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
November 2017
SunMonTueWedThuFriSat
   1234
567891011
12131415161718
19202122232425
2627282930  

Calendar Calendar


Jane Eyre reviews and spoilers 4

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

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Re: Jane Eyre reviews and spoilers 4

Post by Admin on Wed Apr 06, 2011 8:35 pm

http://sacurrent.com/film/story.asp?id=72246

Critic's Pick: Jane Eyre

By Steven G. Kellman

“A plain tale with few pretensions” is the way Charlotte Brontë, writing under the pseudonym Currer Bell, described her 1847 novel, but that phrase more aptly describes Jane Eyre than Jane Eyre. Emotionally lush, Brontë’s histrionic, gothic melodrama is raw rather than plain, which is why more than two dozen directors, eager for malleable material, have tried adapting it for film or TV. It is also the mother of all chick flicks.

For his second feature, following Sin Nombre, a harrowing account of desperate immigration from Central America to the United States, director Cary Fukunaga moves to the moors of Derbyshire. Befitting his background as a cinematographer, this Jane Eyre is above all a visual experience: artfully composed, framed, lit, and shot. The screenplay by Moira Buffini (Tamara Drewe) begins well past the middle of things, with a distraught Jane fleeing Thornfield Hall after discovering Mr. Rochester’s shameful secret. It then retraces its heroine’s progress from an abused and lonely childhood to the flight from Thornfield. In the script’s abrupt conclusion the narrative circle is broken, as poor, beleaguered Jane attains wealth, love, and happiness.

Fukunaga is attentive to class distinctions, to how Judi Dench’s housekeeper, Mrs. Fairfax, stands above the army of domestic servants but below her enigmatic but aristocratic employer, Mr. Rochester. Yet Jane Eyre is most notably a feminist counterpoint to 19th-century coming-of-age tales by Charles Dickens and Horatio Alger in which pluck and luck enable pitiful male orphans to take command of their fates. Brontë’s novel is a Cinderella story celebrating the triumph of a despised girl-child, though, within the confines of patriarchal England, she finds vindication only through marriage to a blue-blood hunk. Mia Wasikowska’s Jane is homeless but homely, a straight-talking innocent who has never seen a city or kissed a man. She is naturally attracted to Michael Fassbender’s rugged, roguish Rochester, the worldly, imperious master of the manor in which she is hired to be governess to his ward. Rochester’s attraction to Jane, as the agent of his regeneration who stands apart from the conventional beauties he consorts with (and from the exotic madwoman in his attic), is less likely.

However, this is a film in which coincidences abound; a rich, generous uncle suddenly materializes, and the disembodied voice of beloved Rochester beckons to Jane at the moment priggish St. John Rivers (Bell) proposes a man-and-wife mission to spread the gospel in India. Improbable? You do not ask a fantasy to obey the laws of verisimilitude. And you certainly do not laugh. Within the ponderous, oneiric execution of a young woman’s desires, there is no room for humor. Check your doubts at the weighty gates of Thornfield Hall.


Dir. Cary Fukunaga; writ. Moira Buffini, based on the novel by Charlotte Brontë; feat. Mia Wasikowska, Michael Fassbender, Jamie Bell, Judi Dench (PG-13)
avatar
Admin
Admin

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

Back to top Go down

Re: Jane Eyre reviews and spoilers 4

Post by Admin on Wed Apr 06, 2011 8:45 pm

http://dqbooknook.blogspot.com/2011/04/jane-eyre-movie-review.html

Wednesday, April 6, 2011
Jane Eyre - Movie review
Simply stated, it was a CliffsNotes adaptation.

The actor (Michael Fassbender) who portrayed Mr. Rochester was entirely too hunky for the role. I know that Hollywood would not have it this way but Mr. Rochester is supposed to be "ugly". The actress (Mia whatshername) who played Jane was sufficiently plain as her character is intended to be.

Everyone did a good job acting-wise and I even recognized some of the dialogue as being pulled directly from Charlotte Bronte's book. That being said, two hours is not enough time to do justice to the book. All of the relationships and events progressed far too quickly for there to be any real suspense or depth. The book is slow and methodical, which helps to build tension.

Mr. Rochester was horribly mean to Jane for 60+ pages of the book and then there were probably 60 more pages when they had some flirty banter and then another 60 pages before they were openly in love. In the movie their romance progressed in what seemed like a couple of scenes. I knew they were supposed to be in love but it was hard to tell WHEN they fell in love.

There were a couple of other details left out or overlooked that I thought could have been included. And the unraveling of the biggest mystery of the story was very anti-climactic in the movie.

Still, I am probably being overly-critical because I love the book so much. Perhaps I would have enjoyed it more if I had gone in without any intimate knowledge of the story. And while his physicality was not true to the character, I very much enjoyed watching Michael Fassbender...
Posted by DNQ at 4:49 PM
avatar
Admin
Admin

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

Back to top Go down

Re: Jane Eyre reviews and spoilers 4

Post by Admin on Wed Apr 06, 2011 8:46 pm

http://heathercadenhead.com/blog/film-review-jane-eyre/

Film Review: Jane Eyre
April 6, 2011

This is a blog about writing, to be sure, but I loved this movie so much that I had to write a review. And it’s based on a literary classic—incidentally the title that gets my “favorite book of all time” distinction—so I’m counting this as writing-related.

As it is, I’ve seen multiple film versions of Jane Eyre and I haven’t been wholly satisfied with any of them. The 1983 miniseries probably comes closest (in my mind), although Zelah Clarke’s Jane is far too muted and timid and Timothy Dalton’s Rochester is simply cheesy. Still, the 1983 version stays true to the book in a way that the other versions can’t even touch.

Where most of the movie versions fall miserably short, in my opinion (SPOILER ALERT), is their handling of the Jane/Rochester post-Madwoman-in-the-Attic scenes. To me, these scenes are incredibly important; many a filmmaker has murdered Brontë’s story here. In the novel, you see, Jane never gives into Rochester’s advances once she learns of his still-living wife; while there is dialogue between them, there is no physical affection of any kind. Many of the films depict conflicted physical passion between Jane and Rochester in these scenes, however, alternating between Jane giving into Rochester’s attentions and pulling away from him. In the end, she always leaves, but it colors Jane’s character a very different shade depending on her interactions with Rochester after the attempted “wedding”—one of the most admirable things, in my mind, about Jane is her refusal to give into temptation. Her heart is on the line, yet she gives up her home and the man she loves in order to follow God. (END SPOILER ALERT)

While there are a few hiccups with the 2011 version, it is my favorite movie version of the novel thus far (and I’ve seen pretty much all of them). The main reason for its triumph, I believe, is the casting of Mia Wasikowska as Jane; she captures Jane like no other actress I’ve seen. Jane’s inner passion isn’t quieted by her strong sense of integrity; the two work together, building a Jane very, if not exactly, like the Jane I picture in the book. Michael Fassbender’s Rochester is fair; there are a lot of different ways an actor could play Rochester, and Fassbender’s attempt is as good as any that have preceded him.

My only real critique of the film is its choice of scenes to include—far more of the book is omitted here than in any other version I’ve seen, but I suppose that was to fit a 400-page tome into a more standard two-hour Hollywood package.

Many of the exclusions were wise (the Rochester-as-a-gypsy scene has always been a little weird), but I was admittedly disappointed at the scene chosen for the film’s ending. However, I did like the restructuring of the scenes—beginning the film with Jane’s departure from Thornfield and working backward was brilliant, and helped speed along the sometimes-slow scenes between Jane, St. John Rivers, and St. John’s sisters (although I personally enjoy the self-reflection that happens with Jane during this time, it does alter the pacing of the story).

All in all, I give the new version of Jane Eyre 4 out of 5 stars. It was an interesting, creative twist on the novel that didn’t take gross liberties with the original story—and showcased, in my opinion, the finest Jane ever cast for an Eyre film.
avatar
Admin
Admin

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

Back to top Go down

Re: Jane Eyre reviews and spoilers 4

Post by Admin on Wed Apr 06, 2011 8:54 pm

http://www.obamashitlist.com/2011/04/06/jane-eyre/

Movies, we sometimes have to remind ourselves, are a pre-eminently visual medium, and this always means that there are certain things they can do better than others. These things come into sharper focus when someone tries to translate a work of literary fiction into cinematic terms — as someone has tried to do with Charlotte Brontë’s Jane Eyre more than twenty times since the procedure became possible a century or so ago. The latest to try is Cary Fukunaga ( Sin Nombre ), working from a script by Moira Buffini. The two of them, together with director of photography Adriano Goldman, have created a strikingly beautiful film. The question remains, however, as to whether or not it is visual beauty that is wanted when it comes to Jane Eyre , whose eponymous heroine is unambiguously described as “plain,” so we must suppose, for a reason. I have read some critics who have tried to make the case for the literal plainness of Mr. Fukunaga’s Jane, who is Mia Wasikowska ( The Kids Are All Right ), but I don’t believe that any unbiased observer will be persuaded. Miss Wasikowska is small and boyish of figure — she would do very well for one of those Shakespearean heroines who dress up as boys — but she is very far from being plain. On the contrary, she is as beautiful as the magnificent Peak District landscapes of Derbyshire that Charlotte Brontë herself apparently wished to substitute for the less picturesque moors of her native West Yorkshire and that Mr. Goldman lays on with glorious excess, one after another, in between a series of warm and evocative candle- and hearth-lit interiors. Even at her most downtrodden and miserable, this is a Jane that you can’t take your eyes off. Fifteen years ago — can it really have been so long? — Franco Zeffirelli tried to get around this problem by casting Charlotte Gainsbourg in the role. Miss Gainsbourg was even less conventionally pretty than Miss Wasikowska, but she was equally attractive and so equally tended to push this classic story of inward beauty’s triumph over the outward kind in the direction of, if not all the way to, incoherence. There, too, there was the problem of William Hurt’s idiosyncratic and new agey Rochester, the mystery man who employs her as a governess before improbably falling in love with her. Mr. Fukunaga’s Michael Fassbender does a much more persuasive job with the role, even if he is as unfortunately trapped by the logic of the cinema as his predecessor and his co-star. That logic is simply too hostile to the idea of finding goodness in the unattractive — or perhaps I mean attractiveness in mere goodness — without the spice of visual beauty. Mr. Fukunaga is required by the same logic to make his bad characters, who are Jane’s oppressors, very unattractive indeed. Even Sally Hawkins, so attractive in Mike Leigh’s Happy-Go-Lucky ,
avatar
Admin
Admin

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

Back to top Go down

Re: Jane Eyre reviews and spoilers 4

Post by Admin on Wed Apr 06, 2011 8:55 pm

http://theaudient.blogspot.com/2011/04/thoughts-on-jane.html

Wednesday, April 6, 2011
Thoughts on Jane

As soon as I saw the trailers for Cary Joji Fukunaga's Jane Eyre, I knew it was going to be one of my most anticipated films of early 2011. I'm traditionally a lover of classic literature and period pieces, but in the last five to ten years, I've grown weary of the traditional approach to the classics on film. I need my classics to be infused with a modern sensibility, and Jane Eyre seemed like it was going to do just that.

In the last couple days, however, I realized that Jane Eyre's theatrical run was getting a bit long in the tooth -- it came out nearly four weeks ago now -- and I still hadn't carved out an occasion to see it. There was a chance it wouldn't survive the cut this Friday, so I knew I had to schedule a rare Tuesday night trip out to the movies. Which is just what I did.

I have a bunch of short thoughts about the movie, and per the Audient style, some of them relate directly to the film and its content, while others are merely whimsical and tangential. In sum total they do not equal a review of Jane Eyre per se, but that shouldn't surprise you, since reviewing is what I do professionally, not what I typically do in this space. But because the thoughts are generally unrelated to one another, I've decided to break them up as little section headings. Because, you know, that kind of thing is fun.

Forthwith (getting in the classic spirit with that word):

Excess shock

One of the earliest things I noticed in the film was the comical physical reactions the woman next to me was having to everything that happened.

There's a scene from Jane's childhood where her awful cousin (I believe it's her cousin) is searching for her in order to get a book back, all the while brandishing a large sword. Although he has no real plans to use the sword, he does end up slapping Jane in the face with the book, so hard that her head hits the wall, drawing blood. Fukunaga shoots it very convincingly, so it looks like young Amelia Clarkson (more on Amelia later) actually bled for her work, despite being all of 12 years old.

The woman next to me clamped her hands to her mouth in shock at this occurrence. That wasn't so surprising, but it was surprising that she left her hands clamped there for the next two to three minutes, so stunned by the incident that the horror was leaving her body only in a slow trickle. And just when she ventured to let them returned to her side, they leapt up to her face again upon Jane pounding on a door where she'd been imprisoned, and hitting it so violently that she fell to the floor. I thought she might get up and leave right then -- not because the movie shouldn't be showing such things, but because she couldn't grasp the fact that the world could ever contain such horrors.

She mostly calmed down after that, though there was the incident where she went to cover her ears when one of Jane's classmates at her boarding school is about to be whipped in the neck by a switch.

Impossibly handsome

In case you think I can praise only the physical attributes of women (here, here), I want to tell you that I spent this entire film thinking that Michael Fassbender is impossibly handsome.

I should say, I thought that when I first watched him in Inglourious Basterds, and I was reminded again last night. (I was not reminded so much in Jonah Hex, where his character's face is covered in tattoos.)

When I first laid eyes on Fassbender, I thought he looked like Ewan McGregor. I'm sure I wasn't the only one who was reminded of the erstwhile Obi Wan Kenobi, but I actually haven't heard too many others talk about it. Last night, however, I decided that the comparison is imperfect, because McGregor has never been this stunningly handsome. Fassbender's good looks are damn near imposing, which I think is fitting for the character of Edward Fairfax Rochester.

Mia Wasikowska, while attractive in her own right, is likewise the perfect Jane. Jane Eyre is supposed to be -- or at least perceive herself as -- a plan-looking girl. The interesting thing about Wasikowska as an actress is that she manages to harness both attributes in one person -- beautiful when she wants to be, plain when she wants to be. It's that she has "real person good looks," which means it isn't very hard to push her either toward plain or toward beautiful, depending on what you do with her. It's this very realism that's probably got so many producers interested in casting her these days.

Wait ... I haven't seen her before?

Speaking of first laying eyes on people, I knew that last night was not the first time I'd laid eyes on Amelia Clarkson, who plays (quite well) the young Jane. In fact, I nearly drove myself to distraction over the next couple minutes, trying to figure out where I knew her. Something I'd seen recently, I was sure.

Yet when I looked her up on IMDB, her only other credit was something called The Sarah Jane Adventures, a TV show in which she makes appearances in two episodes. This flummoxed me to no end.

Well, just as I was writing this, I've figured it out. Clarkson is almost a dead ringer for Liesel Matthews, who played the lead in the 1995 movie A Little Princess (directed by Alfonso Cuaron). I only just saw this for the first time about two months ago. Here, judge for yourself, with Clarkson on the left and Matthews on the right:





Unfamiliar to me

I just made a joking status update on Facebook (let's see if people get it) that I couldn't believe it had taken this long for them to make a movie version of Jane Eyre. In fact, IMDB displays 22 different results when you search the words "Jane" and "Eyre."

Strangely, this was the first one I'd seen. Not only that, I never read the book. So I carried not a single preconceived notion into a Jane Eyre released at the late date of March 2011.

I consider it strange that I'd had no prior exposure to Jane Eyre precisely because I was an English major in college, and took an entire class devoted to the Victorian novel. We read Middlemarch, Wuthering Heights, Tess of the d'Urbervilles, Dickens' Dombey and Son and a terrific unheralded novel by George Gissing called New Grub Street, but not Jane Eyre. (Nor Pride and Prejudice, for that matter). It's such a pillar of the literature of that era that I always considered myself the worse for never having read it ... maybe I need to put it on the schedule.

And so it was that I was unfamiliar with a number of the plot elements of Jane Eyre, elements most people probably know like the back of their hand. I was most surprised to learn that Rochester had a crazy wife he kept locked up in the attic. Who knew?

Not quite far enough

Although I really liked this version of Jane Eyre -- it was expertly made in every way you could want -- I have to say that it ended up not quite doing everything I wanted it to do. While I was pleased with it, I wasn't as pleased as I could have been.

One of the things that intrigued me most about the Jane Eyre trailers was how Fukunaga seemed to be positioning it as some kind of gothic horror. Certain elements of that choice are certainly reflected here. There are a number of effective startle scares, as well as a couple mildly supernatural happenings, just enough to create atmosphere. For example, in that scene I discussed earlier where Jane is locked up after the incident with her cousin (I forgot to mention that she jumps on top of him and starts beating the s$#! out of him), a poof of chimney dusts shoots out of the chimney like some kind of spirit. We're meant to think of this as Jane's imagination, rather than something really happening, and it works quite well.

Simply put, I wanted more of that. Oh, I know this isn't Pride and Prejudice and Zombies, though I do understand they're making a movie of that. But if you're going to start with the horror undercurrent, see it through to the end. Fukunaga didn't quite, letting it go slack somewhere around the middle. Which isn't to say that the second half of Jane Eyre is not totally engrossing and terrifically made -- I've already said it was. The acting in the film is a special treat. I guess I just thought it came to resemble a more conventional staging of Jane Eyre -- or so I'm told, since I haven't seen any others myself -- as the movie wore in.

Which just means the movie inevitably couldn't live up to the excitement level the trailers produced in me.

Then again, when can they?
Posted by Vancetastic at 7:35 AM
avatar
Admin
Admin

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

Back to top Go down

Re: Jane Eyre reviews and spoilers 4

Post by Admin on Wed Apr 06, 2011 9:39 pm

http://www.indyweek.com/indyweek/cary-fukunagas-jane-eyre-disappoints/Content?oid=2296697

Cary Fukunaga's Jane Eyre disappoints
by Nathan Gelgud
Sally Hawkins as Mrs. Reed, Jane Eyre's aunt

Photo by Laurie Sparham/ Focus Features

Jane Eyre opens Friday in select theaters (see times below)

Our rating:

In the 27th filmed adaptation of Jane Eyre (why not, right?), you can find everything you would expect to find: trees rustle, damp moors are crossed, wooded pathways are traversed, bonnets are worn, fireplaces burn, wicked schoolmarms are wicked and Judi Dench is scandalized. All the trappings of Charlotte Brontë's familiar gothic love story are here, without feeling too gothic or dusty, and they're crammed in at just around two hours so nobody gets bored.

Cary Fukunaga directs, this being only his second film, after 2009's Sin Nombre. Presumably, producers at Focus tapped a young sophomore in order to bring some freshness to the dog-eared text. But Fukunaga's style is familiar to anyone who's watched a handful of mainstream movies from the past five years. It's impossibly crisp, just handheld enough to feel contemporary without alienating anyone, and trades close-ups with mid-shots efficiently but without any energy. It's a do-gooder style about which only a real old-timer would find anything new. Fukunaga's aesthetic was gratuitously at odds with the rough subject matter of his first film (gang violence, train-hopping immigrants, attempted rape), and in this film it's so rigidly in line with the middling tone of the adaptation that it's suffocating.

Jane Eyre is told partly in flashback, beginning with Jane (Mia Wasikowska, who was a boring stiff as a smart high school senior in The Kids Are All Right and brings the same spirit to this film) running from Mr. Rochester's manor, so sick from her broken heart she might die. She's taken in by the Rivers siblings (Holliday Grainger, Tamzin Merchant and Jamie Bell, in full Masterpiece Theater mode) who ask where she's come from. Jane isn't forthcoming, but the film obliges, flashing back to her life as a child with her cruel aunt. This structure is lifeless, and the film would have opened with much more spark if it had begun where the first flashback does: Young Jane (Amelia Clarkson) being pursued through her aunt's house by her sword-wielding teenage cousin.

Jane is disowned by her aunt (Sally Hawkins, wasted) and is taken to a girls' school where we pause just long enough to watch her make a friend who dies in the next scene. Then young adult Jane is let out into the real world and gets a job as a governess for Mr. Rochester, whom she'll spend the rest of the movie inexplicably pining after.

Michael Fassbender, who was effective and amusingly one-note in Inglourious Basterds, plays Rochester, and this time a slightly more tuneful performance is required. Unfortunately, his Rochester is a stiff-jawed, spoiled rich guy who plays mind games with our dear Jane. (To be fair, Fukunaga's direction and the streamlined structure probably have a lot to do with this.) Jane Eyre is, in part, about a doomed love that shouldn't exist to begin with, so the character of Rochester shouldn't be sweeping audience members off their feet; there has to be discord between what Jane does and what we think is probably best for her. But the Rochester of this film version is such a needy, vacuous cipher that the Jane who loves him comes across as dumb, not doomed. A female director might have been more in tune with this challenge and found a way to meet both the needs of the story and the producers. Think of the smart, energetic and relatable Bright Star; that fresh gem of a film was brought to us by Jane Campion, who turns 57 this month.

But Fukunaga doesn't seem that interested in this story or these people. It's understandable if the stuffed shirts of Rochester Manor didn't intrigue him, but he had a crazy lady in the attic to play around with. He doesn't bother to do anything with her, either. Perhaps worst of all, he has no feel for the love story, taking it as a pre-existing condition of the film rather than the element that should propel it. This is not to say, of course, that a woman would have definitely handled Brontë's fiction better, but with so few opportunities given to female directors, it seems a shame that producers picked the wrong man for the job.
avatar
Admin
Admin

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

Back to top Go down

Re: Jane Eyre reviews and spoilers 4

Post by Admin on Wed Apr 06, 2011 9:39 pm

http://veryaware.com/2011/04/review-%E2%80%93-jane-eyre/

REVIEW – JANE EYRE
Written by Courtney News, Review Apr 5, 2011

JANE EYRE
Directed by: Cary Joji Fukunaga
Written by: Moira Buffini (screenplay) & Charlotte Brontë (novel)
Starring: Mia Wasikowska, Michael Fassbender, Jamie Bell, and Dame Judi Dench

As of late, audiences have been blessed with some fantastic cinematic updates to classic literature. I adored SENSE & SENSIBILITY, PRIDE AND PREDJUDICE and EMMA. Granted those Jane Austen novels are strikingly much lighter compared to the tortured romance of Charlotte Bronte. Playing along with our rainy, gloomy weather I thought it would be perfect cinematherapy to hunker down with the newest adaptation of the timeless gothic story, JANE EYRE. The film was anything but lush, however, that just made the emotion pop out more.

There has been no shortage of Bronte’s tale of romance and woe on the big screen, most notably Orson Welles’ 1943 version co-starring Joan Fontaine. But it hasn’t been brought to the screen in quite some time and this version shakes things up a bit as it messes with the narrative structure.

This modern retelling of JANE EYRE is told non-linearly – it begins near the end and flashes both forward and back. We see Jane (Mia Wasikowska) leaving a house in a distraught rush. She happens upon a stranger’s (Jamie Bell’s) door who – with the help of his two sisters – nurse her back to health and help her find work. Flashing back we see how she came to be. She is an orphaned child being looked after by her aunt who is a horrible guardian. She is sent away to an abusive boarding school that favors learning through punishment and humiliation. As soon as Jane becomes an adult, she leaves the torturous school. At long last, she finds a space to call her own when she is hired on as the governess at Thornfield Hall, which is run by Mrs. Fairfax (Dame Judi Dench) and owned by Edward Fairfax-Rochester (Michael Fassbender). What Jane is unaware of is that Thornfield Hall houses a secret – a secret I can not divulge.

JANE EYRE was good but unfortunately not great. I really wanted to like it more than I did. The two leads are the best thing about it. Wasikowska brings a quiet intensity to her role as our heroine. We root for her as she is bullied, beaten, and marginalized and yet still triumphantly soldiers on. Fassbender plays the iconically tragic Rochester with all the wit, ferocity, and torment you could hope for. He will charm you in the same way he does Eyre, and you can’t help but feel the electricity between the two. However, the love story (adapted by Moira Buffini) feels a bit rushed. It’s like one fireside chat and suddenly they are in love. Plus most of the scenes without the two of them together just aren’t as engaging, which makes it feel long and slow. Not a lot happens.

Director Cary Joji Fukunaga’s (SIN NOMBRE) visual style uses both handheld immediacy and old school Hollywood classicism with the camera booming and craning around. He was able to assemble a beautifully striking adaptation of the classic novel, and his varied approach works to the story’s advantage.

JANE EYRE is mainly worth seeing for what the outstanding lead actors do for a familiar story. It’s well-crafted, but the low-key approach to everything outside of the love story makes the two hours drag. Like Jane herself, we spend most of our time waiting for Rochester to show up so the two of them can be together.

3.5 out of 5
avatar
Admin
Admin

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

Back to top Go down

Re: Jane Eyre reviews and spoilers 4

Post by Admin on Wed Apr 06, 2011 9:40 pm

http://booktalkandmore.blogspot.com/2011/04/friends-talk-about-jane.html

Tuesday, April 5, 2011
Friends talk about Jane

Jane Eyre is happily appearing in more theaters this weekend (you can find a release schedule here). (And yes, I realize it's only Tuesday night. I can't HELP thinking about the weekend already, sorry!) I wanted to take an opportunity to share reviews from a few friends around the blogosphere.

~ Rachel from a Fair Substitute for Heaven describes Rochester:

"Michael Fassbender is cognizant that he is playing into the putty of the Byronic ideal and that this character has been defined, often by playing up its aggressive and violent elements, countless times before. This recognition forces him to play with his eyes. Watch his physiognomy as he livens to Jane’s quick responses and his desperation to penetrate her every thought." (Aside: I love that I have friends that use words like "physiognomy" in their blog posts.)

And concludes that "Jane Eyre hits the right notes, offers something fresh and inventive and exposes the great, mind-blowing romanticism that has kept it at the forefront of the Western Canon since 1847."

~ Roving Reader also talks Rochester (obviously my favorite subject):

"Yes, he is enigmatic and often harsh...but there is a tenderness here that makes him more human than other versions of the character. When Bertha flies at him he restrains her almost compassionately, and it is a testament to Fassbender's acting that he conveys how Rochester despises Bertha and his awful mistake in marrying her but cannot act cruelly towards her." (Really brilliantly played IMO!)

But concludes that "if I hadn't read and enjoyed the book so much, I would have absolutely adored this movie. As such I enjoyed it immensely but felt it couldn't measure up to the powerful and affecting emotion of Bronte's original story." (Yay for Jane Eyre book love!) Smile

~ Author Syrie James provided a guest review at Laurel Ann's Austenprose website:

Describing our new Jane, James feels that "Mia truly inhabits the role, beautifully portraying Jane’s sense of self-respect, integrity, and restraint, as well as her passion and vulnerability. Michael Fassbender was also inspired casting. He embodies Mr. Rochester with the ideal blend of charisma and sinister brooding, while at the same time allowing glimpses of his underlying desperation and the wounded depths of his soul."

~ Author Kaye Dacus (one of the friends I was thrilled to see the film with last weekend) isn't quite a Charlotte Bronte fangirl like me. *wink* She takes note of the film's AMAZING costumes, and wishes the film had been able to spend a little more time on the development of Jane and Rochester's relationship. (I've mentioned this before but it bears repeating...what I wouldn't give to see a four-hour version of Jane Eyre with Michael Fassbender as Rochester. *swoon*)

Please visit the above links to check out the full (and well-worth reading) reviews.

And now, for some gratuitous Michael Fassbender quotes:

At Word and Film, Fassbender gives perhaps one of my favorite interview quotes when talking about his take on Rochester:

“What I liked about Rochester in particular is that he’s not a good guy or a bad guy; there’s ambiguity there,” says Fassbender. “I realized I was taking on the Byronic hero. And once I locked onto that, I had everything I needed for the role. There’s intelligence, there’s self-destructiveness, there’s this idea of a shady past. There’s a flawed personality. There’s someone who doesn’t like the conforms of society. There’s a rebel, really.”

The man is BRILLIANT.

My second favorite Fassbender moment comes courtesy of an interview with Salon.com, where he admits that Toby Stephens' take on Rochester is his favorite.

The man is BRILLIANT and clearly has good taste.

This post needs a Fassbender picture...


*sigh* That's better. Smile And you're welcome. I know you wanted a Fassbender pic in this post too. Smile

If you know of any reviews out there in the readership that I may have missed, please leave a link in the comments!

Posted by Ruth at 6:49 PM
avatar
Admin
Admin

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

Back to top Go down

Re: Jane Eyre reviews and spoilers 4

Post by Admin on Wed Apr 06, 2011 9:42 pm

http://www.riffsbybob.com/movies/?p=754

Jane Eyre - 8

The very height of Romantic melodrama, portrayed flawlessly by Mia Wasikowska and Michael Fassbender. Cary Fukunaga’s mise-en-scene borrows liberally from Vermeer and De la Tour, matching the spareness and directness of the love story: one girl, one man - and oh, a crazy lady up in the attic. Nobody does Masterpiece Classics like the British, and this is a worthy addition to the pantheon. Why is this, then, not a 10? For all its perfection, this is a small story, a girl’s story - wonderful, but not very large or, for me, terribly engaging.

This entry was posted on Wednesday, April 6th, 2011 at 5:47 pm
avatar
Admin
Admin

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

Back to top Go down

Re: Jane Eyre reviews and spoilers 4

Post by Admin on Wed Apr 06, 2011 9:49 pm

http://carlosdev.wordpress.com/2011/04/05/jane-eyre-2011/

April 5, 2011 · 2:07 pm
↓ Jump to Comments
Jane Eyre (2011)

One thing you won't find much of in adaptations of Jane Eyre is smiles.

(2011) Mystery (Focus) Mia Wasikowska, Michael Fassbender, Jamie Bell, Judi Dench, Holliday Grainger, Sally Hawkins, Tamzin Merchant, Imogen Poots, Simon McBurney, Sophie Ward, Romy Settbon Moore, Harry Lloyd. Directed by Cary Fukunaga

Some stories withstand the test of time, striking a chord with readers over different eras with startling similarity. Charlotte Bronte’s “Jane Eyre” is like that; as a mash-up of Gothic castles, bleak windswept moors, barely restrained eroticism and a Victorian-era morality tale that is surprisingly subversive it has spoken to feminine sensibilities in ways we men cannot comprehend fully. Let’s put it this way – it’s no accident that the brooding angst-y vampire of the Twilight series is named Edward.

There have been 28 different screen versions of the tale, dating back to silent movies and including broad stroked television mini-series to a classic version with Orson Welles as Edward Rochester and Joan Fontaine as the titular heroine. The question then becomes why make a new version at all.

Director Fukunaga, whose Sin Nombre was an acclaimed hit a couple of years ago, wanted to emphasize the Gothic elements of the novel and thus he does, making this less of a Harlequin Romance as some versions have been and much more of a character study. He even chooses to tell the story non-sequentially (the novel was chronologically told), beginning with Jane (Wasikowska) fleeing across the moors only to collapse, exhausted and suffering from exposure, and the door of St. John Rivers (Bell), a kindly pastor with two bubbly sisters (Grainger, Merchant).

From there we see Jane’s story; the cruelty suffered as a child at the hands of her aunt (Hawkins) after her parents pass away, leaving her orphaned. The hardships suffered at a school for girls, particularly at the hands of a sadistic and cruel vicar (McBurney) who runs the establishment. The placing of Jane as a governess of a naïve French child (Moore) at Thornhill, a gloomy mansion on the moors of England, whose household is run by the gossip-mongering Mrs. Fairfax (Dench) and presided by its master, Edward Rochester (Fassbender) whose shadow pervades the castle even in his absence. There Jane, described as a plain and simple girl, falls in love with Rochester and he with her, but dark secrets in Rochester’s past threaten to destroy them both.

I haven’t read the novel in probably thirty years, but it stays with me still. Some guys pooh-pooh it as a “girl’s book” but it is much more than that. Many of the elements that inspire and drive girls into womanhood can be found there. While strong female characters such as Jane might dissuade some boys from paying attention to the book, there is a great deal of insight into the female psyche to be found there. Don’t understand women? Read “Jane Eyre.”

The performances here are solid if unspectacular. Wasikowska, who has shown herself to be a capable actress in such movies as Alice in Wonderland (also playing a strong Victorian heroine from literature) and The Kids Are All Right, has the movie resting squarely on her shoulders and she carries it with surprising strength. I thought her a bit too pretty to play plain Jane, but she manages to look the part with the severe hairstyle of the era and plain clothing.

Fassbender, one of the best actors who you’ve never heard of (see his performances in Hunger and Inglourious Basterds if you don’t believe me), has a difficult role to fill in the enigmatic and brooding Edgar. The part has already had its ultimate portrayal by Welles, but to Fassbender’s credit he doesn’t try to mimic a previous performance and rather goes to accent elements of the character that haven’t been done often (to my knowledge anyway).

The art direction and the cinematography are two of the reasons to see this movie. It is well photographed, particularly the lonely vistas of the storm-swept moors. The interiors are well-appointed in the style of the period and you get a genuine idea of how the people of the time lived. The costumes are spot on, and when the action takes place at night, flickering candlelight appears to be the only illumination.

The movie does move slowly and modern audiences might have difficulty adjusting to the pace. Those who are used to the quick cut no-attention-span theater that is what most teens are used to will really have a lot of problems with losing focus during the movie. However, it is for certain worth checking out, if only for no other reason to acquaint yourself with one of the most brilliant novels of all time and to check out a story that resonates throughout history, influencing so much of literature all the way up to the “Twilight” series.

REASONS TO GO: Lushly photographed and well-acted. It is one of the most iconic novels of all-time and as close as many are ever going to get to reading it.

REASONS TO STAY: As befits a novel of that era, the pacing is majestic, sweeping and slightly overbearing.

FAMILY VALUES: There is the examination of a painting which depicts nudity and there’s also a very teensy bit of violence.

TRIVIAL PURSUIT: The Charlotte Bronte book was initially published in 1847 under the pen name “Currer Bell.”

HOME OR THEATER: While the bleak vistas of the moors look gorgeous on the big screen, the intimacy of the main story is well-received on the home screen.

FINAL RATING: 6.5/10
avatar
Admin
Admin

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

Back to top Go down

Re: Jane Eyre reviews and spoilers 4

Post by Admin on Wed Apr 06, 2011 9:50 pm

http://blend10.blogspot.com/2011/04/monday-monday.html

I basically worked a lot, finally went to see Jane Eyre (ahmaziiing, Michael Fassbender and Mia Wasawhatever were great, it was beautiful and romantic),
avatar
Admin
Admin

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

Back to top Go down

Re: Jane Eyre reviews and spoilers 4

Post by Admin on Wed Apr 06, 2011 9:50 pm

http://www.dign2itmedia.com/?p=174

http://dign2it.com/mag/2011/jane-eyre-english-major-approved

Jane Eyre – English Major Approved!
By
Alexandra August
– April 3, 2011Posted in: Alexandra August, Features


by Alexandra August

If Jane Eyre is a favorite novel of yours, see the Cary Fukunaga adaptation. Run, do not walk. Go now, not later. It’s a faithful and honorable adaptation that allows Charlotte Brontë’s story to bloom like an English rose on the screen. I have awarded it the very first E.M.A. – English Major Stamp of Approval.

What’s an E.M.A. you ask? It’s a little award I created in my head to honor movies that are competent adaptations of great literary works, as opposed to the flabby, fluffy, big-budget crap that is so often produced. The qualifications are as follows:

Faithful Adaptation – when you see it on the screen, the film must bear more than a striking resemblance to the novel it’s based on. Anyone remember “The Scarlett Letter” starring Demi Moore? The one that featured Hester Prynne and Arthur Dimmesdale riding off into the sunset together after an Indian attack? Who knew that Nathaniel Hawthorne had written a secret manuscript entitled The Scarlett Letter – Alternate Happy Ending? Ludicrous.

Proper Casting – I know Gwyneth Paltrow is Britain’s favorite expat, but she was terrible in “Emma.” She was beautiful, sweet, likable and shallow. In the novel, the title character is infuriatingly meddlesome and pisses off nearly everyone around her. Gwyneth is far more believable in an Estee Lauder commercial where she’s frolicking with puppies in a field of wildflowers than she ever will be as an annoying spoiled brat. Alicia Silverstone has that s*** on lockdown.

Editing Editing Editing – some books are looooong. Some books are slooooow. Some books are have a looooooot of detail. “Gone with the Wind,” eliminated two of Scarlett’s children and Rhett’s entire family and the movie was still four hours long. Sometimes it goes too far (as Harry Potter fans I’m sure will attest), but oftentimes a clever editing is just what the doctor ordered for the adaptation of a long, dense novel.

It’s About More than the Money – Not every movie needs to be a blockbuster! I swear, the newest “Pride and Prejudice” adaptation starring Kiera Knightley was developed entirely to give more momentum to her career and make money off a title that’s historically bankable. It’s an unoriginal, soulless, big-budget film that was just… unnecessary. Nothing about the film is distinctive or more interesting than any of the other FIVE adaptations that have been made in the past 15 years. All it did was suck more life out of a book that’s officially been done to death.

Thankfully, Cary Fukunaga’s “Jane Eyre” is as close to perfection as it gets when it comes to an adaptation. The story is in impeccable condition, near as I can tell, the only real artistic license that was taken was in the timeline. As opposed to beginning Jane’s tale at her childhood and moving forward, the movie opens with her arrival at St. John Rivers’ home and reveals her past in flashback. The anguish of her experiences comes through brilliantly as she attempts to hide her history from her new friends, but cannot help but be drawn back into painful memories. The unique structure is a welcome change from previous adaptations that have followed the novel’s path moment to moment.

As for the casting, I couldn’t have asked for more. I’ve been a fan of Mia Wasikowska since she appeared in the first season of “In Treatment” three years ago. She’s an incredibly skilled young actress, and her Jane is a perfect balance of the characters’ famous plainspokenness, practicality and honor combined with the passion, curiosity and romance of any 19-year-old girl. Jane Eyre is so often portrayed without any underlying intensity (Charlotte Gainsbourg was dull as toast), and it was refreshing and provocative to see something intriguing bubbling beneath the surface. Not to mention the fact that Wasikowska has the singular interesting beauty necessary for playing a woman described as not attractive, but a “rare, unearthly thing.”

As for Rochester, It-Man Michael Fassbender is actually charming, a quality not thought relevant or necessary in most other adaptations. Rochester still the famous hairy, not quite handsome grouch he’s always been, but Fassbender embraces Rochester’s infatuation with Jane. Therefore, when they verbally spar, his affection toward her is evident and makes him less of a grouch and more of a… charmer. Thankfully, he doesn’t go too far – Rochester still insults the servants to their faces, and has no problem completely dismissing Adele, the innocent child he chose to care for. But, after all, if he wasn’t kind of a dick, he wouldn’t be the Rochester we know and love. He’s excellent.

In terms of editing, I was pleasantly surprised that what was left out didn’t bother me in the least. I’ve begun seeing film adaptations before I read certain books, because if I read the book first, inevitably the film seems lacking, and I don’t like wasting money. Not the case here. The major cuts occurred during Jane’s time at Lowood school and at the Rivers’ home. What’s missing from Lowood is her acquittal of the charges of deceit heaped on her upon arrival, and also missing is her ally, Miss Temple. I didn’t mind at all – seeing Jane somehow vindicated so early in the film would have made the rest of her story less tragic and less effective. A universe in which Jane has a nice childhood is a universe in which I’m not sympathetic to her relationship woes.

As for the Rivers’ home, the less time spent with a moony missionary, the better. St. John has never been a favorite of mine, and I was pleased as punch that while it was months of real time, it was only 20 minutes of screen time before Jane realized she wanted to leave Rivers and his sisters to their own devices and head back to Thornfield for a real man.

This was a lovely film, and it’s clear it was made with care and passion. I’ve not seen such a provocative adaptation of this novel in years, and that’s saying something for a story that is so fascinatingly unique. Brontë works are notoriously hard to adapt given the austerity of their plots and characters. It’s very easy it seems to create something bland or over the top dramatic. Fukunaga presents us with a very balanced exception.

As a warning, though, I will say that it’s slow. Jane Eyre isn’t a story of events, but of looks, whispers and quiet revelation. The film is faithful to that ideal, and leisurely unfolds Jane’s life piece by piece. I confess to getting frustrated at certain points (there’s a slow as MOLASSES approach that Jane makes to a blinded Rochester that had me screaming “FRIGGING RUN!”), but all in all, my response to the pace of the film was to be all the more attentive. That’s going to be a turn-off for some people, but then again, Jane Eyre isn’t for everyone. But who says everything has to be for everyone?

If you happen to be one of those people who enjoys being swept away by a creeping tale of gothic romance, go see “Jane Eyre,” and enjoy – you won’t be disappointed. I stake my reputation as an English Major on it.
avatar
Admin
Admin

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

Back to top Go down

Re: Jane Eyre reviews and spoilers 4

Post by Admin on Wed Apr 06, 2011 9:51 pm

http://the330.com/on-screen/movies/jane-eyre-remixed/

‘Jane Eyre’ remixed
April 3, 2011 by Akron Beacon Journal Leave a Comment Filed under: Movies Tagged with

By Michael Phillips
Chicago Tribune

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, generations of readers have made the same discovery. Without making any provocative new moves, 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.
avatar
Admin
Admin

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

Back to top Go down

Re: Jane Eyre reviews and spoilers 4

Post by Admin on Thu Apr 07, 2011 12:32 am

http://www.pressherald.com/life/go/fassbenders-charisma-ignites-classic-struggle-of-jane-eyre_2011-04-07.html

Posted: 12:00 AM
Updated: 11:18 PM
Movie Review: Fassbender's charisma ignites classic struggle of 'Jane Eyre'

By KENNETH TURAN McClatchy Newspapers

LOS ANGELES - The book is called "Jane Eyre" but when it comes to its numerous movie versions, whether it's Orson Welles in 1944 or Michael Fassbender right now, the actor playing Edward Rochester often ends up with the lion's share of the attention.
click image to enlarge

Mia Wasikowska brings Jane Eyre to life in Cary Joji Fukunaga's screen remake.

Michael Fassbender and Imogen Poots in "Jane Eyre."

REVIEW"

JANE EYRE," starring Mia Wasikowska, Michael Fassbender and Judi Dench. Directed by Cary Joji Fukunaga. Rated PG-13 for thematic elements including a nude image and brief violent content. Running time: 1:50

That's because the brooding master of Thornfield in Charlotte Bronte's 1847 novel is one of literature's archetypal romantic heroes, a complex and troubled individual who is sensitive, poetic and, as Lady Caroline Lamb famously said of Lord Byron, "mad, bad and dangerous to know."

A part like that is catnip for performers who can play the rogue male, and Fassbender swallows it whole. He's a German-born Irish actor who is about to break big with roles in the next "X-Men" movie, a Steven Soderbergh thriller and "Prometheus," Ridley Scott's "Alien" prequel. Fassbender energizes not just his scenes with Mia Wasikowska's accomplished but inevitably more pulled-back Jane, but this entire film.

Bronte's romantic novel of a young governess engaged in a classic struggle for equality and independence has, as noted, been filmed a lot: One count lists 18 theatrical feature versions plus nine telefilms. But it's not always had a director with as much of a flair for the five-alarm-fire dramatics of its plot as Cary Joji Fukunaga.

As his first film, the Sundance success "Sin Nombre," demonstrated, Fukunaga is an intense, visceral filmmaker with a love for melodramatic situations. His no-holds-barred style is more successful here than in his debut because the necessity of working within the boundaries of Bronte's narrative provides just the right amount of structure to showcase his talents.

One of the shrewd choices Fukunaga has made is to emphasize the natural gothic aspects of the story. Thornfield, where much of the action takes place, is an old dark house after all, and expert cinematographer Adriano Goldman beautifully captures both the building's candle-lit spookiness and the desolate beauty of the surrounding Derbyshire countryside.

Fukunaga has also invested heavily in the film's physical details, working with his production team, including production designer Will Hughes-Jones, art director Karl Probert, set decorator Tina Jones and costume designer Michael O'Connor to create a period world where even the badminton equipment looks fearsomely authentic.

Similar care has also gone into casting, with equally good results, including the impeccable Judi Dench as redoubtable Thornfield housekeeper Mrs. Fairfax, Jamie Bell as the obtuse cleric St. John Rivers, and Sally Hawkins of "Happy-Go-Lucky" smartly cast against type as Jane's awful aunt, Mrs. Reed.

Wasikowska, Tim Burton's Alice and the daughter in "The Kids Are All Right," looks exactly right as a heroine the author famously described as "plain and small as myself." Wasikowska acquits herself well here, but without a lot of access to the book's florid recounting of her rich interior life her performance is of necessity restricted to the narrow view the world has of her. And that, especially for people not well-acquainted with the book, does hamstring the proceedings somewhat.

Because screenwriter Moira Buffini ("Tamara Drewe") has shrewdly chosen to tell the story not chronologically, as the novel does, but through flashback, it is Wasikowska's adult Jane whose acquaintance we make first.

Clearly a determined young woman, if a distraught one, Jane is shown fleeing a house in what we soon see is complete despair. A woman with no resources in the middle of nowhere, she lands, drenched and exhausted, at the doorstep of a home occupied by two sisters and their minister brother St. John Rivers. They take her in and gradually the film reveals what brought her to this state.

It starts with a dreadful childhood, raised by that aunt who has no use for her followed by an even bleaker period in a charity school run by people who delight in mistreating children. A passionate truth-teller whose goal is to experience life as anyone's equal, Jane hopes for the best when she takes a job as a governess for a wealthy man's young French ward.

That man would be Edward Rochester, and from the moment he enters the film on his famously stumbling horse, things take a turn for the better. If the depiction of Jane's younger years veers dangerously close to hysteria, the film gains its footing as Rochester's horse loses his.

As convincingly played by Fassbender, best known so far for roles in British indies "Hunger" and "Fishtank," Rochester is mercurial, bad-tempered and very sure of himself. And yet, almost as much against his will as against her own, he finds himself appreciating the qualities in Jane that others have ignored or reviled.

Someone who wants distraction from "the mire of my thoughts," Rochester is visibly energized by the spirited give-and-take conversations he has with Jane. With Fassbender's charisma igniting his co-star as well as himself, these sparring interchanges, both captivating and entertaining, are where this "Jane Eyre" finally catches fire.
avatar
Admin
Admin

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

Back to top Go down

Re: Jane Eyre reviews and spoilers 4

Post by Admin on Thu Apr 07, 2011 12:38 am

http://muliontopoftheworld.wordpress.com/2011/04/06/movie-review-jane-eyre/

Movie Review: Jane Eyre

Cary Fukunaga’s Jane Eyre finally hit selected theaters in Salt Lake City on April 1st. I figure I’ve been waiting for this about seven or eight months, so saying I was a little excited is an understatement (especially since this is pretty much the only thing I’ve been blogging about).

So, was it worth the hype? For me, definitely.

Fukunaga takes a fresh approach to Jane Eyre, playing up the dark and gothic side of this romance with subtle lighting and some spooky sounds. But the whole movie isn’t dark and gloomy; it is beautifully shot using lots of natural light (if you like Joe Wright, you’d like this). I loved how there was time to appreciate the simplicity and beauty of the scene, whether it was young Jane standing on a chair as punishment of false crimes (fabulous shot involving the sun’s glare off of Jane), or of Jane and Rochester settling in to life in love (sneaking kisses outside in the garden with pink cherry blossoms in bloom). It was absolutely gorgeous. Some people might think the time spent on that could take away from the story, but I thought it nicely accentuated the simplicity and even the seriousness of the scenes.

And speaking of simplicity, I loved Mia Wasikowska’s performance: strong, simple, subtle and powerful. She empowered Jane’s passion so smoothly, I thought she was perfect. She didn’t overplay Jane; she made it so natural and NOT corny and weird. I thought the 2006 BBC Jane Eyre was like that, too corny and weird and…blah. Both Jane and Rochester were too melodramatic in that; you could tell they were just acting. Wasikowska though, is quiet in comparison and it suits Jane as a character, and Jane in this simple new movie version, well. Just to get things straight, I’m not saying that it was all quiet contemplation with slight emotion; there was a great heaving of chests bursting out of the corset, but it wasn’t overdone or stupid. It felt natural. Anyway, Jane Eyre can’t be Jane Eyre without the heaving and the crying and such.

Haha, and who better to heave and cry over than Michael Fassbender as Mr. Rochester? Not only is he easy on the eyes, but he’s a phenomenal actor. I thought his portrayal of Rochester was refreshing. I’m used to those who play him as a badly covered up softie (okay, yes he is a romantic, but not corny. Gah. I hate corny acting). NO. He is a funny bad ass who deserves to be played correctly and, thank the gods, Fassbender did it right: he is brooding, short, funny, charming, rough, possessive, sensual, loving; everything Rochester should be, he completely filled. I was very satisfied with his performance. Very satisfied…

Now together, Wasikowska and Fassbender are completely spellbinding. I was mesmerized watching scenes I’d seen and read thousands of times before, everything seemed so new and so fresh. I think they complemented each other very well as Jane and Rochester in love; they worked good together and weren’t trying to outshine each other, and I say kudos for them!

As for the rest of the cast they were wonderful. Dame Judi Dench was very good as Mrs. Fairfax and I would have liked to seen more of her. I did like how she was brought back to tell of Mr. Rochester’s woes instead of Jane finding out from some random person in the village. That was fun. Jamie Bell also did great as St. John Rivers. I’ve never seen him in anything before, but I thought he was fabulous. He managed to be domineering yet not arrogant which, I think, must be hard.

Despite all the good things I can rave about this movie, there was one scene/story point I would have liked to seen. Now, I know that being true to the book AND making a reasonably timed film is difficult, and certain liberties need to be taken to condense the story, I get that, but the ripping of the wedding veil is so important and they totally passed it over! From the trailer it seemed that it would be in there, since some of the conversation Jane and Rochester have about it is included (“I know what it is I saw” “Half dream, half reality” blah blah blah). I was really disappointed it wasn’t! Not only is it truly gothic (a mad woman coming into your room in the dead of night? Yeah, creepy), but is one of the greatest supporting metaphors of the story as a whole (untimely love, doomed love, etc., etc.,). They did use the tree and maybe they thought it was enough, but I think the veil should have been included. (Oh, and another part I would have loved to seen is Rochester coming as a gypsy and reading his guest’s fortunes. The movie did do well without it, but some nice character development should never be overlooked. Maybe I just wanted to see Fassbender in a bit of drag, I don’t know. Haha. I just think it would have been fun to see, but I’m not too broken up about it.)

Overall, I thought Jane Eyre was very well done. It is a beautifully simple and fresh look to an overdone novel. I look forward to seeing it again.

9.0/10
avatar
Admin
Admin

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

Back to top Go down

Re: Jane Eyre reviews and spoilers 4

Post by Admin on Thu Apr 07, 2011 4:16 pm

http://thedailynewsonline.com/entertainment/article_062be032-4d57-57e1-af04-d3f7ea076d8d.html

Stars shine in stripped-down 'Jane Eyre'
Posted: Friday, April 8, 2011 12:15 am | Updated: 1:27 pm, Thu Apr 7, 2011.

Stars shine in stripped-down 'Jane Eyre' By CHRISTY LEMIRE AP Movie Critic The Daily News Online

There's been no shortage of film versions of "Jane Eyre," Charlotte Bronte's classic tale of romance and woe.

Most notably, Orson Welles co-starred opposite Joan Fontaine back in 1944; Franco Zeffirelli adapted the novel in the mid-1990s with Charlotte Gainsbourg in the title role and William Hurt as the tortured Edward Rochester (with Australian supermodel Elle Macpherson, of all people, as the rival for his affections).

Now, yet another take on the 1847 novel has come to the screen, with Cary Joji Fukunaga directing Moira Buffini's script, which shakes things up by messing with the narrative structure. It begins with Jane fleeing the imposing Thornfield Hall in hysterics and is told mainly in flashback, which creates tension from the start -- even if you know the story.

Fukunaga may seem like an odd choice to direct such revered literary material; his last film, "Sin Nombre," was a contemporary and violent tale of Central Americans making their way through Mexico on their way to the United States. But both are about people searching for a place to belong, and they share a visceral immediacy.

Visually and tonally, his "Jane Eyre" is muted, stripped-down; it's gooey and marshy, vast and grassy, anything but lush -- and that's what makes it beautiful. The pacing might even be a bit too low-key, but because it is, and because the attraction between Jane and Rochester simmers for so long, it makes the passionate bursts stand out even more. This version also emphasizes the tale's darker Gothic elements, adding a sense of horror that's both disturbing and welcome.

Regardless of aesthetics, the relationship between Jane and Rochester is at the heart of the story -- it's the source of emotion -- and Mia Wasikowska and Michael Fassbender challenge and beguile each other beautifully. Wasikowska, who co-starred last year in Tim Burton's "Alice in Wonderland" and in the Academy Award best-picture nominee "The Kids Are All Right," continues to show her versatility here. She's all intelligence and determination, and very much Fassbender's equal in terms of presence. Fassbender, who was devastating as Irish hunger striker Bobby Sands in "Hunger," plays the iconically tragic character of Rochester with all the necessary wit, ferocity and torment.

Jane has come to work at Thornfield Hall, the remote manor Rochester owns but rarely visits, as a governess following a difficult childhood as an orphan (Amelia Clarkson is sharp as the tough young Jane). Head housekeeper Mrs. Fairfax (Judi Dench) runs the place with a mix of pride and vague disapproval of Rochester's volatile ways. But once he finally comes and meets Jane, he instantly recognizes in her a kindred spirit, and she feels the same -- although she's loath to admit it.

Jamie Bell co-stars as the other potential suitor in Jane's life, St. John Rivers, the young man of God who views her as an ideal missionary's wife; the fact that they don't love each other yet is irrelevant to him. Still, it's Jane's idealism -- despite the difficult and lonely life she'd led -- that keeps her striving for something better, more fulfilling.

Society would seem to dictate that Jane and Rochester can't be together. But it's their pasts that are really keeping them apart -- their secrets, and the walls they've built up for themselves. So when they finally admit their feelings, their words come out in an emotional torrent.

Bring tissues. You've been warned.

"Jane Eyre," a Focus Features release, is rated PG-13 for thematic elements including a nude image and brief violent content. Running time: 103 minutes. Three stars out of four.
avatar
Admin
Admin

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

Back to top Go down

Re: Jane Eyre reviews and spoilers 4

Post by Admin on Thu Apr 07, 2011 4:19 pm

http://rangerbobfriends.blogspot.com/2011/04/jonathan-goes-to-movies-jane-eyre-and.html

Thursday, April 7, 2011
Jonathan Goes to the Movies: Jane Eyre and Source Code
It's rare where I go to the movies every weekend, that I come out enjoying both new releases. This week, I review a solid sci-fi action-thriller and the first great movie of 2011.

Jane Eyre - Last year, it took only one month before movies like Shutter Island and The Ghost Writer made lasting impressions on me early into the new year. It took three this time, but Jane Eyre, the sophomoric follow up to director Cary Fukuanga's Sin Nombre, is a fantastic Victorian-era romantic dram, containing two of the best performances so far this year in Mia Wasikowska in the title role, and Michael Fassbender as Mr. Rochester. The last 1/3rd of the film falls into predictable melodrama as Rochester's demons are brought to light and Jane leaves the quiet home of John Rivers (a surprisingly good Jamie Bell, redeeming himself after a weak performance in The Eagle) and his sisters, but by then, the performances and a sharp and fiery script, along with the stunning cinematography and production value will have you transfixed into Jane's world. Here it is, the first great movie of 2011.
*** 1/2 stars out of ****
avatar
Admin
Admin

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

Back to top Go down

Re: Jane Eyre reviews and spoilers 4

Post by Admin on Thu Apr 07, 2011 4:20 pm

http://blog.indieflix.com/2011/04/oh-the-melodrama-fukunagas-gothic-misstep/

Oh, the Melodrama…Fukunaga’s Gothic Misstep
by Katharine on April 7, 2011

As a lover of period pieces, melodramatic Gothic literature and, in particular, all things Bronte, I have been anxiously awaiting this year’s adaptation of Jane Eyre. The dark previews emphasized the best elements of this classic tale; the mysterious nighttime noises of the Thornfield Hall, the brutish air of Mr. Rochester and the true love (sigh) between a poor, plain governess and her elder, wealthy employer. Although these principles were all touched upon, a choppy script and a few key omissions hurt the overall feel of Cary Fukunaga’s Jane Eyre, ultimately leaving this lover of the novel feeling underwhelmed.

Jane’s childhood as a lonely out-spoken orphan under the care of her malicious aunt and her subsequent years at Lowood School are depicted well, a moody background for what ultimately is the most angsty of all the Gothic love stories (in hindsight, perhaps Stephanie Meyer and I have both read this story of co-dependent love one too many times). Mr. Brocklehurst, the clergyman headmaster of Lowood, is as terrifying as I imagined him to be, although I must admit, I did miss his comeuppance in this interpretation.

As Jane embraces her life at Thornfield Hall, the film begins to waver. The weakest element of this telling of Jane Eyre is the love story between the title character and her beloved, Mr. Rochester. Mia Wasikowska is remarkable as the determined, bright young Jane, although much of her best dialogue in the novel with her male protagonist has been cut. When Mr. Rochester proposes to Jane and admits his love, Jane, as a woman of poor social standing, is shocked. In this film, so is the audience. So much of their growing relationship is missing, making his affection seem outlandish and abrupt. Irish actor Michael Fassbender as Edward Rochester, a true torn Byronic hero, is a decent cast, particularly considering that Colin Firth’s schedule has probably been rather busy lately and the poor man can’t be in every English literature inspired film. However, the two lacked chemistry on screen and this viewer couldn’t help constantly thinking about their age difference, no matter how true to the time it may be.

The uplifting love story is the backbone to Jane Eyre. However, in this film, it seems as though all uplifting storylines from the original work have been cut. Her childhood companion Helen is a few mere scenes and her friendship with the Rivers is boiled down to a few awkward conversations. I understand wanting to maintain a dark, melodramatic theme, but come on! This was a bit painful. The previews also stressed a supernatural, haunting theme, which was not fully realized within the film and could leave some viewers feeling mislead.

Ultimately, this version of Jane Eyre was more dramatic, more depressing and more…well, Gothic, than the original, which certainly is saying a lot. I understand I’m in the minority with this review; what do you think? Have you seen Jane Eyre? Is it too angsty and dramatic, or did you appreciate the heartache?
avatar
Admin
Admin

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

Back to top Go down

Re: Jane Eyre reviews and spoilers 4

Post by Admin on Thu Apr 07, 2011 4:22 pm

http://thedenialfile.wordpress.com/2011/04/07/frostbite-the-new-jane-eyre/

h1
Frostbite: The New Jane Eyre
April 7, 2011

"k1f" Kirby Farrell

Like To Kill a Mockingbird, Charlotte Bronte’s Jane Eyre haunts the corridors of American education. The plucky orphan Jane survives abuse, rejection, betrayal, and other afflictions to become an esteemed governess and finally the cherished wife of Edward Rochester. Destiny rewards Jane’s virtue with a windfall inheritance from a remote uncle in Jamaica, even as the once-lordly Rochester is brought low by his mad Jamaican wife.

The magical undoing in this plot shouldn’t surprise us. Most story-telling offers some sort of wish-fulfillment. But Jane’s latest incarnation, directed by Cary Joji Fukunaga, is worth noticing because the wishes it projects are more punishing than romantic. And that may be telling us something about the mental weather around us these days.

As Ann Lewinson grumbled in the Hartford Advocate about the new Jane (Mia Wasikowska), “Most grievously, she cannot play Jane in love, and honey you are kissing Michael Fassbender [Mr. Rochester] — what is wrong with you?” Well, Ann may have a thing for Fassbender, but in fact his Rochester is as tame as the unsmiling Jane. Their love scenes are achingly sexless. His past liaisons are so muted they could have been quilting bees.

Now here’s what’s striking: Stephen Holden’s New York Times review of Zeffirelli’s 1996 Jane Eyre almost exactly describes the new Jane as well. Lush production, anemic passion.

How to account for this peculiarly damp romance? One answer lies in the vindictive righteousness invested in Jane. While many feminists have moved on, 1980s victim feminism has hardly gone away. The recent Janes are outstanding victims of swinish boys (but not girlfriends), nasty schoolmasters, and a toxic stepmother. Though the new Jane steadfastly stands by Rochester, you might wonder why. She’s decorous to a fault. Why depict her as such a stick?

One clue lies in her only inner spark – moral aggression.

We’ve gotten used to Hollywood and publishers promoting tough, self-sufficient women who can “Kill Bill” and other malefactors. The fury of Stieg Larsson’s viciously abused heroine Lisbeth Salander is gentrified in the new Janes. This Jane’s not liberated-woman-as-killer, but as righteous judge. Invite her to play, and she’ll zing you with cold rectitude. When Rochester risks a little frisky wit, her repartee scolds. Mistreat her and she will forgive you to death.

In this adaptation, young Jane behaves as if traumatized and, frankly, never gets over it. She’s peculiarly anaesthetic. The film gives her a stick figure, a joyless face, and stubborn teenage idealism that parents in the audience should recognize. She’s supposed to be a gifted artist, but she seems impassive about her beautiful surroundings chez Rochester. (Thank Adriano Goldman for the luscious cinematography. Love those Vermeer blue window shots and mouth-watering candlelight, and russet reds that bloom when passion soars to its tepid russet heights.)

Reunited in the end with the blinded, gratefully emasculated Rochester, Jane’s safely in control of them both – and of the movie audience too. There’s no question who will be running the show from here on out. In a word, this is a gentle fantasy of righteous mastery and, by the way, getting even.

Third stream feminists argue that the 1980s emphasis on victimization promotes women’s helplessness. But it’s useful to keep in mind that victimization can also fuel aggression: specifically vindictive righteousness. After all, from infancy, personality develops around convictions of “what is right.” Shared with others, the sense of rightness allows us to feel at home in an overwhelming world. It’s crucial to our mental operating system. It makes the magic circle of everyday life seem natural.

One way of understanding the righteous Jane theme is to see it as a reaction against the tsunami of change that is making folks from Tahrir Square to Main Street feel orphaned and powerless. Granted, the Jane fantasy projects a gentry world in trouble. And so it appeals to a gentry that today faces economic threats and values notoriously under stress. In today’s terms, when Jane meets Rochester, fear of helpless unemployment meets what can jokingly be called “affluenza.” Rochester has everything anyone could need, but can take no joy in it. In order to feel, this limp couple needs Jane’s punishing rectitude and, finally, the crippling pain of a therapeutic fire that burns down the McMansion and makes pitying devotion exquisite.

Brrr.

But there’s a deeper level too.

You can also think of Jane’s masked anger operating in the service of mourning. Like an old Harlequin Romance, the film stops the instant the lovers kiss. But for all their supposed bliss, the lovers are implicitly mourning a lost past. And the film is playing to an audience that is mourning for a world of fading verities beset by psychic storms: a world in which imagination will have to put mourning to work sorting out the old stuff and kindling it to new life.
avatar
Admin
Admin

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

Back to top Go down

Re: Jane Eyre reviews and spoilers 4

Post by Admin on Thu Apr 07, 2011 4:25 pm

http://pyreofsovietkitsch.blogspot.com/2011/04/jane-eyre.html

April 7, 2011
jane eyre.

I don't usually blog about movies because I read way more books than I see movies and often I'm disappointed in the movies I see. But I just can't keep this to myself --

I've loved Jane Eyre since I read it my sophomore year of college, and I've seen several adaptations of it and been severely disappointed. The book is a gothic novel, so there is a supernatural, dark feeling to it. In the film adaptation(s) I've seen, it makes the movie seem gimmicky and less sophisticated than the novel. Because of this I was apprehensive about the new version starring Mia Wasikowska and Michael Fassbender. My roommate gave me a free movie ticket so I went to see it anyway -- and loved it.

I don't want to talk much about it other than to say that it's one of the best screen adaptations of a novel I've ever seen. I was so emotional throughout the whole thing because the acting was so powerful. Go see it now! (I guarantee you will fall in love with Mr. Rochester all over again.)
avatar
Admin
Admin

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

Back to top Go down

Re: Jane Eyre reviews and spoilers 4

Post by Admin on Thu Apr 07, 2011 4:32 pm

http://beccabluepicked.blogspot.com/2011/04/not-so-plain.html

Thursday, April 7, 2011
Not so Plain...
Have you seen previews for Cary Joji Fukumaga's Jane Eyre? (Or have you seen the movie yet?) From what I have read (and I mean reviews, not Charlotte Bronte's beautiful book...) and the pictures I have seen- it is D-R-E-A-M-Y. Ladies, anyone care to take in a movie with me? (Or guys, I don't want to exclude...)

There have been 23 versions of Jane Eyre made. I haven't seen all of them, but a good handful. I liked William Hurt as Mr. Rochester. (I liked Orson Wells too....) Do you remember a very young Elizabeth Taylor as Helen Burns? Loved her then....) Mia Wasikowska (whom I was enchanted with as Alice) now plays our Jane. (Nice track record...Alice and Jane. If she dyed her hair red and played Anne, I would be officially jealous....)

Oh, give me an English countryside, garden and manor and I'm undone....

Michael Fassbender is Mr. Rochester...ummm, yummy.

In the end- a mostly happy ending- a bit of a role reversal for Jane and Mr. R (plain and poor to beautiful in her own way and wealthy/ wealthy and handsome to poor and blind....)

They finally have each other, which we all knew was going to happen... (but it still excites and delights me,) at long last.


I can't wait to see it all happen again. (I'll spring for the popcorn and Raisinets if you want to come along....)
Posted by Becca at Thursday, April 07, 2011
avatar
Admin
Admin

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

Back to top Go down

Re: Jane Eyre reviews and spoilers 4

Post by Admin on Thu Apr 07, 2011 4:49 pm

http://www.kansascity.com/2011/04/07/2781802/jane-eyre-finds-romance-in-warped.html

Posted on Thu, Apr. 07, 2011 02:15 AM

‘Jane Eyre’ finds romance in warped characters | 3 stars
The housekeeper (Judi Dench) welcomes governess Jane Eyre (Mia Wasikowska) to her new home at a gloomy English manor.
‘Jane Eyre’ ★★★

Rated PG-13 | Time: 2:01

The mysterious lady in the attic isn’t the only crazy character in the new “Jane Eyre.” As rendered by writer Moira Buffini and director Cary Fukunaga (who made a big impression with his 2009 feature debut, “Sin Nombre”), this may be the most psychologically dangerous film version yet of Charlotte Bronte’s novel.

As the title character — a young governess working on a gloomy manor early in the Victorian era — Aussie Mia Wasikowska gives us a tough-minded exterior defending a fragile and tormented interior. Makes perfect sense, given her family’s betrayal and a childhood spent in an orphanage where sadism in the name of piety was the norm.

If this Jane’s precarious inner state can be explained by a brutal upbringing, there’s no such excuse for Rochester, her titled employer. Michael Fassbender’s interpretation suggests congenital madness. We’re talking depression salted with a taunting, even cruel, sense of humor. He’s a bit like a sociopath who sees hilarity where no one else does.

Thank heavens, then, for Judi Dench as Mrs. Fairfax, the down-to-earth housekeeper, who offers a note of normalcy.

If Fukunaga takes some big chances here he also sets up an interesting payoff, making his Jane and Rochester two incomplete individuals who together create a functional whole. They’d be disasters if paired with sane mates.

It also helps that the pair are physically perfect for these roles. With her hair pulled severely back and free of any hint of glamour, Wasikowska (“The Kids Are All Right,” Tim Burton’s “Alice in Wonderland”) at first is a perfect “plain Jane.” But the more you watch her, the more beautiful she becomes, especially given the loving way Fukunaga and cinematographer Adriano Goldman use candlelight to illuminate her. At times she looks like a Vermeer portrait come to life.

Fassbender (who will play Magneto in the upcoming “X-Men: First Class”) masks his handsome if vaguely sharp features with unruly side whiskers and lank hair. His may be the film’s most dangerous interpretation. He threatens to become utterly unlikable, yet we still sense why Jane loves him. Ultimately he emerges as a romantic figure.

Technically the film is first-rate, shot in browns and gun-metal grays. Even on a sunny day, this England looks overcast.

(At the Palace, Rio and Town Center.)

| Robert W. Butler
Posted on Thu, Apr. 07, 2011 02:15 AM
avatar
Admin
Admin

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

Back to top Go down

Re: Jane Eyre reviews and spoilers 4

Post by Admin on Thu Apr 07, 2011 5:03 pm

http://oracle.newpaltz.edu/fukunaga%E2%80%99s-%E2%80%98jane-eyre%E2%80%99-not-exactly-a-drag/

* A&E

Fukunaga’s ‘Jane Eyre’ Not Exactly A Drag

* April 7, 2011 12:12 am
* Katherine Speller

When I first saw the trailer for the new “Jane Eyre” film, I was hopeful. With the ominous clouds rising on the moors, the eerie score and stone-cold-fox director Cary Fukunaga at the helm, the mystery of the novel was shining through, selling the film as so much more than a period romance. Maybe this film would bring Charlotte Brönte’s novel to the screen without shaming it.

With Michael Fassbender (“Inglorious Basterds”) and Mia Wasikowska (“Alice in Wonderland”) taking the lead roles of Mr. Rochester and Jane respectively, I wasn’t sure what to expect. Fassbender looked far too pretty for the role with his leading man’s jaw and Wasikowska seemed almost too boring to hold my imagination.

The most notable thing about the script, written by Moira Buffini, is that the story is told almost entirely through flashbacks. We meet Jane as she’s running away from Thornfield in hysterics and we don’t get much of her story until she explains herself to the Rivers family, headed by a surprisingly endearing Jamie Bell as St. John, who welcomes her into their home. From that point on we’re introduced to the heroine’s tale of woe; her abusive aunt, her strict and humbling education and her tragic first friendship are all shuffled onto the screen and eased out in a short time. The story is less of a Bildungsroman and more of a Gothic mystery in this adaptation.

The narrative gave the most attention to Jane’s time working under Mr. Rochester, which is understandable given that the meat of the story and the mystery takes place there. While it seemed to skimp on the detail in other parts, this section of the movie is where it hit its stride.

Understanding that if it ain’t broken you shouldn’t fix it, most of the film maintains Brönte’s beautiful prose. Buffini’s decision making should be applauded here. The prose in “Jane Eyre” is some of the most beautiful writing out there and to see it brought to the screen without being bastardized by a narcissistic script-writer is a thrill in itself.

On the same note, it was great to see the film’s funny-bone kept intact. Because, yes, on top of the mystery and romance and angst, “Jane Eyre” is actually funny.

When Rochester’s ward, Adele, sings an awkwardly adult song in her childhood falsetto, complete with ignorantly seductive hand gestures, Dame Judi Dench’s delightful Fairfax notes how very French the little jailbait’s routine was. The Dame managed to steal every scene her supporting character was in, playing a more maternal Fairfax; not exactly the way Brönte wrote the character, but she was as impressive and endearing as ever.

Speaking of the funny scenes, I wonder, who do I have to hunt down and threaten in the film industry to see Mr. Rochester in drag?

In the novel there’s this wonderfully hysterical, wonderfully Brönte scene where the enigmatic Mr. Rochester is nowhere to be found and his guests are being entertained by a mysterious gypsy woman who refuses to leave until she sees every young lady in the house. If you retrieve your mind from the gutter and remember we’re talking about a period piece, you may recall that Rochester is the one dressed as the gypsy scaring the young women with his fortune telling.

In the 2006 BBC adaptation, this scene is included but eviscerated by the gypsy role being played by a woman hired by Rochester rather than by Toby Stephens. So yet again, my heart was broken when this adaptation failed to take advantage of and share this bonding moment between the two protagonists.

Understanding that a 700-page novel is bound to be trimmed down when transferred to the screen, most of the right scenes were chosen excluding a few notable moments. They weren’t going to be able to add every bit of touching dialogue, every chuckle-worthy vignette or heartbreaking trauma; but they could’ve made me feel a little more for the scenes they did include.

When little Jane was pulled away from her dead friend’s bed, a scene that I should’ve been bawling during, I found myself wondering why I should care. Based on the film, Jane had spent a few close moments chatting with Helen, the little red-headed girl who’d given her bread when she was being punished. There was no real evidence of their friendship, which I’m sure left those who weren’t familiar with the novel confused. Like too much of this film, the motions and the scenes were built and almost executed, but still left me slightly unsure of what I should be feeling.
avatar
Admin
Admin

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

Back to top Go down

Re: Jane Eyre reviews and spoilers 4

Post by Admin on Thu Apr 07, 2011 5:04 pm

http://media.www.capitalchimes.com/media/storage/paper1195/news/2011/04/07/Entertainment/Timeless.Story.Makes.Modern.Movie.Hit-3991436.shtml

Timeless story makes modern movie hit
J.D. Ramage
Issue date: 4/7/11 Section: Entertainment

Sometimes it is okay to judge a book by its cover.

Obviously one cannot do so literally in the case of Jane Eyre, but the hype behind the screen adaptation of the classic novel is indeed well justified.

For months now, the remake of the book by Charlotte Bronte has had its fair share of press.

This resulted in a large speculation as to whether the movie would indeed live up to the expectations of movie buffs and lit critics alike.

To most, it should easily satisfy.

For those not familiar with the work of Bronte, Jane Eyre is the Gothic tale of an orphan girl, Jane Eyre (Mia Wasikowska, Alice and Wonderland), whose young life has been struggles and hardship.

In the midst of finding work, she is sent to serve Edward Rochester (Michael Fassbender, Inglorious Basterds), a high-strung man who owns the Thornfield Hall. After stern encounters and harsh first impressions, Edward and Jane start to form a subtle romance that is unannounced to others at Thornfield.

But as the story progresses, strange occurrences in the Hall, such as a random fire in Edward's bedroom and noises coming from the night, give the impression that something deep and (unknown) is within the manor.

The movie is a great example of adapting an older written text into a modern medium while making sure the story portrays elements that make the book so good. The dim and limited lighting in scenes involving Thornfield Hall give off a bleak, dreadful feel that is signature to Gothic fiction.

Jane goes through many different struggles throughout her life, which gives the profile of a Byronic hero (one who is flawed and jaded, but honest and integral) that is distinct to the genre the book exemplifies.

The movie does a great job telling the story with symbolism, using color palletted wardrobe choices and distinct musical "fills" to tell the story without the use of language.

For some, it may be hard to enter such a movie without knowledge of Bronte's work (let alone any literature from 18th century Europe).

The story itself, however, is timeless and is sure to stimulate audiences across generations.
avatar
Admin
Admin

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

Back to top Go down

Re: Jane Eyre reviews and spoilers 4

Post by Admin on Thu Apr 07, 2011 5:09 pm

http://thevalleyvoice.org/2011/04/06/evening-star-cinema-to-showcase-blue-valentine-and-barneys-version-through-april/30333/

Jane Eyre
Dates to be announced.
Directed by Joji Fukunaga
Starring:

Mia Waskikowska and Michael Fassbender
Trailer

In a bold new feature version of Jane Eyre, director Cary Joji Fukunaga (Sin Nombre) and screenwriter Moira Buffini (Tamara Drewe) infuse a contemporary immediacy into Charlotte Brontë’s timeless, classic story. Mia Wasikowska (Alice in Wonderland) and Michael Fassbender (Inglourious Basterds) star in the iconic lead roles of the romantic drama, the heroine of which continues to inspire new generations of devoted readers and viewers.

In the 19th Century-set story, Jane Eyre(played by Ms. Wasikowska) suddenly flees Thornfield Hall, the vast and isolated estate where she works as a governess for Adèle Varens, a child under the custody of Thornfield’s brooding master, Edward Rochester (Mr. Fassbender). The imposing residence – and Rochester’s own imposing nature – have sorely tested her resilience. With nowhere else to go, she is extended a helping hand by clergyman St. John Rivers (Jamie Bell of Focus Features’ The Eagle) and his family. As she recuperates in the Rivers’ Moor House and looks back upon the tumultuous events that led to her escape, Jane wonders if the past is ever truly past…

Aged 10, the orphaned Jane (played by Amelia Clarkson) is mistreated and then cast out of her childhood home Gateshead by her cruel aunt, Mrs. Reed (Golden Globe Award winner Sally Hawkins). Consigned to the charity school Lowood, Jane encounters further harsh treatment but receives an education and meets Helen Burns (Freya Parks), a poor child who impresses Jane as a soulful and contented person. The two become firm friends. When Helen falls fatally ill, the loss devastates Jane, yet strengthens her resolve to stand up for herself and make the just choices in life.

As a teenager, Jane arrives at Thornfield. She is treated with kindness and respect by housekeeper Mrs. Fairfax (Academy Award winner Judi Dench). Jane’s interest is piqued by Rochester, who engages her in games of wit and storytelling, and divulges to her some of his innermost thoughts. But his dark moods are troubling to Jane, as are strange goings-on in the house – especially the off-limits attic. She dares to intuit a deep connection with Rochester, and she is not wrong; but once she uncovers the terrible secret that he had hoped to hide from her forever, she flees, finding a home with the Rivers family. When St. John Rivers makes Jane a surprising proposal, she realizes that she must return to Thornfield – to secure her own future and finally, to conquer what haunts both her and Rochester
avatar
Admin
Admin

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

Back to top Go down

Re: Jane Eyre reviews and spoilers 4

Post by Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

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

View previous topic View next topic Back to top

- Similar topics

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