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 5

Page 1 of 6 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Jane Eyre reviews and spoilers 5

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

http://spectator.org/archives/2011/04/06/jane-eyre

Jane Eyre

By James Bowman on 4.6.11 @ 6:03AM

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, is well and truly uglied up as Jane's horrid Aunt Reed. This personage is equally awful in the novel, but Lowood School, to which Aunt Reed sends Jane to get rid of her, is not. On the contrary, it is only Mr. Brocklehurst who is the seriously bad guy in the novel. The rest of the staff there, and particularly the head teacher Miss Temple, are much more sympathetic to Jane, and Miss Temple becomes a beloved mentor. Mr. Brocklehurst (Simon McBurney) is a shadowy figure in the film and I thought Miss Temple missing altogether -- as she was in the Robert Stevenson-Orson Welles version of 1943) -- until I saw that she was listed in the cast as having been played by Edwina Elek. Certainly, she was nothing like the Miss Temple of the novel.

My guess is that audiences today prefer the "Dickensian" imagery of unrelieved adult cruelty to children in stories of Victorian scholarship -- perhaps in order to persuade themselves that the permissive approach to education which has superseded it, whatever its shortcomings, must still be superior. We also prefer that religion, which is always in the mouths of the bad people and the justification of the school's tyranny over Jane, should be presented as an unmitigated evil, even though in the novel it is explicitly Christian forbearance and virtue that get Jane through her difficult childhood and youth. But the anti-religious biases of the movie business presumably have less to do with the logic of the cinema than with merely adventitious cultural imperatives. Given the centrality of religious belief both to the novel and to its original audience, its marginalization here cannot be a trivial flaw, even if it is very nearly an inevitable one. Rare, indeed, is it anymore to see a film -- like the truly exceptional Of Gods and Men -- where religion is presented even somewhat sympathetically let alone with genuine understanding.

Thus, too, in Mr. Fukunaga's and Miss Buffini's Jane Eyre, the love for the heroine of the parson and would-be missionary St. John Rivers (Jamie Bell) is not treated with the respect it gets from Miss Brontë. In fact, the novel ends with Jane's solicitude for the long absent and still unmarried St. John whose missionary labors among the heathen in India are likely soon to be the death of him. In the movie, he comes off as being little better than a creep and a stalker, in spite of his kindnesses to Jane. Dame Judi Dench does a characteristically creditable job as Mrs. Fairfax, Mr. Rochester's housekeeper, but the other minor characters, including Bessie (Jayne Wisener), Aunt Reed's sympathetic housemaid, Grace Poole (Rosie Cavaliero), and even Helen Burns (Freya Parks), Jane's poor, doomed school-fellow, a role played by Elizabeth Taylor in the 1943 version, fail to make much of an impression. The nine-year-old version of Jane as played by Amelia Clarkson is good enough that we must regret how little chance she is given to give us the child's perspective on the adult world that has always been such a memorable feature of the novel.

But I would not be like Miss Scatcherd, who is said in the novel to have eyes that gaze on the few spots to be found on "the disc of the clearest planet" and "can only see those minute defects, and are blind to the full brightness of the orb." All this is to qualify the positive impression that the film still contrives to make in spite of its simplifications and its both more and less forced superficiality. In its favor, we must cite the beauty aforementioned and a rather clever use of flashback in telling Jane's story beginning in medias res that is also very cinematic. As the novel's sense of friction between outward appearance and inward reality doesn't really show up on film, the film-makers have substituted for it an implied friction between past and present, between the Victorianism (as we have learned to think of it in a pejorative sense) of Jane's unfortunate and oppressive background and upbringing and the more up-to-date individualism that, in historical fact, actually sprung out of the romantic Victorian world-view but that, a century and three quarters later, we have come to take for granted.

In the novel, when Jane returns to Mr. Rochester it is because the mystical ties of sympathy between them which allows Jane to hear what seems to her his cry for help when she is on the point of accepting St. John's proposal. That would never do for Mr. Fukunaga, who instead has her make up her mind to defy convention and agree (as she thinks) to live as his mistress when she has definitively rejected St. John. Instead of ending with the latter's heroic mission to the "Hindostanee" idol worshippers like the novel, the movie ends with Jane's remarking to Rochester on the dreamlike quality their reunion and his reassuring her: "Awaken, then." Instead of himself coming to see "the hand of God in my doom," as he does in the novel, Rochester now only has eyes, if still vacant ones, for Jane.

Charlotte Brontë herself could hardly deny that the story was essentially the love story of Jane and Rochester, but much of the interest of her novel today lies in the social and economic, moral and intellectual circumstances out of which that story arose and which made it possible. About these things not just this film but all films these days are very nearly clueless. That's what makes me a bit more regretful for what is lost than appreciative of all that is gained from this very beautiful Jane Eyre.
avatar
Admin
Admin

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

Back to top Go down

Re: Jane Eyre reviews and spoilers 5

Post by Admin on Thu Apr 07, 2011 5:13 pm

http://drivein77.typepad.com/drivein77/2011/04/jane-eyre-2011.html

05 April 2011
Jane Eyre (2011)

It's a strong reaction, but a couple reels into the most recent Jane Eyre I hated it. I was squirming in my seat. My wife loves the British costume dramas, so I've seen them all, and even the most mundane of them I can connect with in some way, including other Jane Eyres, but not this one. From the opening "shakey cam" shot of our heroine Jane running down a wooded embankment, I knew it was weird. They strived to create this spooky atmosphere, channeling more Paranormal Activity than classic British literature. I couldn't tell what they were going for and it unsettled me as a viewer.

If you don't know the story, this version will circle around the direct route and leave you wanting for more. If you do know it, it's not as bad, but the odd editorial choices will also leaving you wanting. Too much time is spent on the young Jane and her time at a strict borading school. Two or three scenes max could've allowed for more time to believe in the love story, a love story that is about as thin and believable here as Anakin and Padme in the Star Wars prequels. For a movie centered on a great love, I at no time was convinced these two were "meant to be."

I can't even really imagine why this was released theatrically. There is little about it that elevates it beyond the PBS/Masterpiece Theater level and plenty that sink it lower. You certainly don't get the thorough exploration of the material available in a four or six hour mini series and that might be it's biggest downfall. There are too many holes, odd choices in exposition that present information unconnected to the primary narrative. Essentially, it's a shoddy adaptation.

I almost feel bad that I didn't like this one, but in the end, it lacked entertainment value and while capably performed by the cast, the character development was spotty and the narrative too circular for its own good. If you love this kind of stuff, you'll probably be okay, but if you're looking for a fulfilling indie/arthouse type experience, you're better off seeing something else.

Screened: a crowded Friday night (film)

Director: Cary Fukunaga

Script: Moira Buffini

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

Snacks: Port 'o Subs sandwhich

Grade: C -

Posted by Michael Hawk on 05 April 2011 at 03:01 PM
avatar
Admin
Admin

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

Back to top Go down

Re: Jane Eyre reviews and spoilers 5

Post by Admin on Thu Apr 07, 2011 5:21 pm

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

Thursday, April 7, 2011
Jane Eyre
Jane Eyre is the often filmed enduring classic from Charlotte Bronte, and a work that I have never read nor seen. With that being said, the new film being released this year is a wonderful way to be introduced to the story. The film opens up with Jane (Mia Wasikowska) rushing out of a manor in a fury and journeying across the British moors until she collapses at the door of a tight knit religious family led by Mr. Rivers (Jamie Bell). As she comes to, Jane tells the story of how she was an orphan taken in by her cruel aunt and eventually cast off and sent to a ruthless boarding school. Eventually, she was hired as a governess at the household of the mysterious Edward Rochester (Michael Fassbender) and we gradually learn the story as to why she left his household on that stormy day. Brought to the screen by director Cary Fukunaga, Jane Eyre is a beautiful and affecting adaptation. Like his Sin Nombre which told the story of Honduran migrants making their way to America, this is a starkly shot and boldly beautiful film, filled with lovely imagery. Wasikowska is wonderful as the independent, timid, and headstrong Jane and Fassbender does fine work as Rochester, the older man from a different class who gradually begins to gain affection for his young governess. Judi Dench and Sally Hawkins also contribute nicely in supporting roles. Jane Eyre is a deeply affecting film, the rare kind where you actually feel like yourself standing alongside the characters, experiencing everything that they are, no matter how joyous or painful.
avatar
Admin
Admin

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

Back to top Go down

Re: Jane Eyre reviews and spoilers 5

Post by Admin on Sat Apr 09, 2011 12:33 am

http://www.projo.com/movie_reviews/MV_jane_eyre_04-08-11_3KN8F8T_v11.3ab909a.html

Review: Last half hour of gloomy ‘Jane Eyre’ is worth the wait

01:00 AM EDT on Friday, April 8, 2011

By Michael Janusonis

Journal Arts Writer

Emotions are so internalized in the latest screen version of the Charlotte Bronte classic “Jane Eyre” that when long-unspoken passions are finally let loose in the final half hour of this slow-moving, gloomy two-hour film, it’s startling.

When Edward Rochester (Michael Fassbender), who has hired Jane to be a governess to his young French-speaking ward, confesses his love for her at that point, it seems to have come from almost nowhere. It’s no wonder Jane can’t believe him at first.

“You must be mocking me!” she declares, only soon to fall into a long-overdue passionate embrace.

But anyone familiar with the details of Bronte’s story will know that her passion will be short-lived. For locked upstairs and out of sight for years is … Well, that is the point of Bronte’s strange tale of love and self-sacrifice.

It’s only when Jane gives in to passion that she opens up and manages a smile. Until then Mia Wasikowska, who once was Alice in Wonderland opposite Johnny Depp’s Mad Hatter, plays Jane in her tight little hairdo as though she had just eaten something unpleasant.

At the start of the film, Jane is fleeing Thornfield Hall, Mr. Rochester’s depressing castle-like mansion, running across the windswept and rain-swept moors of northern England and finally finding refuge with a kindly minister (Jamie Bell) and his sisters.

Most of the balance of the story is then told in flashback, from the orphaned Jane’s terrible childhood, where she is routinely beaten at a school for girls that is a Gothic horror, to her present state as a schoolmistress at a school set on a bleak landscape that looks to be in the middle of nowhere, to the reason she was running from Thornfield.

Director Cary Fukunaga began his career as a cinematographer and “Jane Eyre” certainly is moodily atmospheric, although it’s often so dark one wonders how people avoided bumping into each other in the early 19th century. Of course, all that darkness makes one edgy about those loud cries coming from somewhere in the far reaches of Thornfield Hall, giving rise to wonder about the tales of a woman who “walks by night” through the halls and, as one report says, can even walk through walls.

But “Jane Eyre” never quite rises to the occasion of creeping one out. Snoozing one out until its raging final half hour is more like it.

***Jane Eyre

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

Rated: PG-13, contains adult themes.

Running time: 1:55.
avatar
Admin
Admin

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

Back to top Go down

Re: Jane Eyre reviews and spoilers 5

Post by Admin on Sat Apr 09, 2011 12:34 am

http://www.bellinghamherald.com/2011/04/04/1951691/playing-at-the-pickford-new-adaptation.html

POSTED: Friday, Apr. 08, 2011
Playing at the Pickford: Adaptation of 'Jane Eyre' works, but lacks character development
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, generation upon generation of readers have made the same discovery. Without making any provocative new discoveries, the latest film version of the novel, directed by Cary Joji Fukunaga, honors the source material. It’s certainly a start and, if you have the right actors, sometimes it’s enough for a satisfying finish.

We’ll get to what’s missing from this “Jane Eyre” in a minute. Here’s what works, and what makes it worth seeing.
8 jane eyre

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

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

The screenwriter Moira Buffini has restructured Bronte’s narrative so that the story begins near the end, and then flashes back. This works well. What is lacking? I hesitate to use the most hackneyed two words in English, but: character development. The 1944 Robert Stevenson version of “Jane Eyre,” a wild-eyed, visually striking black-and-white affair starring Joan Fontaine (post-”Rebecca”) and Orson Welles (more effective in his uncredited design contributions than in his performance), has many flaws, but its screenplay manages a gradual and convincing coming-together of the main characters.

This latest version radically condenses the process. Here, it’s one scene and bam: love, hard and fast. Bronte wrote of the “cord of communion” between Jane and Rochester, pulling them toward one another almost against their will. The movie gives that cord a strong yank early on — too strong, I think.

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

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

‘JANE EYRE’

Director: Cary Joji Fukunaga

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

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

Length: 120 minutes

Playing: Pickford

Fri, April 8: (3:40), 6:20, 8:55

Sat: (1:00), 3:40, 6:20, 8:55

Sun: (11:30 AM), (1:10), 3:50, 6:30

Mon - Thu: (3:40), 6:20, 8:55
avatar
Admin
Admin

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

Back to top Go down

Re: Jane Eyre reviews and spoilers 5

Post by Admin on Sat Apr 09, 2011 12:35 am

http://www.jconline.com/article/20110408/ENT05/104080324/New-version-Jane-Eyre-decent-unnecessary?odyssey=mod|newswell|text|FRONTPAGE|s

New version of 'Jane Eyre' decent, but unnecessary
Apr 8, 2011 |

Written by
BOB BLOOM

JANE EYRE

2 stars out of 4

(PG-13), adult theme, nude image, brief violence

Now playing at Landmark Keystone Arts in Indianapolis

The debate about "Jane Eyre" is not whether it is a good or a bad movie.

The question is why make still another version of the oft-filmed Charlotte Bronte classic?

The latest version, directed by "Sin Nombre's" Cary Fukunaga, is a solid, craftsman-like production.

It offers technically fine performances by Mia Wasikowska as Jane and Michael Fassbender as Edward Rochester.

But the movie, while basically true to the novel, is too low-key and distant. It lacks the larger-than-life emotional grandeur that the gothic romance is supposed to elicit.

This version of "Jane Eyre" is as cold, dreary and austere as the barren English countryside in which most of it takes place.

To be clear, this is a well-crafted movie, with fine production design that captures the isolation -- physical and spiritual -- of its heroine.

And the script singularly defines the class distinctions and mores of the period.

Yet, overall the film lacks spark.

Possibly it is because the two leads are as tightly bound as their period costumes.

Wasikowska shows a quiet strength, resolve and self-assurance as Jane, who has lived most of her life by her own wits after being discarded by her family.

She strictly adheres to her convictions and knows her place in the world.

Wasikowska is the best reason to see the film. Her interpretation of Jane is striking.

Fassbender underplays the torment and anguish that grips Rochester.

"Jane Eyre" minimizes its emotional impact. The film plays as a finely produced "Masterpiece Theater" version of the novel.

But for the big screen, it requires more fire, more passion.

At best, "Jane Eyre" can be categorized as solid, which is unfortunate, because it could have been so much more.
avatar
Admin
Admin

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

Back to top Go down

Re: Jane Eyre reviews and spoilers 5

Post by Admin on Sat Apr 09, 2011 12:36 am

http://www.timesleader.com/entertainment/The_latest_film_version_of_Charlotte_Bro_04-07-2011.html

Posted: April 8
Updated: Today at 3:49 PM
"Jane Eyre" lacks in-depth characters

MICHAEL PHILLIPS Chicago Tribune

The latest film version of Charlotte Bronte’s 19th-century novel is pretty, moody, well-acted and faithful to the source.
review

What: “Jane Eyre”

Starring: Mia Wasikowska, Michael Fassbender, Judi Dench, Jamie Bell, Imogen Poots, Amelia Clarkson, Sally Hawkins

Directed by: Cary Joji Fukunaga

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

Running time: 120 minutes

Here’s what works:

For starters, Mia Wasikowska. If the actress playing Jane Eyre begs for our sympathy in any direct fashion, the story dies faster than you can say “Helen Burns.” Bronte’s Jane is bullied, beaten, humiliated and marginalized by her guardians, schoolmasters and the wider world. Then she arrives at Thornfield Hall and her destiny.

Michael Fassbender’s Edward Rochester has dash, spirit and a sense of humor about his 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’s a crisp highlight.

Screenwriter Moira Buffini has restructured Bronte’s narrative so the story begins near the end, then flashes back. This works.

What’s lacking? I hesitate to use the most hackneyed two words in English, but character development. Robert Stevenson’s 1944 “Jane Eyre” has many flaws, but its screenplay manages a gradual and convincing coming-together of the main characters. This version radically condenses the process. 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. This gives that cord too strong a yank early on.

Director Cary Joji Fukunaga also veers 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.

But to no one’s surprise, the story still works like Gothic gangbusters, thanks in part to backcourt support from Judi Dench (Mrs. Fairfax) and Sally Hawkins (Jane’s venal guardian). At their best, 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 5

Post by Admin on Sat Apr 09, 2011 12:36 am

http://newsok.com/jane-eyre-gets-brisk-unconventional-look/article/3556290

Much-filmed ‘Jane Eyre’ gets brisk, unconventional retelling

By radically shuffling the chronology of “Jane Eyre” and approaching the story with fresh eyes, up-and-coming director Cary Fukunaga creates a new look at an old tale.

Oklahoman
Published: April 8, 2011

Any filmgoer looking askance at yet another adaptation of Charlotte Bronte’s often-filmed 1847 novel “Jane Eyre” can rest assured that the new one by up-and-coming director Cary Fukunaga is a smart, worthy addition to the book’s burgeoning, multimedia canon.

Michael Fassbender and Mia Wasikowska share an intimate scene in “Jane Eyre.” FOCUS FEATURES PHOTO

MOVIE REVIEW

“Jane Eyre”
• PG-131:553 stars

• Starring: Mia Wasikowska, Michael Fassbender, Jamie Bell, Judi Dench.

• Some thematic elements including a nude image and brief violent content.

Since 1910, Bronte’s sprawling, multithemed, five-stage tome has spawned 18 film versions, at least 10 TV adaptations, a radio drama, a two-act ballet, a stage musical, an opera, a symphonic interpretation, a graphic novel, numerous literary spinoffs, prequels and sequels and more.

So what’s new to glean from this heavily worked literary artifact whose 38 chapters are chockablock with florid motifs and allusions (from romanticism to Gothic horror; from the Byronic hero to the madwoman in the attic) and whose five sections range through hefty matters of morality and religion, social class and gender relations, love and passion, independence and the search for home and family, as well as atonement and forgiveness?

In the fairly flinty but lovely performance by Mia Wasikowska (“Alice in Wonderland”) as Jane, in the cannily configured script by British playwright Moira Buffini (“Tamara Drewe”) and in the bold, richly visual direction of Fukunaga this film seems surprisingly fresh, more tough-minded and less melodramatic than previous versions.

Fukunaga, a film phenom who earned a Student Oscar at the University of California Santa Cruz and launched his career strongly with the tough immigrant thriller “Sin Nombre,” seems an odd choice to helm this elaborate period piece. But it seems his fresh eyes and contemporary sensibilities serve the material well.

Unlike previous versions (notably the 1944 Orson Welles-Joan Fontaine film and the lush 1996 Franco Zeffereli picture), this film radically shuffles the story’s chronology and opens with a nifty framing device before condensing Jane’s cruel Victorian childhood into concise flashbacks.

The movie opens with Jane fleeing Thornfield Hall and Rochester’s dire secret.

There are scenes of the spirited young Jane (Amelia Clarkson) being brutally mistreated by her hateful aunt (Sally Hawkins) and priggish cousins. There’s Jane being shipped off to the parochial Lowood charity school where she suffers the brimstone abuses of the zealous headmaster (Simon McBurney) and sees her gentle best friend (Fraya Parks) die of consumption.

There’s a grown Jane who survives the rigors of Lowood, emerges as a beloved teacher and accepts a position at Thornfield Hall as tutor to the young French ward of the brooding Edward Rochester (Michael Fassbender, too handsome by half).

Judi Dench lends dramatic heft here as the kindly housekeeper Mrs. Fairfax.

The rest of the story unfolds in familiar fashion, with some spooky, well-placed shocks and a proper but perhaps too-slow developing ardor between Jane, all demure and noble, and Rochester, tortured and temperamental.

But that slow-burning chemistry between Wasikowska and Fassbender does eventually ignite, and its compelling glow finally manages to assure this stylish and impressive translation of Bronte’s classic.

— Dennis King
avatar
Admin
Admin

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

Back to top Go down

Re: Jane Eyre reviews and spoilers 5

Post by Admin on Sat Apr 09, 2011 12:37 am

http://www.timesunion.com/default/article/Melodrama-of-Jane-Eyre-too-mellow-1327381.php

Melodrama of 'Jane Eyre' too mellow
By Mick LaSalle Hearst Newspapers
Published 12:01 a.m., Friday, April 8, 2011

Sometimes when you look at a cat, it will seem like it's observing you with a penetrating and eerie comprehension. But then the cat looks away, and you realize that the cat doesn't possess some uncanny understanding, that the cat is simply a cat, and that's just what cats look like.

Mia Wasikowska's performance in the title role in "Jane Eyre" is a little like that.

She has a piercing, all-seeing look that seems to suggest a whole moral universe, a lifetime of deprivation and loss, spent at the mercy of people at their most vicious and perverse. But when she turns away, the spell breaks; and in emotional moments ... she's good, she's perfectly acceptable, but there's an extra something, a depth of soul or an understanding that's lacking.

In a similar way, this latest adaptation of the Charlotte Bronte novel is careful, respectful and even enjoyable, and yet dry, singularly humorless and played without the lavishness of spirit that makes sense of Gothic melodrama. The essence of the Gothic, after all, is in its suggestion of the nightmare, the primitive and the Id, and of pent up, bottled-up sexuality. These are hinted at in architecture but usually expressed more fully and dramatically by the sky and the elements.

The Gothic suggests the hugeness of life being squashed, compressed and corseted into something too small, and so we wait and look for signs of the ultimate explosion. Yet without that suggestion, that underlying enormousness, we're left with the miniature and melancholic, with incidents in the life of young, perceptive girl who just can't seem to catch a break.

Jane grows up as an unwanted orphan and is educated at a sadistic boarding school, before arriving at the grand house of Mr. Rochester (Michael Fassbender), to work as the governess to his young ward. Rochester sees something in Jane. Moreover, he sees that she sees him, that she's smart and honest enough to engage with him as an equal. So he is intrigued. Still, the film conveys little sense of a spiritual connection being forged through their conversations.

Moreover, director Cary Fukunaga loses some possibilities for drama by playing down the distance and imbalance inherent in the master/servant relationship. He also makes Rochester's choice too easy. In this version, Jane is rather attractive, and the fiancee has middling looks and a repellent personality. By contrast -- for example, in Franco Zeffirelli's 1996 version -- the fiancee was a reasonably appealing woman played by Elle Macpherson, the swimsuit model, while Charlotte Gainsbourg was made to look quite plain as Jane. Yet so meticulously had Zeffirelli made us understand Rochester and Jane's soul connection that Macpherson's beauty seemed pedestrian and Gainsbourg's plainness became beautiful.

Anyway, it's a good story. Fassbender, who played the dapper English spy in "Inglourious Basterds," is an attractive and plausible Rochester, and Judi Dench is a welcome presence as Mrs. Fairfax, the housekeeper. "Jane Eyre" has endured and maintained its appeal for over 150 years, because it's a durable piece. Even when only half-realized, it has an impact.

Movie review

"Jane Eyre"

Rated: PG-13 for adult conversations and disturbing scenes

Length: 115 minutes
avatar
Admin
Admin

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

Back to top Go down

Re: Jane Eyre reviews and spoilers 5

Post by Admin on Sat Apr 09, 2011 12:53 am

http://cine-fille.com/2011/04/08/review-jane-eyre-2011/

Review: Jane Eyre (2011)
Posted on April 8, 2011 by Joanna Arcieri

It is safe to say that I have seen more adaptations of Charlotte Brontë’s Jane Eyre than any other novel. Time and time again I am drawn to this story about an orphaned girl who is cast aside by society but eventually finds solace in her life. Whether it is the 1944 classic Hollywood version starring Joan Fontaine and Orson Welles or the 2006 BBC miniseries, Jane Eyre is that one story I am genuinely interested in no matter what graces the screen.

This adaptation, directed by Cary Fukunaga, is perhaps my favorite. It is an effortlessly fresh and moving take on the 19th-century Gothic novel. There is also a suprisingly modern feel to this Jane Eyre that felt everywhere from the sweeping shots to the dark undertones (Thornfield has so many secrets) and to the fiery love story ultimately unfolds.

Jane’s early life is told through flashbacks. Mrs. Reed (Sally Hawkins), her aunt through marriage and guardian, physically and emotionally abuses young Jane (played by Amelia Clarkson). Mrs. Reed sends Jane off to Lowood, a school where religious tyranny dictates the lives of its young pupils. Eventually the adult Jane, seeking her independence, finds employment as a governess at the isolated Thornfield Hall. There she meets Mr. Rochester and her life goes down an unexpected path.

A character as recognizable as Jane Eyre relies so much on the actress portraying her. It is what will determine how a version lingers overtime. In this adaptation the virtuosity of Jane Eyre comes from the performance of Mia Wasikowska as the title character. In the last year, the 20-year-old Australian actress has crafted a unique presence in Hollywood as Alice in Alice in Wonderland and Joni in The Kids Are All Right. She is the young actress of the moment. In Jane Eyre, Wasikowska shows her considerable range and her ability to carry a film.

The tenacity of Wasikowska’s performance, demonstrated above, dominates Jane Eyre. Rarely absent from a single shot, Wasikowska routinely outshines her costars (even Judi Dench in an enjoyable turn as Thornfield’s housekeeper Mrs. Fairfax).

Edward Rochester is portrayed by Michael Fassbender. His Rochester is rigid, menacing and borders on being completely unlikeable. His life is dictated by the secrets about his past and about Thornfield that he struggles keeps. But like Jane, we end up falling for Rochester too.

Jane Eyre demonstrates that this story about morality, religion, gender and class relations, independence, and passion has a timeless quality. It should hold up until the next adaptation comes along sometime next decade.
avatar
Admin
Admin

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

Back to top Go down

Re: Jane Eyre reviews and spoilers 5

Post by Admin on Sat Apr 09, 2011 12:54 am

http://www.thefilmyap.com/2011/04/08/jane-eyre/

Rating: 3.5 of 5 yaps
Jane Eyre

By Austin Lugar » Posted Apr 8, 2011

All of the classic novels have a movie version that people garner toward. The Colin Firth version satisfies the “Pride and Prejudice” Austen-ians; the “Hamlet” fans typically split on the Olivier or the Branagh films. With “Jane Eyre,” there never has been any enthusiasm over any of the versions, and this new adaptation probably won’t be the one to claim the most fans.

Some aspects are dead-on. Mia Wasikowska (“In Treatment,” “The Kids Are All Right”) is a dead ringer for the troubled Miss Eyre. Michael Fassbender brings his natural intensity to the rough Mr. Rochester. The rest of the cast includes great stars like Judi Dench, Jamie Bell and Sally Hawkins.

The film looks great. Director Cary Fukunaga made his mark on the film world with the very good “Sin Nombre” and he continues to skillfully and intriguingly place his characters in landscapes where they aren’t comfortable. Thornfield looks fantastic, especially when Fukunaga moves the camera as if it is always peering around the corner.

There is just something emotionally missing from this film. The early trials of Jane’s childhood work really well, and its conclusion feels satisfying. The adaptation of the middle remains troubling. After such a scarring and loveless childhood, Jane becomes very closed-off. She keeps to herself, but there is something about her that has characters remark on her soul. Wasikowska knows how to play on the subtlety of the character, but the film doesn’t challenge the audience enough to attempt to figure out Miss Eyre’s mind. This works during the grand conversations between Jane and Rochester because her word choices give clues about what is underneath the surface. Between that dialogue is something missing that could be accomplished with narration.

That restraint, be it accidental in some parts, is effective with the central romance. Having dramatic crane shots or deafening music would cheapen the relationship between the two characters. Their love is not a universal story. The reason this novel is so read (and adapted) is because these two characters are so well understood. They are apathetic and cruel at times, but also longing and affectionate. Nobody wants to be Jane Eyre or Rochester, but we want to know more about them and we want them to succeed. This film pulls that off … to a point.
avatar
Admin
Admin

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

Back to top Go down

Re: Jane Eyre reviews and spoilers 5

Post by Admin on Sat Apr 09, 2011 12:55 am

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

Friday, April 8, 2011
Jane Eyre (2011)

British, Period 4.5 stars Excellent movie. Too bad I never read the book, so I can’t compare. Poor Jane Eyre is almost the original Cinderella with her sad upbringing and station in life until she meets the dashing, but bittersweet Mr. Rochester. At times almost scary, certainly eerie, this version certainly beats those old, dusty PBS numbers. I’ve become a fan of the very talented star Mia Wasikowska after her turns in The Kids Are All Right, the star of Alice and Wonderland as well as her notable role in I Am Love. Michael Fassbender was perfect as the strange and mysterious Mr. Rochester. Excellent film.

Posted by Mary at 12:40 PM
avatar
Admin
Admin

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

Back to top Go down

Re: Jane Eyre reviews and spoilers 5

Post by Admin on Sat Apr 09, 2011 1:01 am

http://marissabidilla.blogspot.com/2011/04/highly-anticipated-movie-reviews-jane.html

Thursday, April 7, 2011
Highly-Anticipated Movie Reviews: "Jane Eyre"
The latest in an occasional series comparing my pre-viewing excitement with post-viewing reality...

Title of movie: Jane Eyre

Reasons for anticipation: Charlotte Brontë's novel is one of my most cherished books. I have a celebrity crush on Michael Fassbender. I love most of what Focus Features puts out. Win-win-win!

Possible reason for trepidation: Film adaptations of classic novels have their own pitfalls.

Verdict: It's undoubtedly a well-made film, but (as I feared) I seem incapable of really enjoying adaptations of my favorite books.

Elaboration: Well, maybe I shouldn't have reread Jane Eyre and had it fresh in my mind before seeing the movie. When you're familiar with the original novel, any change that the movie makes -- even if it was a good change -- will take you out of the film.

For instance, the hardest element of the story for a 21st-century audience to accept is the astounding coincidence that the Rivers siblings are Jane's long-lost cousins. So it is probably wise that the film eliminates this; Jane shares her inheritance with the Riverses because she is grateful for their kindness, not because they are related. All the same, this took me out of the film, as I started analyzing the implications of the filmmakers' choice ("Oh, so they're not cousins? Good, that's probably for the best"), rather than staying absorbed in the work of art.

Or, at the end of the film, Rochester loses his eyesight, but not his arm. Objectively speaking, there's no real reason to get outraged about this change -- but when Rochester appeared onscreen in the final scene, all I could think was "What? He's got both hands?!"

Some of the problems I had with the narrative of the Jane Eyre movie can be attributed to the challenges of adapting a long Victorian novel to a feature-length film. For instance, it eliminates the "Grace Poole" subplot (where Jane is misled into thinking that the mysterious goings-on at Thornfield Hall have something to do with the middle-aged servant Grace). A viewer who is unfamiliar with the original novel might be somewhat confused by this elision.

But what surprised me the most about this movie version is how understated it felt. I read an interview where the screenwriter, Moira Buffini, talks about how she sees the story as a "gothic thriller" -- well, then, why get rid of the scene where Bertha Rochester breaks into Jane's room, on the eve of her wedding, and rips her bridal veil in two? Think how cinematic that would be!

Sometimes the understatement was good -- the dark, candlelit cinematography gives you some idea of how it would really feel to live in 1830s England. But very often, the movie is so restrained that it undercuts the drama. Toward the end of the story, St. John pressures Jane to marry him and go to India, and she is on the point of accepting when she (supernaturally) hears Rochester's voice calling her. In the novel, this is a powerful scene, taking place in a dim room, just before sunrise; you feel Jane's anguish, followed by a sense of relief when the disembodied voice rescues her in the nick of time. In the movie, this scene takes place outdoors on a sunny afternoon, and Jane never seems to be in any real danger of succumbing to St. John. And the final scene is surprisingly low-key; Jane and Rochester reunite, but it's muted, tentative. The film doesn't find an analogue for the book's triumphant "Reader, I married him."

Indeed, one further difficulty with Jane Eyre is that the novel is narrated in the first person by a strong, assertive voice. Everyone knows that a movie adaptation of Huckleberry Finn or The Catcher in the Rye would be terrible because it could never capture Huck's or Holden's voice, and I honestly think that Jane Eyre should be put in that category of novels. The movie doesn't use any voice-over narration, which, again, is probably a good choice -- but it means that the Jane of the movie can never be the Jane of the book.

Despite the fact that this adaptation does not allow us to live inside of Jane's head, I liked Mia Wasikowska's performance in the title role. Perhaps there are moments, by firelight, where she looks too beautiful for the part -- but then, firelight is universally flattering, and very few truly plain women are famous actresses by the time they are 20 years old. And I developed an admiration for Wasikowska when I learned that she read Jane Eyre without knowing that a film was in development, realized that Jane would be a great role for her, and lobbied to play it. I feel like many other young actresses cultivate a sexy, glamorous image and would be reluctant to play a plain heroine like Jane. Wasikowska is serious about her craft, which maybe explains her affinity with her serious, observant character.

I think the parts of the novel that people tend to recall most fondly are the scenes between Jane and Mr. Rochester at Thornfield Hall. This relationship is the heart of the new movie adaptation, too, and come off well in it. Michael Fassbender is an attractive (everyone in the movie theater laughed at the "Jane, do you think me handsome?" "No, sir" exchange), intelligent, and mercurial Rochester. So there are interesting and well-acted scenes here, but I wish the movie had been advertised as what it is -- a character-based romantic drama -- and not as a gothic thriller. Overall, it's a respectable, respectful, low-key attempt to make a movie out of an overstuffed, uncategorizable, fiery book.

Nerdy people who love the book and make similar arguments to me:
"Jane Eyre: Does It Totally Suck? An Argument," Dan Kois and Claire Jarvis, The Awl
"Jane Eyre's Failure to Adapt to the Screen," Chloe Schama and Hillary Kelly, the New Republic
"Tame Jane," Robert Gottlieb, the New York Review of Books blog
"On taking too many liberties with Jane Eyre (and too few with Michael Fassbender)," Sheila O'Malley, Capital New York
Posted by Marissa at 10:54 PM
avatar
Admin
Admin

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

Back to top Go down

Re: Jane Eyre reviews and spoilers 5

Post by Admin on Sat Apr 09, 2011 1:02 am

http://www.theolympian.com/2011/04/08/1608704/worthy-jane-eyre.html

Worthy 'Jane Eyre'
Spirited interpretation: Mia Wasikowska brings strong performance to oft-told tale

ROGER MOORE; The Orlando Sentinel | • Published April 08, 2011

A solitary figure, clad in gray, runs, stumbles and weeps across a rainswept moor. Yes, it's "Jane Eyre" time again. One of the most frequently adapted period pieces from the golden age of the corset is back, with Mia "Alice in Wonderland" Wasikowska in the title role.

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

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

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

Michael Fassbender makes for a handsome Rochester who lets us see that his aloof, icy manners (lack of manners) are the product of something in his past.

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

This “Jane Eyre” has a problem most “Jane Eyres” have: Why is she so drawn to this ill-tempered, rude and cruel boor? Every version I can recall seeing has this difficulty. In Charlotte Bronte’s time, the fact that he was handsome and rich was perhaps enough to answer that question. But today, with a Jane willing to speak her mind, we want more – compassion, heat, pity and desperation.

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

It’s a lovely looking film, period perfect in manner, look and speech. And Wasikowska makes a marvelously plain “Jane.”

However Fukunaga went from Latino migration thriller to this job, he does well by “Jane Eyre” – making the most of the limited action and capitalizing on the inherent spookiness of the tale. Pretty as a postcard, it reminds us that women other than Jane Austen wrote timeless, rich tales of romance in an age when women were little more than property.

JANE EYRE

***1/2 *

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

Director: Cary Joji Fukunaga

Running time: 1:55

Rated: PG-13; thematic elements including a nude image, brief violent content
avatar
Admin
Admin

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

Back to top Go down

Re: Jane Eyre reviews and spoilers 5

Post by Admin on Sat Apr 09, 2011 1:03 am

http://blog.timesunion.com/movies/opening-this-week-arthur-russell-brand-hanna-jane-eyre-soul-surfer-your-highness-james-franco/1115/

Movies opening this week
April 8, 2011 at 7:00 am by C.J. Lais, Times Union

Jane Eyre: Last year, Mia Wasikowska spent time down the rabbit hole in “Alice in Wonderland.” Now she takes on another iconic role of British literature, Charlotte Bronte’s lovestruck governess. Who’s next, Agatha Christie’s Miss Marple? (Oh wait, Jennifer Garner just inexplicably landed that gig in the just-announced rebooting and de-aging of the spinster sleuth.)

Meanwhile, on-the-brink-of-stardom Michael Fassbender taps into his German-Irish heritage to summon the proper moodiness for Mr. Rochester. Fassbender, so magnetic in “Inglourious Basterds,” next takes on Magneto in “X-Men: First Class,” followed by Carl Jung in ‘A Dangerous Method” and someone of Arthurian legend in Guy Ritchie’s “Excalibur.”
avatar
Admin
Admin

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

Back to top Go down

Re: Jane Eyre reviews and spoilers 5

Post by Admin on Sat Apr 09, 2011 1:04 am

http://crimespree.blogspot.com/2011/04/film-review-jane-eyre.html

4/08/2011
Film Review: JANE EYRE
Directed by Cary Joji Fukunaga
Written by Moira Buffini, based on the novel by Charlotte Bronte
Starring: Mia Wasikowski, Michael Fassbender, Jamie Bell, Sally Hawkins, Judi Dench

Release date: March 11, 2011

This is my favorite version of JANE EYRE. I might as well say that at the outset. It’s also a favorite novel of mine. Not always. As a college freshman, I thought it absurd. Coming on it as I did in the late sixties, it lacked the sparseness that appealed to me at that age. I saw little difference between JANE EYRE and VALLEY OF THE DOLLS.

Twenty years on, I could appreciate it for its portrayal of nineteenth century England’s societal ills and its love story made sense within that framework.

Last week I criticized THE ADJUSTMENT BUREAU for being too much a love story embedded as it was in science fiction trappings. The romance submerged the more interesting idea for me.

But JANE EYRE was written as a romance and the impediments put between Jane and Rochester were part of a tradition in such novels.

PLOT: Is there anyone who does not know it? Briefly, Jane (Wasikowski) is an orphan, a plain girl who’s had a Dickensian childhood at the hands of her hateful aunt. But through pluck and intelligence, she survives the boarding school she’s sent off to and becomes an educated woman. She takes a position as a governess in the home of Mr. Rochester (Fassbender), educating his “ward.” Thornhill is a dark and gloomy place that only comes to life when Mr. Rochester comes home on a visit. He is a frightening man at first but romance wins out—almost. But Jane must come to terms with the secrets of Thornhill to find love.

A Japanese director seems especially appropriate for a book that Japanese children read to learn English. When we were fortunate enough to visit the Bronte home in northern England, all the signage was in English and Japanese.

And perhaps repression is familiar to the Japanese people too. JANE is about repression and, finally, its unleashing. I am sure Bronte was familiar with repression, being the daughter of a clergyman and living in the place she did.

The acting in this film is superb; the leads perfectly cast. Previous films have used actresses far too old to play Jane Eyre. She is nineteen after all. Some have criticized the film’s unrelentingly dark look. But that’s entirely in keeping with the book. This is not the Bennett family. This is not Jane Austen. Highly recommended.

Patti
avatar
Admin
Admin

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

Back to top Go down

Re: Jane Eyre reviews and spoilers 5

Post by Admin on Sat Apr 09, 2011 1:05 am

http://blog.flameintheshadows.com/?p=130

Review: Jane Eyre
Posted on April 8, 2011 by Kerry

FYI: This review may contain spoilers.

We each have our own set of baggage; prejudices, experiences and quirks of our personality that shape how we perceive things. This having been said, I must confess that I loathe Charlotte Bronte’s novel, Jane Eyre. I am talking an epic level of hatred that I feel toward few works of literature. I have been known to hurl a copy of it across the room when I reached its famous line, “Reader, I married him.” It is not that I don’t believe it is an exceptional work. On the contrary, I appreciate the genius of the subtlety with which Bronte develops Jane’s character; how her treatment by her Aunt Reed develops her stern resolve, how her friendship with Helen Burns nurtures her more thoughtful maturity, and how her relationship with St. John Rivers provides a foil to that with Rochester and informs her understanding of what she must do.

That all of this is done in conjunction with a thoroughly engaging plot is remarkable, I wholeheartedly concede. But for me, it falls short as a romance. The quality which most people associate with the novel I find dissatisfying. Bronte fails to convince me that this is a man Jane would want to be with, from whom it would torture her to be separated. I desperately want to love this story, to want them to be together. I just can’t bring myself to do it. It is with this bias that I approach any film adaptation of Jane Eyre.

In Jane Eyre, Mia Wasikowska, as the titular character, is an orphan left in the care of an indifferent relative and then dumped in a charitable school, finds employment as a governess to a young girl in a wealthy but isolated household. There she meets the master of the house, Edward Rochester (Michael Fassbender), a moody individual who gives Jane far more attention that she is accustomed to, particularly from a man. As the bond between the two grows stronger, the secrets in Rochester’s past threaten any chance they may have for happiness.

In a recent article from the New York Times, the director, Cary Fukunaga joked that “there was an unwritten law requiring that ‘Jane Eyre’ be remade every five years.” She’s really not exaggerating. Going back as early as 1915, there have been nearly fifty versions of the film made in different countries and with varying degrees of popularity. Setting aside the question of why you would even bother making yet another version, the important question is how do you make your version different; what can you add to distinguish yourself from all the others; what can you contribute to this dialogue between the novel and its various adaptations? Fukunaga and screenwriter Moira Buffini separate themselves in a number of ways.

First, the film starts backwards and begins with Jane’s flight from Thornfield Hall and her life with the Rivers. This decision was genius. It gives attention to latter episodes of the novel, which are often overlooked, and breaking up the tradition linear narrative adds a refreshing perspective to the story. Another feature that this version addresses is Jane’s sexuality. Obviously this is something that all versions have confronted to lesser and greater degrees, but the way in which it is depicted here made me think of Jane in a way that I really hadn’t previously. Mrs. Fairfax (Judi Dench) at one point says Jane is “so little experienced with men,” a line directly from the novel. Apart from the doctor and Mr. Brockelhurst, she would have had little or no contact with men, a fact that the film takes great pains to highlight.

So does this film ultimately work for the professed Jane Eyre hater? Absolutely. Wasikowska thoroughly embodies Jane’s plainness and passion, and her expressions convey the greatest depth with the littlest gesture. Fassbender’s Rochester, thanks to some careful editing of the character by Buffini, is flawed but not cruel, and the film provides what the novel has always denied—scenes of a happy courtship between the two. In what film scholar Jeannie Bassinger calls the “bliss montage” in her book A Woman’s View: How Hollywood Spoke to Women, we are given a glimpse of joy before their world comes crashing down around them. With evocative cinematography of the desolate and windswept Derbyshire landscape and Dario Marianelli’s soul-achingly beautiful score, each element of the production carefully builds upon the characters’ emotional journey.

My eternal gratitude goes out to everyone who participated in the making of this film for finally delivering a version of this story that I can love.
avatar
Admin
Admin

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

Back to top Go down

Re: Jane Eyre reviews and spoilers 5

Post by Admin on Sat Apr 09, 2011 1:08 am

http://mitchonmovies.blogspot.com/2011/04/in-theatres-now_08.html

"Jane Eyre" 3 / 4 stars - The classic story is told again, and this time Mia Wasikowska ("The Kids Are All Right") skillfully plays the lead, and Michael Fassbender ("X-Men: First Class") co-stars. Top-not performances, spot-on costumes and beautiful cinematography are all present, but the film is hindered by a very slow pace in its first half.
avatar
Admin
Admin

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

Back to top Go down

Re: Jane Eyre reviews and spoilers 5

Post by Admin on Sat Apr 09, 2011 1:10 am

http://www.shefinds.com/2011/freebie-friday-win-a-50-movie-theater-gift-card/

Freebie Friday: Win a $50 Movie Theater Gift Card

Not sure what to do this weekend? Why not head to the theater to check out the newest take on Charlotte Bronte’s classic novel, “Jane Eyre” from acclaimed director Cary Fukunaga (“Sin Nombre”). Starring Mia Wasikowska (Alice in “Alice in Wonderland”) and cutie Michael Fassbender from “Inglorious Basterds,” this romantic drama set in mid-1800s England is the perfect movie to watch with your sweetheart.

Focus Features is partnering with SHEfinds to provide one lucky reader with a $50 gift card eligible for your local film haunt, plus a soundtrack sampler from the movie. Not only that, but the prize pack includes something all fashionable book worms will appreciate: a sleek bookmark, journal and pencil.

Check out the trailer below for a sneak peak:

For your shot at the prize, sign up for the SHEfinds newsletter, then comment on the trailer below. Tell us your favorite part of the trailer and the best response will win the prize. Fans can also learn more about the film on Facebook.

Rules:
1. You must be a subscriber to our newsletter to be eligible. Sign up here if you haven’t already done so.
2. To enter, all you have to do is comment below about which is your favorite part of the trailer.
3. You must supply us with a valid email address.
4. The contest starts now and entries must be date stamped by our server no later than Friday, April 15, 2011 at 11:59 AM Eastern Time to be eligible.
5. One winner will be selected during a random drawing and will be notified via e-mail and must respond as instructed to receive the prize.
6. No prize substitutions.
7. You must be 18 years old or older and a resident of the US to enter. Entries from the state of Florida are void.
8. No purchase necessary.
9. Void where prohibited.
10. Click here to see the full rules.
avatar
Admin
Admin

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

Back to top Go down

Re: Jane Eyre reviews and spoilers 5

Post by Admin on Sat Apr 09, 2011 1:19 am

http://warrencentral.highschoolmedia.org/?p=1624

Jane Eyre
Submitted by admin on April 7, 2011 – 1:26 pm

The newest adaption of Charlotte Brontë’s classic novel “Jane Eyre,” starring Mia Wasikowska (“Alice in Wonderland,” “The Kids Are All Right”) and Michael Fassbender (“300,” “Inglorious Bastards”), is a fantastic interpretation about the life of the movie’s namesake.

Unlike the book it is based on, the movie opens with Jane Eyre frantically running away from a building, crying and looking back as she goes. After this long, running sequence, the story is told through a series of flashbacks until the flashbacks finally meet up with Jane’s current position.

The story of “Jane Eyre” is essentially a gothic love story. Set in England, Jane grows up under a strict and unloving aunt until she is sent away to school. After she receives her education, Jane, small and plain, sets out to become the governess of a young French girl, Adele, who is under the guardianship of the wealthy Edward Fairfax Rochester.

When Jane arrives, strange things begin to happen. She hears laughter in the halls at night, a fire is set in Mr. Rochester’s room and his friend is mysteriously attacked, though Rochester is reluctant to tell Jane why and how all this occurred. However, Jane quickly falls in love with Rochester, and he with her. Yet, events from his past keep them from being together and force Jane to run away.

The story provides moviegoers two hours of suspense and a renewed, or newfound, love for this classic. Wasikowska and Fassbender portray their parts masterfully and do justice to their characters, while still adding their own personal touches.

The movie as a whole also did a good job keeping to the book’s plot. Besides the flashback take on the story, there were a few scenes and details that were cut from the film, most likely for timing purposes. Still, even with these cuts, the film did not lose any of the book’s original plot, appeal or emotions.

There have been over 20 movie adaptations of the story of “Jane Eyre,” starting from 1915 with silent films. Multiple prequels, sequels, spin-offs, re-workings and even musicals have been made to correspond with the story. The fact is, people love “Jane Eyre,” and this version is one of the top three. For love story fanatics, classic novel junkies and practically all moviegoers alike, this is a beautiful film that is worth seeing.
avatar
Admin
Admin

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

Back to top Go down

Re: Jane Eyre reviews and spoilers 5

Post by Admin on Sat Apr 09, 2011 2:49 pm

http://janitesonthejames.blogspot.com/2011/04/jane-eyre-2011-review-by-two.html

Saturday, April 9
Jane Eyre 2011: A Review by Two
Inquiring readers, Jean from Delightful Repast and I exchanged our thoughts about the new Jane Eyre film adaptation. I thought you might be interested in our discussion, which began with Jean's question about what I thought of the film.

Jean, rarely do I see a film on opening day, but I rushed to see Jane Eyre. Others did too, for our local art house theatre was full. My initial reaction was that the first half of the film was missing. We meet St.John and his sisters first, but without proper introduction, so that the viewer who had not read the book would be totally mystified and were probably left wondering for the rest of the film: who were these people and why should I care? What did you think about the film's structure?

Vic, what structure? Did it have structure? "Mystified" is a good word for what the people in my group were who had not read the book or seen other versions. I saw the film with five friends with varying degrees of familiarity with the story. Two of us had seen nearly every version ever made.

You see, I had already started a Jane Eyre "festival" of my own when I heard a new version would be coming out in March. A friend who had only seen the William Hurt version (and loved it) discovered that I was a lifelong Jane Eyre aficionado and wanted to see it with me. When I told her about the other versions, she wanted to see those as well. So through fall and winter we did just that. My husband called us The Eyre-heads! So the two of us were in a position to know how a Jane Eyre film should be "structured"!

Wow, Jean, you are a true fan! While I have seen all the Jane Eyre film adaptations (I loved the 2006 version with Toby Stevens and Ruth Wilson), I did not prepare myself as thoroughly as your group. I thought the costumes and sets were gorgeous, and found the acting more than adequate (who can quibble with Judi Dench as housekeeper? Michael Fassbender as a hunky Rochester? and Mia Wasikowska as a not so very plain Jane?), but I was totally flummoxed by the choppiness of the script. So very little introduction was provided to explain the characters' actions, that I was glad I had read the book more than once. Woe betide those who expected a coherent story.


I first read the book when I was seven and read it many times after that. This film, sad to say, bore no resemblance to the book. We went in prepared to love it, but just couldn't. The acting was good, yes, but there was just something "off," something missing. I liked Michael Fassbender--I'm sure I would like him very much in other things--but he was not Mr. Rochester. Mia Wasikowska, though a fine actor, was not Jane. I love Judi Dench, but she was not Mrs. Fairfax. I wasn't sure what to blame for this disappointing production. Direction? Script? Both?

The ending was so abrupt in this short film (90 minutes) that half the audience sniggered in disbelief when the house lights came on. I doubt that director Cary Joji Fukunaga was going for this end result. Focus Features' website proudly states: “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.” Frankly, I think this team threw the baby out with the bath water.

Are you kidding me? It was only 90 minutes long? I thought it would never end! And when a Jane Eyre audience goes to see Jane Eyre, they are not looking for "contemporary immediacy," thank you veddy much! I don't mean to sound harsh, but I think perhaps that pretty phrase is something they came up with after the fact to explain away the choppiness.

When I returned home after the show I drowned my disappointment in a glass of wine. What comfort food would you suggest for a couple who shelled out $20 to see this film?

Fortunately, my group of six planned ahead. We had afternoon tea at home after the matinee. It was all set before we left for the movie (drove 75 miles round trip to see it!). We just had to put the kettle on, pull the two kinds of sandwiches out of the fridge and warm the scones. Most comforting! We had hoped to simply enjoy discussing the wonderful movie over tea but, as it turned out, we needed the comfort! Here's a link to my recipe for Tea and Scones.

Jean, thank you so much for sharing your thoughts. My companion at the theatre was equally as disappointed, and from the murmurs in the crowd, Jane Eyre did not wow Richmond last night.

Question: What is your favorite Jane Eyre film adaptation? Inquiring minds want to know.
avatar
Admin
Admin

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

Back to top Go down

Re: Jane Eyre reviews and spoilers 5

Post by Admin on Sat Apr 09, 2011 2:51 pm

http://thechronicleherald.ca/ArtsLife/1237531.html

Jane Eyre plumbs the Gothic depths
New take on Bronte tale exudes repression
By ROGER EBERT | MOVIE REVIEW
Sat, Apr 9 - 4:54 AM

Australian actress Mia Wasikowska stars as Jane Eyre in the new version of the Gothic romance, now playing at the Oxford Theatre in Halifax.

JANE EYRE

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

DIRECTOR: Cary Joji Fukunaga

RUNNING TIME: 118 minutes

RATING: PG

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Michael Fassbender is an Irish actor who can have a threatening charm; did you see him in Fish Tank (2009), a quite different film about a seductive man who takes advantage of a teenage girl? Mia Wasikowska, from Australia, is a relative newcomer who must essentially carry Jane Eyre and succeeds with restraint, expressing a strong moral compass. Judi Dench is firm, as a housekeeper must be firm, and observes everything, as a housekeeper must. All of the rest is decoration. Without the costumes, sets, locations, sound design and the wind and rain, Gothic cannot exist.
avatar
Admin
Admin

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

Back to top Go down

Re: Jane Eyre reviews and spoilers 5

Post by Admin on Sat Apr 09, 2011 2:51 pm

http://www.philly.com/philly/entertainment/20110409_Our_critics__selections.html

Posted on Sat, Apr. 9, 2011

Our critics' selections

By Carrie Rickey

Jane Eyre Unmoored on the moors, chastely passionate Mia Wasikowska gives a brisk and refreshing interpretation of the governess attracted to her gloomy and mysterious employer, played with wit and wile by Michael Fassbender. 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 5

Post by Admin on Sat Apr 09, 2011 2:52 pm

http://www.omaha.com/article/20110409/GO/704099923

Published Saturday April 9, 2011

MOVIE REVIEW

Acting shines in ‘Jane Eyre’ adaptation

By Michael Phillips
The 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, generation upon generation of readers have made the same discovery. 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 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.

What is lacking? Character development. The 1944 Robert Stevenson version of “Jane Eyre,” a wild-eyed, visually striking black-and-white affair, has many flaws, but its screenplay manages a gradual and convincing coming-together of the main characters. This latest version radically condenses the process. It’s one scene and bam: love, hard and fast.

But the story still works, 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.

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

Director: Cary Joji Fukunaga

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

Running time: 2 hours
avatar
Admin
Admin

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

Back to top Go down

Re: Jane Eyre reviews and spoilers 5

Post by Admin on Sat Apr 09, 2011 2:53 pm

http://3brothersfilm.com/?p=372

Jane Eyre (2011)
By
Anton
– April 9, 2011Posted in: Reviews, The Current: In Theatres

There is no definitive film version of Jane Eyre and there never will be. The great novels of the nineteenth century, like the plays of Shakespeare, are great living creatures, so full of vitality and depth that no adaptation can ever contain the whole of one. With each new adaptation filmmakers can only strive to present their own vision of the story and characters, and hopefully their perspective will capture the spirit of the novel as well as draw out and illuminate certain themes or aspects of the book.

This, the latest adaptation of Charlotte Brontë’s passionate, affecting novel about a young governess, does just that. It is a successful adaptation, but, what is more important, it is also a successful film.

Screenwriter Moira Buffini has streamlined Brontë’s plot and rearranged the order in which some of the events are told. Thus, the movie begins with a heartbroken Jane running away from Thornfield Hall, wandering the moors, and arriving faint and weary on the doorstep of St John (pronounced “sinjin”) Rivers, who takes her in. Very soon though the movie flashes back to Jane’s oppressive childhood, and then progresses on from there. My fears about the death of chronological storytelling aside, the resulting movie, which focuses on the romance between Jane and Mr. Rochester, works very well, and is accessible to modern audiences while retaining an authentic period feel.

The film is artfully, even exquisitely, shot. The desolate Yorkshire moors emphasize the isolation and coldness of Jane’s world. The dark candlelit hallways of Thornfield externalize Jane’s inner fears and also create feelings of dread in the audience. The novel’s Gothic atmosphere comes through very prominently in the film, but it is never tawdry or overdone.

The best part of the film, however, is the acting. Mia Wasikowska’s Jane is outwardly restrained yet inwardly spirited. Michael Fassbender is good as the Byronic Edward Rochester, as he is able to be both unpleasant and alluring, both moody and fiery. What really makes this love story work is the tension generated between Jane and Rochester, especially during their evening chats before the fireplace, for without the inner fire of either character, would this story of chaste love and repressed desire still speak to us?

8 out of 10

Jane Eyre (2011)

Directed by Cary Fukunaga; screenplay by Moira Buffini based on the novel by Charlotte Brontë; starring Mia Wasikowska, Michael Fassbender, and Jamie Bell.
avatar
Admin
Admin

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

Back to top Go down

Re: Jane Eyre reviews and spoilers 5

Post by Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

Page 1 of 6 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


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