earlier material out and make the entire film revolve solely around the relationship between jane and mr. rochester? this would have yielded a much better, much less cluttered narrative. yeah, maybe some hardcore bronte-philes would have been irritated by the revision, but at least the film would have been able to mark itself off as unique from the twenty earlier adaptations of the book (and the three or four others that are bound to be made in the next decade).
¶ 3/30/2011 10:37:00 PM
Admin
Admin
Admin

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

Back to top Go down

Jane Eyre reviews and spoilers 3 - Page 6 Empty Re: Jane Eyre reviews and spoilers 3

Post by Admin on Thu Mar 31, 2011 2:11 am

http://www.zooped.com/2011/03/30/review-cary-fukunagas-jane-eyre-is-a-near-scary-romantic-thriller/

Review: Cary Fukunaga’s ‘Jane Eyre’ is a Near-Scary Romantic Thriller
Posted by: Zooped, March 30th, 2011

Jane Eyre Review

I want to preface this review with the fact that I have never read Charlotte Bronte’s Jane Eyre and I knew nearly nothing of the plot before attending a showing of director Cary Joji Fukunaga’s latest version of Jane Eyre for the big screen. Lucky me. Going into Jane Eyre completely unaware allowed for a thrilling, organic experience; the plot unraveled before my eyes, the dialogue was fresh and sharp, and the mystery remained just that until the climactic finale. Which is why I would suggest to any and all who have never read of (or cared about) the story of Jane Eyre to let this film be their first exposure. It’s worth every penny.

The plot follows the life of a plain-looking girl named Jane Eyre (played by Mia Wasikowska) whose miserable childhood sees her cast out by an aunt and abused in a strict boarding school before landing at Thornfield Hall, an estate where she is to be a governess. There Jane bewitches the handsome master of the household, Rochester (the brooding Michael Fassbender) but the more he falls in love with the young woman the more Jane is spooked by the strange occurrences in the mansion. Without giving too much away, Jane is awoken several nights to the sounds of a figure wandering the halls, horrifying screams, an attack on a Thornfield guest, and much more. Fukunaga’s Jane Eyre traps its Gothic romance in a haunted house and the result is both thrilling and nerve-racking.

Screenwriter Moira Buffini’s incredible adaptation restructures the narrative of Bronte’s piece, whisking together a mixed chronology that only enhances the film’s suspense. The movie opens on the titular Jane desperately running away – but from where we can’t be sure. A voice shouts out her name, the echo of which hangs frozen in the air. Cinematographer Adriano Goldman shoots Jane on the bleak landscape of dead grass and grey skies; as the young girl flees she’s belittled by the rolling hills, nothing more than a speck, that is until Dario Marianelli’s somber score rushes like a cold wind, sweeping the audience into Jane’s journey. We’re going with her.

After spooking Rochester’s horse on the road to Thornfield Hall, Jane must accompany her injured employer for a fireside chat. Rochester asks his governess to divulge her ‘tale of woe‘ – the grim details of her destitute and unprivileged life – but Ms. Eyre won’t say a word. Jane is a fiercely independent woman who refuses to allow the abuses and subordinations of her childhood to define her. Rochester smirks, intrigued; no tale of woe can stay hidden forever. The moment lingers – a revealing anecdote that links the two very separate parts of this story: mystery and romance.

Though many have played Jane Eyre in countless film adaptations before her, Mia Wasikowska’s portrayal of the deprived yet passionate governess is entirely engrossing. She’s physically timid but has the strength of wit that challenges the guarded Mr. Rochester, played as curt and near sinister by Michael Fassbender. The pair verbally spar with delectable dialogue that Buffini has converted from Bronte’s book; don’t let the Victorian-era intimidate you – the script is as sharp and easy to understand as anything well written today. Fassbender is coarse and impudent while Wasikowska is steadfast and refined. In fact, I might say that my only complaint is that I wished Wasikowska’s Jane wasn’t quite so subtle with her longing of Rochester; at times it seems as if his love will remain unrequited. She does, however, float through the domineering halls of Thornfield white as a ghost, petrified yet curious enough to maintain the audience’s attention. Fassbender captivates throughout, his allure masking the dark secrets of his estate for nearly the entire film.

A few other noteworthy actors give strong performances in Fukunaga’s bleak and tempestuous Jane Eyre: Dame Judi Dench is Mrs. Fairfax, the benevolent keeper of Thornfield Hall, while Jamie Bell appears as St. John Rivers, a young minister who gives Jane shelter during her desperate need. Others to leave their mark on the film include Sally Hawkins as Jane’s wretched aunt and Simon McBurney as the self-righteous head of Lowood Institution.

I’m approaching this latest incarnation of Bronte’s beloved novel from the unique perspective of having never read the classic literature favorite nor seen any previous versions. I am not able to comment on the degree to which Fukunaga’s version is true (though I hear it’s a particularly accurate rendition) but in the end, I don’t think that matters. This Jane Eyre can speak for itself, presenting a dichotomous ‘tale of woes’ to completely fresh eyes. I was fascinated by the love affair of two intellectual equals whose desires challenge the social norms of the period, and I was enthralled by what lay hidden behind the tapestry (you’ll see what I mean.) It’s a difficult task to make the hearts of your audience race both in rapture and suspense, but the stark moodiness of Fukunaga’s Jane Eyre succeeds on each count.

This entry was posted on Wednesday, March 30th, 2011 at 10:32 pm
Admin
Admin
Admin

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

Back to top Go down

Jane Eyre reviews and spoilers 3 - Page 6 Empty Re: Jane Eyre reviews and spoilers 3

Post by Admin on Thu Mar 31, 2011 2:11 am

http://cisforcinema.blogspot.com/2011/03/c-is-for-check-it-out-my-review-of-jane.html

Wednesday, March 30, 2011
C is for Check it Out: My Review of 'Jane Eyre'
Hey Everyone -- Check out my latest post to FirstShowing.Net here.

I've reviewed Cary Fukunaga's latest version of the literary classic Jane Eyre starring Mia Wosikowska and Michael Fassbender. It's a thrilling (near scary) Gothic romance and worth every penny. An 9/10. Enjoy!

Posted by Cate Hahneman at 7:26 PM
Admin
Admin
Admin

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

Back to top Go down

Jane Eyre reviews and spoilers 3 - Page 6 Empty Re: Jane Eyre reviews and spoilers 3

Post by Admin on Thu Mar 31, 2011 2:12 am

http://www.criticaloutcast.com/2011/03/movie-review-jane-eyre-2011.html

March 30, 2011
Movie Review: Jane Eyre (2011)
If you are a Bronte connoisseur, a lover of Jane Eyre, or a big fan of period gothic romance, you probably should not read this as I am none of the above. I am not against any of those things, they just cannot be used to describe me. That, I am certain, brings up another question, why did I go see this new version of Jane Eyre when I cannot say I particularly care about it. Well, the answer to that is fairly simple. I quite liked the trailer. The trailer has this great eerie, creepy, dark, and emotional look and feel that is fairly alluring. Actually, I think the biggest component in getting me in the theater was the use of a piece of Goblin's score from Suspiria in the trailer.



I know, seems like such a silly reason for seeing a movie, especially when there are so many other, better, reasons to see or not see a given movie. As it is, I had to drive out of my to see it and there was a good deal of internal debate over whether it was worth it or not. It is not a genre I generally go for, although I am always up for a good movie of any genre. In any case, it must be abundantly clear by now that I did make the drive and I did see the movie. There is also the fact that I actually liked the movie, quite a bit actually. There are certain problems I have with it, but overall it is a film of striking beauty, haunting atmosphere, and tragic characters that you just have to feel for.

To say I am unfamiliar with Jane Eyre or anything having to do with Charlotte (or Emily, for that matter) Bronte would be a massive understatement. I know that there are people who study every word, examine every phrase and just love everything about the story (save for some of the adaptations), I am not one of those people. The closest I get is the feeling that I read it back in school, although I am not even sure about that. If all of this invalidates my thoughts, so be it. Frankly, I don't care. I liked the movie.


This new cinematic adaptation opens with Jane (Mia Wasikowska) fleeing Thornfield Manor. We watch as she leaves the manor in the background, crosses the moors, and nearly dies in the wake of a torrential rain. She is saved and taken in by St. John Rivers (Jamie Bell) where she stays with him and her sisters. She is presented as a plain woman who is notable for her desire to make her own way. It is here where the story is told primarily through flashbacks.

We see Jane as a young girl being tormented by, I am assuming, an older cousin and taking the blame for the ensuing ruckus by her rather nasty aunt (Sally Hawkins). She is ultimately sent to a boarding school which has a strong believer in corporal punishment, with girls taking strikes from a wooden stick for their misbehavings. All of these parts of Jane's life are well, if lightly, represented. The bulk of the story focuses on her time in Thornfield working as Governess for Rochester (Michael Fassbender), teaching his young ward Adele Varens (Romy Settbon Moore). While working there, she also develops a friendship with the housekeeper, Mrs. Fairfax (Judi Dench).

The important part of what happens in Thornfield is what happens between Jane and her employer, Rochester, or rather what doesn't happen. There is a creepy atmosphere all throughout the manor, one that is as beautiful as it is haunting. There is the imposing feeling of something missing, in the form of Rochester. Then there is the relationship between Rochester and Jane when he is there.


The relationship between Rochester and Jane is where most of my problems lie. Being the centerpiece of the movie, I expected there to be a little bit more to it. The scenes they share a pretty powerful with a feeling of impending doom surrounding them (that's what I saw anyway). The problem is that they share too little screen time. The movie may run two hours, but their scenes are few and far between. This is my biggest complaint with the movie and I think it is because both Wasikowska and Fassbender are so good in the roles that I wish they had more time to really bring their relationship to the next level.

Director Cary Fukunaga brings a methodical and haunting vision to the screen. There are is plenty to look at on the screen, lots of interesting locations, angles, and sequences. It may be slow moving, but it is steady and never boring. It is a movie that very nearly hits on everything it touches. Definitely a movie to see on the big screen.

I may be an ignorant clod when it comes to the original text, but there is no denying the effectiveness of this as a film. I am sure it will disappoint fans (movies like this always seem to), despite all of the positives that are brought to the table.

Highly Recommended.
3.5/5
Admin
Admin
Admin

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

Back to top Go down

Jane Eyre reviews and spoilers 3 - Page 6 Empty Re: Jane Eyre reviews and spoilers 3

Post by Admin on Thu Mar 31, 2011 2:13 am

http://lefootnote.wordpress.com/2011/03/30/brooke-and-jane-eyre-go-to-the-movies/

Brooke and Jane (Eyre) Go To The Movies
In Books, Mental Mai Tais on March 30, 2011 at 5:09 pm

Jane Eyre and Ray La Montagne opened a few weekends ago to limited release. I had to see it first before anybody else, so Jane and I got all tarted up, grabbed Sarah and drove to LA. I had three Diet Cokes that morning, so I wasn’t fit to drive, which is how I got put in the backseat, and since I couldn’t move, I talked. That’s how Sarah got the video – once I’ve edited out the profanity (Jane talks like a trucker on the third day of a junk-food fast), I’ll post it.

Adapting a classic novel into a film is an epic suckfest for any director – you’re either going to try to do something wholly original and alienate at least fifty percent of your demographic; you’re going to try to remain faithful to the book and want to claw your skin from your face because your highly-paid, highly-sensitive actors are going to feel as though they’re not free to express themselves, or you’re going to try to create a commercially successful film which will elicit endless sniping from the op-ed columnists and absolutely kill your Rotten Tomatoes percentage. It’s not easy to repeat the triumph of A&E’s Pride & Prejudice, and to be brutally honest, I really hope no one does. For reasons best known to someone smarter than me, that damn film has somehow been granted canonical status, and nearly every bit of resulting fan-fic has somehow managed to incorporate it into the author’s pathetic attempts to recreate Austen’s characters. I have no interest in watching that happen with Jane Eyre, and for this reason, I’m disposed to being super-lenient when it comes to critiquing film adaptations.

We thought it was pretty well done. I, for one, think that Joe Wright ought to get a cut of the profits, because Cary Fukunaga blatantly ripped him off – there was enough soft lighting to satisfy Loretta Lynn on her worst day; every third shot of Michael Fassbender (Rochester) and Mia Wasikowska (Jane) was backlit (apparently someone told him lifestyle shots are chic, now) – he even used the same composer. Easily the most unsubtle attempt at cinematic-plagiarism I’ve ever seen. He did mix it up a bit by telling the story in a non-linear fashion, which was both refreshing and appropriate, considering how Jane’s character develops over the novel, and he stayed pretty true to the book.

It’s too bad that Jane didn’t take my bet, because there was no wet-shirt scene. Instead (in between snippets of Gretchen Wilson and Fleetwood Mac [someone didn’t put their iPhone on silent]), we got treated to a scene of Mia Wasikowski (voss-eh-KOV-ski) trying to sneak a peek at Michael’s boy-parts, which I thought was terribly rude. I didn’t see him ogling the twins; if she’d have caught him trying to watch her button her chemise she would’ve slammed the door in his face. Dame Judi Dench didn’t get nearly enough air time (though Fukunaga did try to do more with her character by making her less austere and more matronly), but she did well, as we knew she would. I can’t say that I thought the gentleman who played St. John Rivers quite handsome enough to do the part justice, but he did a good job portraying the well-meaning, ascetic hierophant who tries to win Jane to a life of religious passion. His foil, the Rev. Mr. Brocklehurst, was also well-done, but came across as more awkward than cruel and domineering (directors heretofore have usually cast him as a straight-up sphincter [no pun intended], so perhaps this was Fukunaga’s way of attempting a more charitable interpretation of the character).

Michael Fassbender (Inglorious Basterds) did a great job as Rochester – he made very good attempts at rudeness, curbed vulgarity and a rough manner; he has an expressive face and can portray fierceness, levity, and charm in good turn; he was sarcastic and bitter, winsome and genteel, all without missing a beat.

So why Fukunaga decided to sack him and have Ray LaMontagne do the reunion scene, I’m not quite sure.

So, Jane Eyre has just paid the modern-day equivalent of the taxi-driver the modern-day equivalent of his month’s rent to take her from the modern-day equivalent of a Howard Johnson to the modern-day equivalent of a house in the Hamptons. She stumbles along, eyes blinded to the beauty of an English countryside spring, looking for her lost love, and what does she find?

A hipster.

A bona-fide, dyed-in-the-wool, I-used-Arcade-Fire-for-my-documentary-soundtrack-in-2007 hipster, complete with the comb-over and the jeggings and the most magnificent beard you ever saw. Sitting bolt upright (no angsty slouch for Rochie), oxfords at an appropriate angle, hand resting on a cane so vintage you never even missed the pipe.

I was really grateful that the entire theater started sniggering, because no amount of Jane’s pinching and Sarah’s exasperated eye-rolling was going to get me to stop. I mean, I know we’re aiming for a certain look and attitude with the rain and the mist and gloom and the Seasonal-Affectiveness Disorder, but damn – I half-expected him to whip out a Fender and start crooning ‘Rock and Roll Radio’. It was at this point that I heard Stevie Nicks and the rest of the gang start shouting, ‘You can go your own waaaaayyyyyyy, go your own waaay-eeeaaaaaaayyyyy…’ and I really lost it, and as Jane was getting seriously pissed, I excused myself and went out to covet the theater’s display of the Criterion Collection.
Admin
Admin
Admin

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

Back to top Go down

Jane Eyre reviews and spoilers 3 - Page 6 Empty Re: Jane Eyre reviews and spoilers 3

Post by Admin on Thu Mar 31, 2011 2:18 am

http://emmanuelsalazar.wordpress.com/2011/03/30/end-of-the-month-roundup/

30 Mar 2011

by emmanuelsalazar in Uncategorized

Hello Film Fans,

With the end of March quickly rearing its ugly head, I decided to roundup the film’s I saw this month but was unable to review. As I am short on time, I will simply sum up my reactions of each movie in a few short sentences. Now, do not discount the briefness of the following reviews as a slight against any of the films, but as a quick, and decisive “see it” or “skip it”.

Jane Eyre

Limited release March 11th

*** stars

Having no prior connection to “Jane Eyre” or its creator, Charlotte Bronte, makes for reviewing the latest incarnation easy. My expectations, or should I say preconceived notions remained unaffected. The material was fresh, and its characters, foreign. While I was able to map out where the film was going midway through, I had deep admiration for the ferocity in which it was told. Australian actress Mia Wasikowska (Alice in Wonderland, The Kids Are All Right) stars as the titular character. Jane Eyre is a strong-willed and independent female constrained to a life of servitude. After taking on the role of governess to the daughter of the mysterious Mr. Rochester (expertly played by Michael Fassbender), the two (Jane and Rochester that is) begin a passionate love affair. Although, their love it put to the test, as ghosts from each other’s past come back to haunt them. Directed by Cary Fukunaga (Sin Nombre) and adapted by Moira Buffini, this retelling features universally fine performances, moody camerawork and timeless subject matter. Even with a few reservations, I would say it is worth seeing.
Admin
Admin
Admin

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

Back to top Go down

Jane Eyre reviews and spoilers 3 - Page 6 Empty Re: Jane Eyre reviews and spoilers 3

Post by Admin on Thu Mar 31, 2011 2:19 am

http://newyorklawschool.typepad.com/leonardlink/2011/03/jane-eyre-2010-edition.html

Jane Eyre - 2010 Edition

Some stories are so compelling that filmmakers just want to have a go at them, regardless of the existence of numerous prior treatments. The newest version of Jane Eyre is a real beauty, despite the gritty realism of the settings, precisely because one has a strong feeling that one is doing a bit of time-traveling and really visiting early 19th century rural England. I thought Mia Wasikowska was excellent as Jane - one really believes the evolution and transformation of the character over the course of the story. Michael Fassbender makes a superb Rochester, albeit a more handsome one than a reader might imagine from the novel. But for me, as in several recent movies, the scene-stealers are the supporting players. In this case, there is Judi Dench, who seems to have a corner on memorable portrayals of early-19th century housekeepers or matrons, and does it again here, seemingly effortlessly. And Jamie Bell, who so impressed me in Legion, impresses me again as the village parson who takes in Jane and conceives an unrequited passion for her.

I need to say something about the music, because Marianelli's score is absolutely perfect for the story and the setting. I was really encouraged to see this movie out of a prior encounter with the score because a facebook friend, Jack Liebeck, a multi-talented young British musician, plays the violin solos and announced the availability of the soundtrack recording, which I acquired. Having heard and enjoyed the music, I needed to attend a showing of the film, and I'm glad I did.

March 30, 2011
Admin
Admin
Admin

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

Back to top Go down

Jane Eyre reviews and spoilers 3 - Page 6 Empty Re: Jane Eyre reviews and spoilers 3

Post by Admin on Thu Mar 31, 2011 2:22 am

http://fourcoloursandthetruth.wordpress.com/2011/03/30/movie-reviews-rango-adjustment-bureau-jane-eyre-and-sucker-punch/

Movie Reviews: Rango, Adjustment Bureau, Jane Eyre, and Sucker Punch

Jane Eyre – Directed by Cary Fukunaga

While on the surface this period piece might appear to be a goth emo-grope so dark and moody that it seems to have come out of Tim Burton’s sock drawer, it actually is an extremely credible coming of age film, full of effective performances and a wonderful adapted screenplay that might get some Oscar love next year. Great performances by Mia Wasikowska and Michael Fassbender.

Rating: B+
Admin
Admin
Admin

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

Back to top Go down

Jane Eyre reviews and spoilers 3 - Page 6 Empty Re: Jane Eyre reviews and spoilers 3

Post by Admin on Thu Mar 31, 2011 2:23 am

http://rachellecatherine.blogspot.com/2011/03/getting-back-to-what-really-makes.html

Wednesday, March 30, 2011
"Getting Back to What Really Makes the Romantic Masterpiece Live and Breathe"

I have made it a habit of mine to go see movies in the theatres by myself. In fact, one of my most embarrassing moments to date happened while rushing to see a movie by myself. Being one of Kiera Knightly's biggest fans I am more than willing to spend the ridiculous amount of money necessary on a cinema ticket to see her on the big screen even without a friend to accompany me in the endeavor. So a few years ago when her move "The Duchess" came out I of course had to see it. Kiera in yet another period piece is a given! Running late, literally running, I headed up the escalator to the third floor of Regal with speed and anticipation. Unfortunately, in the thralls of my Kiera fandom I wasn't paying attention to my footing and proceeded to fall up, yes up, the escalator as I attempted to make it to my movie on time. The plummet of my body weight into the moving stairs produced a loud bang as my hands caught my fall. I was too mortified to even glance back at the onlookers sitting at the table on the level below me. I mustered the remains of my dignity and headed quietly to my seat to put yet another one of my life's moments down in history as "most embarrassing." So as I bid Jordan adieu last Monday night on my way to see Cary Fukunaga's rendition of Jane Eyre, he wished me luck and sent me on God's speed with warning against lurking escalators. I assured him all was well since Jane Eyre is currently playing at one of Seattle's Land Mark Theatres, The Egyptian, and the only things to worry me were overpriced candy and an empty theatre. I was safe from the later; there were several people at the late night showing, six of which showed up solo, including myself. Not that I was counting. I did however succumb to the overly priced Raisinets which, to my horror, I ended up spilling everywhere after only eating a pinchful. I was fuming in my red chair staring at the chocolate covered raisins scattered across the floor. I figured I had two options. One, I could sit there seething over money wasted and with taste buds deprived of candy, or two, I could give in and spend another fistful of cash and be content with sweet delicacies filling my mouth with happiness (that's what she said). Needless to say the box was finished before the movie even started. And to get to the point, Jane Eyre was phenomenal.

This new movie has made me reconsider my sworn oath to loath Charlotte Bronte's novel for eternity and actually reread the beast. Though Jane Eyre may be "poor, obscure, plain, and little," Mia Wasikowska's performance is anything but. Michael Fassbender is remarkably sexy, and as the mysterious character of Mr. Rochester he is perfection. Jane Eyre is another beautifully mastered Focus Feature film capturing what I now realize to be one of literatures greatest love stories.
Posted by Rachelle Catherine at 10:31 AM
Admin
Admin
Admin

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

Back to top Go down

Jane Eyre reviews and spoilers 3 - Page 6 Empty Re: Jane Eyre reviews and spoilers 3

Post by Admin on Thu Mar 31, 2011 2:31 am

http://hollywood-movie.co.cc/movie-review-jane-eyre/

Movie Review: Jane Eyre

Jane Eyre *** ½
Directed by: Cary Fukunaga.
Written by: Moira Buffini based on the novel by Charlotte Brontë.
Starring: Mia Wasikowska (Jane Eyre), Michael Fassbender (Rochester), Jamie Bell (St. John Rivers), Judi Dench (Mrs. Fairfax), Su Elliot (Hannah), Holliday Grainger (Diana Rivers), Tamzin Merchant (Mary Rivers), Amelia Clarkson (Young Jane), Craig Roberts (John Reed), Sally Hawkins (Mrs. Reed), Imogen Poots (Blanche Ingram).

Movie Review: Jane Eyre
According to the IMDB, there have been 22 adaptations of Jane Eyre over the years – six from the silent era, 10 made for TV and a Bollywood version among them. And that does not even include the classic horror film I Walked with a Zombie, which took the basic outline of the story for its model. I haven’t seen all of these versions, but I have seen two of the previous official incarnations – Robert Stevenson’s 1943 version with Joan Fontaine and Jane and Orson Welles as Rochester, and the 1996 version with Charlotte Gainsbourgh as Jane and William Hurt as Rochester. Although those are both fine films, there always seemed to be something lacking that marred the films in some ways. I think the problem with both versions is that neither of the Jane’s seemed young, innocent or naïve enough to fill the role properly. Fontaine was barely younger than Welles at all when they made the film – putting them on equal ground – and although there is a significant age difference between Gainsbourgh and Hurt, Gainsbourgh it seems to me has always seemed older than she actually is (and since she was 25 when she made the film, she was still too old to play Jane). That Gainsbourgh and Hurt lacked any real sexual connection hurt the film even more.

All of this leads to the most recent adaptation of Jane Eyre, by filmmaker Cary Fukunaga, who at first seems like an odd choice to direct the film. His only previous film was the Spanish language Sin Nombre, about two young, teenagers trying to cross the border from Mexico into America for very different reasons. That film was a great debut, and in Jane Eyre he proves it was no fluke. What the films share, I think, is an attention to detail, attention to the small character traits that make his characters feel human. You believe the connection between the teenagers in Sin Nombre, even though they are so different, and you feel the connection here between Rochester and Jane – and that makes the oft told tale feel vital and alive in a way the previous adaptations did not.

Fukunaga owes a debt to his actors, who play the roles pretty much perfectly. Mia Wasikowska (seen last year in The Kids Are All Right and Alice in Wonderland), gives her best performance yet as Jane. Her Jane is younger, more naïve than previous versions. She is also more touchingly fragile and human. Michael Fassbender, that great actor who has delivered magnificent but wholly different performances in films like Hunger, Inglorious Basterds and Fish Tank, has the right mix of cruelty and animal magnetism as Rochester. He is a secretive man, who keeps everyone at a distance, and his secrets locked away. Their romance is one where they both fight to resist their urges – to deny themselves what they really desire, but cannot act on. Because almost all of the sexual tension is never spoken of directly, these roles require actors to have a deeper connection that the audience can feel, even in scenes where it appears like the leads are talking about something entirely different. Wasikowska and Fassbender have that connection in this movie. The two leads are aided greatly by Judi Dench, who seems to be in every British costume drama but is great in nearly all of them, as Rochester’s maid Mrs. Fairfax. She observes everything, knows everything, but says little of consequence, like all good maids in stories like this. She speaks more in code than anything else, and feels for young Jane as she sees her get sucked in by Rochester, but admires him too much to say anything. Then there is Jamie Bell as poor Rivers, who will never understand what passion is.

Casting in a movie like Jane Eyre is really only half the battle. The other half is all about mood and atmosphere, and Fukunaga gets that just about perfect as well. From the opening scene of Jane running across the foggy moors, to the flashback of her childhood, raised in a mansion by her cruel aunt, before being sent to a crueler orphanage, and then finally to Rochester’s spacious estate Thornhill, Jane Eyre is a triumph of art direction and costume design – and perhaps even more of cinematography. Cinematographer Adriano Goldman makes this Jane Eyre dark, ominous and perhaps even spooky at times, which serves the movie well. The melancholy score by Dario Marianelli helps the atmosphere tremendously as well.

Watching Jane Eyre, I was surprised by how involved I became in it, even though I knew the story well. Perhaps that’s because the story’s big, third act reveal doesn’t really matter very much at all – what matters is that Rochester has something holding him back, not really what that something is. But freed from trying to figure out what was going to happen, I was able to concentrate on the nuances of the film, and that is what this film gets so right. Jane Eyre is one of the early highlights of the year.
Admin
Admin
Admin

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

Back to top Go down

Jane Eyre reviews and spoilers 3 - Page 6 Empty Re: Jane Eyre reviews and spoilers 3

Post by Admin on Thu Mar 31, 2011 2:32 am

http://davesmoviesite.blogspot.com/2011/03/movie-review-jane-eyre.html

Wednesday, March 30, 2011
Movie Review: Jane Eyre
Jane Eyre *** ½
Directed by: Cary Fukunaga.
Written by: Moira Buffini based on the novel by Charlotte Brontë.
Starring: Mia Wasikowska (Jane Eyre), Michael Fassbender (Rochester), Jamie Bell (St. John Rivers), Judi Dench (Mrs. Fairfax), Su Elliot (Hannah), Holliday Grainger (Diana Rivers), Tamzin Merchant (Mary Rivers), Amelia Clarkson (Young Jane), Craig Roberts (John Reed), Sally Hawkins (Mrs. Reed), Imogen Poots (Blanche Ingram).

According to the IMDB, there have been 22 adaptations of Jane Eyre over the years – six from the silent era, 10 made for TV and a Bollywood version among them. And that does not even include the classic horror film I Walked with a Zombie, which took the basic outline of the story for its model. I haven’t seen all of these versions, but I have seen two of the previous official incarnations – Robert Stevenson’s 1943 version with Joan Fontaine and Jane and Orson Welles as Rochester, and the 1996 version with Charlotte Gainsbourgh as Jane and William Hurt as Rochester. Although those are both fine films, there always seemed to be something lacking that marred the films in some ways. I think the problem with both versions is that neither of the Jane’s seemed young, innocent or naïve enough to fill the role properly. Fontaine was barely younger than Welles at all when they made the film – putting them on equal ground – and although there is a significant age difference between Gainsbourgh and Hurt, Gainsbourgh it seems to me has always seemed older than she actually is (and since she was 25 when she made the film, she was still too old to play Jane). That Gainsbourgh and Hurt lacked any real sexual connection hurt the film even more.

All of this leads to the most recent adaptation of Jane Eyre, by filmmaker Cary Fukunaga, who at first seems like an odd choice to direct the film. His only previous film was the Spanish language Sin Nombre, about two young, teenagers trying to cross the border from Mexico into America for very different reasons. That film was a great debut, and in Jane Eyre he proves it was no fluke. What the films share, I think, is an attention to detail, attention to the small character traits that make his characters feel human. You believe the connection between the teenagers in Sin Nombre, even though they are so different, and you feel the connection here between Rochester and Jane – and that makes the oft told tale feel vital and alive in a way the previous adaptations did not.

Fukunaga owes a debt to his actors, who play the roles pretty much perfectly. Mia Wasikowska (seen last year in The Kids Are All Right and Alice in Wonderland), gives her best performance yet as Jane. Her Jane is younger, more naïve than previous versions. She is also more touchingly fragile and human. Michael Fassbender, that great actor who has delivered magnificent but wholly different performances in films like Hunger, Inglorious Basterds and Fish Tank, has the right mix of cruelty and animal magnetism as Rochester. He is a secretive man, who keeps everyone at a distance, and his secrets locked away. Their romance is one where they both fight to resist their urges – to deny themselves what they really desire, but cannot act on. Because almost all of the sexual tension is never spoken of directly, these roles require actors to have a deeper connection that the audience can feel, even in scenes where it appears like the leads are talking about something entirely different. Wasikowska and Fassbender have that connection in this movie. The two leads are aided greatly by Judi Dench, who seems to be in every British costume drama but is great in nearly all of them, as Rochester’s maid Mrs. Fairfax. She observes everything, knows everything, but says little of consequence, like all good maids in stories like this. She speaks more in code than anything else, and feels for young Jane as she sees her get sucked in by Rochester, but admires him too much to say anything. Then there is Jamie Bell as poor Rivers, who will never understand what passion is.

Casting in a movie like Jane Eyre is really only half the battle. The other half is all about mood and atmosphere, and Fukunaga gets that just about perfect as well. From the opening scene of Jane running across the foggy moors, to the flashback of her childhood, raised in a mansion by her cruel aunt, before being sent to a crueler orphanage, and then finally to Rochester’s spacious estate Thornhill, Jane Eyre is a triumph of art direction and costume design – and perhaps even more of cinematography. Cinematographer Adriano Goldman makes this Jane Eyre dark, ominous and perhaps even spooky at times, which serves the movie well. The melancholy score by Dario Marianelli helps the atmosphere tremendously as well.

Watching Jane Eyre, I was surprised by how involved I became in it, even though I knew the story well. Perhaps that’s because the story’s big, third act reveal doesn’t really matter very much at all – what matters is that Rochester has something holding him back, not really what that something is. But freed from trying to figure out what was going to happen, I was able to concentrate on the nuances of the film, and that is what this film gets so right. Jane Eyre is one of the early highlights of the year.
Posted by Dave Van Houwelingen at 7:35 AM
Admin
Admin
Admin

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

Back to top Go down

Jane Eyre reviews and spoilers 3 - Page 6 Empty Re: Jane Eyre reviews and spoilers 3

Post by Admin on Thu Mar 31, 2011 2:32 am

http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/entertainment_movies_blog/2011/03/movie-review-jane-eyre.html

Movie Review: Jane Eyre
Uncategorized — posted by otownrog on March, 30 2011 7:34 AM

A solitary figure runs clad in gray stumbles and weeps across a rainswept moor.

Yes, it’s “Jane Eyre” time again. One of the most frequently adapted period pieces from the golden age of the corset is back, with Mia “Alice in Wonderland” Wasikowska in the title role.

The Jane served up by Wasikowska and director Cary Fukunaga (“Sin Nombre”) is a fiery, spirited woman in what amounts to open revolt against a woman’s lot in life in early 19th century Britain. She longs to travel, keep good company and not be enslaved to a man or a class. And she’s willing to go running off in the rain to get it.

Jane is rescued from her run by a kindly parson (Jamie Bell) and his sisters. She won’t tell them anything about her past, or even her real name.

But in a long series of flashbacks, we learn her “tale of woe,” the hard childhood, shunned by a cruel aunt (Sally Hawkins), the monstrous boarding school where she saw death and felt the discipline of the cane and the tortured year of service as governess to a child in the care of the wealthy, mysterious and brusque Mr. Rochester.

Michael Fassbender makes for a handsome Rochester who lets us see that his aloof, icy manners (lack of manners) are the product of something long before he confesses, “I drag through life a capital error.”

Wasikowska’s Jane is perfectly demure and submissive to his power, but also a poker-faced woman-child of 19 who lets slip her disapproval of the way he treats people. Her spine attracts him, so he is more than happy to use her to “distract me from the mire of my thoughts.” A near fatal fire makes Rochester melt and Jane warm to him — just a bit.

This “Jane Eyre” has a problem most “Jane Eyres” have. Why is she so drawn to this ill-tempered, rude and cruel boor? Every version I can recall seeing has difficulty crossing this threshold. In Charlotte Bronte’s time, the fact that he was handsome and rich was perhaps enough to answer that question, but today, with a Jane as spirited and willing to speak her mind as this one, we want something more — compassion, heat, pity and desperation. At least Rochester’s motivations are clearer than ever in this version, if perhaps a trifle removed from the Bronte novel.

The story’s “big reveal” is common currency now, so Fukunaga wisely plays that down, giving us more of the household (Judi Dench is head housekeeper), Rochester’s efforts to include his favorite employee in his social circle and Jane’s solitary life after running away from all this.

It’s a lovely looking film, period perfect in manner, look and speech. And Wasikowska makes a marvelously plain “Jane.” In the space of one year, we’ve seen her right at home as an unflappable tourist in “Wonderland,” a wise-beyond-her-years teen in “The Kids are All Right,” and now this. She seems closer to the Bronte ideal of Jane than most interpretations, though that does contribute to the frostiness of Jane’s May-September romance with the much older Rochester.

And however Fukunaga managed the leap from Latino migration thriller to this job, he does well by “Jane Eyre” — making the most of the limited action and capitalizing on the inherent spookiness of the tale. Pretty as a postcard, it’s also a calling card picture and one that reminds us that women other than Jane Austen wrote timeless, rich tales of romance in an age when women were little more than property.
Admin
Admin
Admin

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

Back to top Go down

Jane Eyre reviews and spoilers 3 - Page 6 Empty Re: Jane Eyre reviews and spoilers 3

Post by Admin on Thu Mar 31, 2011 2:37 am

http://www.loveandsqualorfilm.com/2011/03/love-jane-eyre.html

Tuesday, March 29, 2011
Love: Jane Eyre
There are several people who, if they read this, will probably laugh and consider me something of a hypocrite. That's fine, I'll own up to it. It's no great secret that I'm not the world's biggest Jane Eyre fan. As novels of the time go, I'll take the sisters Brontë any day over any sort of dalliance with Jane Austen. The Brontës, at least, had a flair for the gothic and a penchant for a bit of melodrama. Books like Jane Eyre and Wuthering Heights had a movement and the movement was haunted, the inherent romance more passionate and a little less calculated. Manners, social standing, it's all still there, of course, it's just more fun when it's shaded a little darker. Regardless, I've read Jane Eyre twice in my life so far. Once of my own volition and the second time because, um, I was an English major and that kind of thing sort of happens. That second time I wrote a fairly bitter paper I may have mentioned here before. Bitter may not be the right word. Let's call it snarky. There was a lot of talk of bipolarism, a fair amount of compare contrast between Governess novels and 'chick lit', and an excessive section citing Virginia Woolf's criticisms of Charlotte Brontë from A Room of One's Own. Yeah, I've still got the Word document, I've opened it now and am scanning a particularly pissy paragraph in which I outline the characters as a downward sloping hierarchy in which each character past Jane (from Mr. Rochester to Mrs. Reed) is nothing but a "less prominent malcontent." Color me amused by my own past work. Ah, college. With all that out of the way, allow me to state for the record: I may have my share of problems with the book, but g*&^%$# I fell hard for this cinematic adaptation.
I'd long suspected that Charlotte Brontë's novel could lend itself beautifully to a properly executed film. To be fair, there have already been quite a few. Charlotte Gainsbourg and William Hurt tried their hands at it in 1996, and I'm sure that was nice and all. Long before that, even, Orson Welles and Joan Fontaine got gloomy on the moors in 1943. Welles certainly emits the proper degree of pompous entitlement for our Byronic Mr. Rochester, and I'm sure it's all well and good. While I admittedly have not seen the other versions (or, if I have, I was quite young and likely fell asleep), I have to admit that it seems like quite a task to one up director Cary Fukunaga's (whose previous work was Sin Nombre) dark, magnetic, brilliantly atmospheric rendering. 22-year old Mia Wasikowska steps into Jane's plain garments with no small amount of skill. Ironically, while I'd found her ill-fitting and overgrown as the lead in last year's crash and burn Alice in Wonderland, here she seems a perfect match for the practical, quietly talented, restrained melancholy and escapism of our mousy governess. The roles, it would seem, wouldn't call for too much of a difference; Alice merely gets to express, in temperament and fantasy, what Jane wishes she were allowed to. Here though, she is restrained and burning: that desolate fairy locked in a lonely, isolated manor with a precocious foreign child, mysterious happenings, and one smoldering, predatory Edward Rochester (Michael Fassbender). Her Jane is not quite the one of the novel, she is instead one that makes the story feel intimate and personal, inviting us in to experience this haunting alongside her. The result changes the story, makes it feel immediate, fresh, and transcendent. It's not the stodgy old text, it's not some tired old script with the dust blown off of it; it's a riveting, beautiful adventure.
What Wasikowska manages on her own is only amplified in her scenes with Michael Fassbender. In their pairing, the chemistry is undeniable and deftly portioned across the film. The wordplay, existent in some form in the original, is here as bright as Hepburn and Tracy while never slipping into a context at all unbelievable. The body language? Out of control. Like, seriously. This is the sort of film romance that can make even the worst cynic (ahem, me) forgive the story's soapy conclusion, the match is unreal, and works to amplify each character as well as our sympathies. Set amongst the dimly lit rooms, those foggy passages and bleak English gardens, there is real magic, an absolute spark that never cloys or panders to sentiment. Fukunaga has found a way to make an overly familiar gothic love story between a homely young governess and an unpleasant enough bachelor into a surprisingly powerful, swiftly paced, positively dazzling film that's never tiresome, or slanted towards any audience in particular. Moral of the story: if you think you're over Jane Eyre, think again. This is a stunning adaptation that's as wildly successful in its storytelling as it is enjoyable to watch. See it, and don't think of it as homework.
Admin
Admin
Admin

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

Back to top Go down

Jane Eyre reviews and spoilers 3 - Page 6 Empty Re: Jane Eyre reviews and spoilers 3

Post by Admin on Thu Mar 31, 2011 2:37 am

http://www.flickpickmonster.com/2011/03/jane-eyre-2011.html

Tuesday, March 29, 2011
Jane Eyre (2011)
I had a suspicion that the simply astounding poster for "Jane Eyre" would trump the film itself, even though the ticket taker at my theater spoke enthusiastically of its exciting properties, but I wasn't sure by exactly how much. Having endured the film's tedious 2 hour length, I now know the difference in quality between the two works is quite large indeed. This is a plodding film, made by a director who I admire for taking a chance but also see as terribly misguided all the same. One could not imagine that the person who made "Sin Nombre," a very abrasive film, could possibly assemble a movie this dull. Filmmakers such as Jane Campion and Sofia Coppola have done disarming things with similar material, so the fact that Cary Joji Fukunaga brings little to the table is disappointing. And what he does have, he squanders with incompetent, at times risible, direction.

I admit, I say this with limited familiarity with the original novel by Charlotte Brontë. I know from a friend that the story is told in a more sequential manner there than here, and from scanning the opening page of the book that it is told in first person. The film adaptation changes both of these elements slightly, neither for the better. Screenwriter Moira Buffini jumbles the chronology, which produced for me a sort of disconnect to the story. On this same note, I didn't relate too much with the title character, who's sealed off from the audience. I'm guessing that the Brontë version worked better by not separating you from her, and maybe by having people identify with her more this movie could have been improved a bit.

The film is definitely helped, though not completely remedied, by the performances from Mia Wasikowska and Michael Fassbender in the lead roles. Wasikowska, though looking uncomfortable at times (Fukunaga's fault perhaps?), plays the title character well as a quick-witted converser, traumatized by her past (involving Craig Roberts and Sally Hawkins playing against type) but wanting to move on and get some work. We learn, after seeing her taken in by missionary St. John Rivers (Jamie Bell), that her first job came as the governess of the estate of Edward Fairfax Rochester. Fassbender, though terrific and scene-stealing as always, seems to be getting accustomed to the role of the middle-aged guy who preys on the young girl and pulls back to a pre-made facade after this and "Fish Tank." I think it's a good thing that he'll be working again with Steve McQueen, who did the exceptional "Hunger," on "Shame."

How I'd much rather be viewing and talking about that film than this one. No matter. The house that she goes to live in includes an unrelated Mrs. Fairfax (Judi Dench) (whom, according to my friend, is toned down from the book and is seen her as an ally to Jane), as well as a young French girl named Adele (Romy Settbon Moore) whom Jane is teaching and a figure (to be revealed) who is producing noises and fires during the night. This is the backdrop for scenes where Rochester makes his affection for Jane clear and where he finds that even a man as high in stature as himself has to work sometimes for love. Their drawn-out courtship is frustrating as drama, disturbing when it becomes more prescient, and, at a later juncture, simply hilarious. This strikes me as a detrimental misconception on the part of the makers of the film, but who knows? Holy s$#!, maybe this is all some sort of crazy-ass stylization way ahead of our time!

There is beautiful nature shown in this film (from which a couple of nice compositions by "Sin Nombre" cinematographer Adriano Goldman are drawn), but it's underutilized, and viewers don't get to linger on it as they do in Campion's "Bright Star." A couple of man-made images linger: Eyre as a child lying on the floor cross-dissolved into a saucer of tea, as well as Eyre and Rochester lit by the fire. If Fukunaga had pushed more deeply on this front, and done without the old-fashioned score by "Atonement" composer Dario Marianelli, then possibly there would be more of the "reinvention" that the ads all professed this film to have. I mean, even though I was a little unsettled by these things, being inflicted with disquiet is far superior to being inflicted with boredom. C
Contributed by Nick Duval at the time of 10:47 PM
Admin
Admin
Admin

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

Back to top Go down

Jane Eyre reviews and spoilers 3 - Page 6 Empty Re: Jane Eyre reviews and spoilers 3

Post by Admin on Thu Mar 31, 2011 2:40 am

http://www.inklingsnews.com/archives/13875

New “Jane Eyre” Film Silences Haters and Re-Invigorates Adaptation Genre
By
Sammy Warshaw
– March 29, 2011

We have all been given the deadly task. Don’t lie. Whenever you hear the words “Jane Eyre,” you want to open up spark notes on your phone. It’s ok, because I have news that will excite fans of the classic novel, spark note enthusiasts, and everyone else in between: the new “Jane Eyre” movie rocks.

2011 Jane Eyre Movie Poster | Graphic from Wikipedia

With over twenty adaptations of the film, “Jane Eyre” has been done in nearly every way possible. From modern retellings to musicals, ambitious directors have done their best to give a “fresh” angle of the timeless piece of literature.

Young director Cary Fukunaga, fresh off his critically acclaimed indie film “Sin Nombre,” manages to galvanize the film, and give it real cinematic life. Its hard to imagine that “Jane Eyre” will get the kind of audience that (inferior) blockbusters such as “Limitless” and “Sucker Punch” will receive, but Fukunaga makes his film as accessible as possible.

In an age of over mental stimulation and serious de-sensitizing, it is simply refreshing to see a filmmaker handle classic work with such panache yet restrain.

That is not to say that the film is perfect, however. In a film that invests so much into its two main characters, Jane and Mr. Rochester, it would be nice if there was a little more chemistry. I understand the idea that Jane and Rochester didn’t need giggly exchanges and constant flirtation, but hey, this is the 21st century, and audiences are just not used to seeing such little interaction between its “lovers.”

Despite Fukunaga’s clear apathy for the audience, the film still succeeds as a moody and lush period piece. The scenery is gorgeous, the clothing is over the top, and he gets strong performances from his entire cast.

Mia Wasikowska, quite possible the most sought after twenty-something year old actress out there, gives a subdued performance with her first leading role. When I say subdued, I could not be giving a bigger compliment. Her performance completely sets the tone for the entire movie, and she nails the role.

Her counterpart, Michael Fassbender, while he doesn’t have quite the daunting task in tackling quite possibly the most famous character in literature, there is no denying that acing the part of Mr. Rochester is just as difficult. Good thing his performance is sublime. Fassbender, previously known for his work in independent films “Fish Tank” and “Hunger,” shows off his propensity to be a full time movie star.

While not perfect, this adaptation of “Jane Eyre” will still completely captivate both beloved fans and new followers. Whether you are a 45-year-old High School English teacher or a student who decided that reading the book was not in the cards, you won’t be disappointed.

I just wish all classic adaptations were this good.
Admin
Admin
Admin

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

Back to top Go down

Jane Eyre reviews and spoilers 3 - Page 6 Empty Re: Jane Eyre reviews and spoilers 3

Post by Admin on Fri Apr 01, 2011 4:09 am

http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2011/04/01/2186758/jane-eyre-burns-with-passion-and.html

April 1, 2011

'Jane Eyre' burns with passion and pain
By Colin Covert
McClatchy Newspapers
Posted: Friday, Apr. 01, 2011
Jane Eyre

Michael Fassbender and Mia Wasikowska star in the stunning redo of the romantic drama "Jane Eyre." Focus Features
More Information

'Jane Eyre'

1/2

Stars: Mia Wasikowska, Michael Fassbender.

Director: Cary Joji Fukunaga.

Length: 120 minutes.

Rating: PG-13 (a nude image, brief violence).

"Poor, obscure, plain and little" is how the heroine of "Jane Eyre" describes herself. The latest film of Charlotte Bronte's moody Gothic romance is anything but. There is not a drab image or a middling performance in the piece. The freewheeling adaptation drops needless scenes and spurs the story ahead with galloping momentum.

From the very first shot, this new version frames Jane (Mia Wasikowska, Tim Burton's "Alice in Wonderland") as a character of mystery and drama. We meet her as a young woman on the run in a rural downpour. What peril she is fleeing is unspecified. Jane is taken in by a dour young clergyman (Jamie Bell), and nursed back to health by his sisters, whose Christian charity and curiosity about their new friend run neck-and-neck.

Jane is many scenes into her recovery and subsequent adventures before the story circles back to her breathless flight, explaining all.

It's a bold approach, but one that honors Bronte's favorite literary gimmick. She was a master of generating suspense by dropping clues and hints while withholding the secrets we're dying to discover. This flashback-filled adaptation, written by Moira Buffini and directed by Cary Fukunaga, does her proud.

As Jane moves from her loveless childhood into the manor house governess position that was every Victorian orphan girl's glass ceiling, Wasikowska masters the screen actor's magic trick of transfixing our attention while seemingly doing nothing. Her beauty is tamped down here, but when it blossoms she is a pre-Raphaelite dream in the flesh.

As the cold, taunting master of the house, Mr. Rochester, Michael Fassbender has ice in his smile but fire in his eyes. When he invites Jane to his fireside for fencing-match evening conversations, his tone is brusque and challenging, yet almost intimate. He is decadent, subtly evil, unreachable yet irresistible.

Jane, wise beyond her years yet naive about certain dark aspects of human nature, opens her heart. And then terrible truths come crashing down, impelling that tear-stained dash across a rain-swept Yorkshire moor. Fukunaga wrings every ounce of passion, fury and pain out of the tale.

Adriano Goldman's cinematography makes seemingly haunted Thornfield Manor plausibly spooky.

The impeccable supporting cast includes Simon McBurney as that pious, decadent mole, Mr. Brocklehurst, and Judi Dench as Thornfield's salt-of-the-earth housekeeper Mrs. Edwards.

The standout, though, is Sally Hawkins, casting aside a raft of recent cheeky proletarian roles to play Jane's haughty, malevolent aunt. She is deliciously despicable.

This "Jane Eyre" is unapologetic melodrama shot through with inspiration. Diehard "Twilight" fans looking for a deeper, darker romantic mystery would do well to check it out.
Admin
Admin
Admin

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

Back to top Go down

Jane Eyre reviews and spoilers 3 - Page 6 Empty Re: Jane Eyre reviews and spoilers 3

Post by Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

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

Back to top

- Similar topics

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