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 6 of 6 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Re: Jane Eyre reviews and spoilers 5

Post by Admin on Mon Apr 25, 2011 12:48 am

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

Sunday, 24 April 2011
Jane Eyre - a review
Paul Daniggelis writes from Texas:
Seeing Jane Eyre on the big screen was a tremendous pleasure.
The scenery was often overwhelming in its beauty and the delicate
piano music suited Jane very well. The acting was such that one
was not aware that they were acting. I was alone and allowed myself
to absorb the atmosphere that pervaded the film.

In less than two hours, there simply wasn't time to do the story justice
and I felt it ended rather abruptly. That may be due to the fact that I did
not want it to end. The best scenes from novel and film are the delicious
dialogue sequences between Jane and Rochester. These, again, were
severely curtailed by time restraints.

In order to justify the good nature of Mrs Fairfax, she claims in the film
that she was not aware that the lady in the attic was Rochester's wife.
Where they got that idea I do not know. As far as I can remember,
Charlotte wrote no such thing. Indeed, it is often speculated that it
was Mrs Fairfax who let Richard Mason know of the impending wedding.
How else to explain the untimely appearance of Mason at just the
fateful moment of swearing allegiance.

One other fault, in my opinion, was the full growth of beard and mustache
on Rochester's face. During the final kissing sequence it appears that Jane
gets a mouthful of hair for her troubles. Not a romantic conclusion.

Nevertheless, it was exciting to watch my favorite novel come to life once
again. Too bad they could not have added another hour or so.
------------------
Because I experienced a shortfall in an earlier attempt to see this film,
I have been promised the Jane Eyre poster that graces the theater as
soon as the run is over.
------------------
For the benefit of young people and those unfamiliar with Charlotte Brontë's story, I wonder that these Brontë films are not prefaced with a written and spoken explanatory note, i.e.

The film you are about to see is based on a novel written by Charlotte Bronte in 1847. It has sold an estimated x number of copies throughout the world. Jane Eyre has been translated into x number of languages and adapted for radio, film, stage and television x number of times. Her sister, Emily, has had equivalent success with her novel, Wuthering Heights written in 1847. Sister Anne, whose classic novel The Tenant of Wildfell Hall was written in 1848, has achieved classic status as well.
This remarkable family lived and died at their Haworth Parsonage in Yorkshire, England.

(NB Check the links on the right)

Below - Michael Fassbender and Mia Wasikowska in a scene from the movie. Associated Press/Focus Features.

Posted by Richard Wilcocks at 4/24/2011 03:06:00 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 Mon Apr 25, 2011 12:53 am

http://teaandoatmeal.blogspot.com/2011/04/jane-eyre-my-thoughts-on-that.html

Sunday, April 24, 2011
Jane Eyre & My Thoughts on That

I finally saw Jane Eyre after weeks of waiting for it to come to my town. Limited release is a dummy. Right Dennis from 30 Rock? Right. Anywho, I was definitely very excited to see this movie because I love me some Rochester. I especially love me some Rochester when he is in the form of Michael Fassbender. At least in theory. In actuality, not so much. He and Mia Wasikowska had zero chemistry. Like literally nothing; and since the whole emotional core of the film revolves around their love, you can understand why this is a problem.

nope
Also, a lot of the story was cut out or sped up or presented in a way that might make it hard to follow for someone unfamiliar to the story. And I'm not even going to get into what they did to Jamie Bell's character. Ugh.

I think a fellow movie goer's assessment of the film sums up the experience perfectly: "I like it when the shots are pretty."

In summation, I'd recommend reading the book or watching the 2006 BBC miniseries version, because that one is great. (And maybe watch this version after all that, just for the prettiness.)


I guess I will have to give Fassy one more try this summer when I see him in Pre X-Men: When They Were Hot, which is about Magneto and Xavier, you guessed it, when they were hot. (Not only was Magneto Michael Fassbender, but Xavier was James McAvoy in his youth. In case you didn't know.)

p.s.: One of the trailers they showed pre-me-being-frustrated was for Terrence Malick's Tree of Life. Remember how I said just about anything will make me cry? Exhibit A:

I can't explain it. There's just something so beautiful and heartbreaking about this fracking trailer that I was tearing up in the cinema. I'm really looking forward to this movie, even though I have no idea what the hell is going on based on the trailer, mainly because it looks so beautiful. And to the ladies that were sitting behind me in the theater who said very loudly after the trailer was over, "Checking that one off my list!": Good! Someone has to buy tickets to Cowboys and Aliens anyway!

p.p.s.: Someone found my blog by googling 'does cesare love his sister?' Excellent.
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 Mon Apr 25, 2011 12:54 am

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

Saturday, April 23, 2011
"Jane Eyre" (A-)
3.11.2011

Having never read Charlotte Bronte's novel, I can't say how much of this particular adaptation sticks to the page, but as a movie: glorious.

Mia Wasikowska is solid, no more or less, as the title character: an orphan mistreated and bounced from home to home until settling in her young adult days as governess at the estate of a royal brooder named Rochester (Michael Fassbender, who is quite good at playing sportily observant just itching to be engaged beneath icy entitlement). The dialogue scenes between both actors are highlights, as should be the case. It's fun to watch them work at getting a fix on one another, testing their respective limits through banter and exchanged glances.

I liked the script's flashback structure very much, Adriano Goldman's cinematography is lush. And, the film's closing scene is a real heartbreaker.
Posted by jridge at 12:33 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 Mon Apr 25, 2011 12:55 am

http://cleolinda.livejournal.com/971546.html

So I saw Jane Eyre

[info]cleolinda
April 23rd, 18:52

Two movies in as many days! I am impressed with myself. And while I saw Water for Elephants (which was also good) so early in the day that the theater wasn't very crowded, I very nearly had it to myself this time.

At least the two other women didn't sit in front of me.

A preamble:

Jane Eyre was my favorite book as a teenager, and it reclaimed that title after I read it again two years ago, as an adult--and, I have to say, for someone who loved it so much, I was remarkably witless about it. What I loved about it at age thirteen--well, first of all, I was a library aide in middle school, and they would have us do some little book reports and things on the side, and we got to choose a book or two from a list and then take standardized bubble tests afterwards. So I read Jane Eyre for school originally, but never with any guided discussion. So, left to my own devices, I came to this book as a shy young teenager who felt lonely and ugly and lost, as most teenagers do, and saw a story about "this governess not yet twenty," who felt lonely and ugly and lost, and found a dark, brooding, intimidating man who was utterly brought to his knees by love for her. He would live for her, he would die for her, he just... also happens to have a wife in the attic. But no one has to know about it! Even if they do! He and Jane would live only for each other anyway! What does it matter! And I, a thirteen-year-old with a 1992-era sense of morality, totally agreed with him. No, it wouldn't be a legal marriage, but the way Rochester pleads his case, his circumstances are exceptionally exceptional and Jane is just too bound up in conventional morality omg to live with him in ~defiance~ of the world. As a kid, I thought Jane wasn't brave enough to stay, to defy convention, and that eventually she gained enough courage to defy St. John's vision of a moral, passionless partnership-marriage to go back to the man she loved. This is... not the most perceptive reading, and given how many times I read and reread that book, I don't quite know how I managed to get it so wrong, except that--what can I say? I was thirteen.

When I read it for the first time in a long time, at the age of thirty... it was a completely different book. Suddenly, the entire book made sense to me as a whole, not just Stuff That Happens Before and After Rochester. For all her plainness and meekness, Jane is utterly true to herself, and from start to finish rebels against anything that threatens to diminish her soul. That's what all three sections have in common. Leaving someone who only wants to love her, but with a selfish love--leaving for the sake of her own self-respect--is the most defiant thing Jane could have possibly done. No one else would know that Mrs. Rochester was still alive--but she would know. (And Rochester's overweening pride and wallowing self-pity do not come off so well in his telling of the story, to the eyes of an adult reader. There's a reason he has to be humbled before Jane can come back to him.) There's a line in this adaptation that I had never read correctly before--when Mrs. Fairfax expresses some skepticism about the situation, I read it as, "Gentlemen in his station are not accustomed to marry their governesses." And Jane's incredibly offended--I think in the movie this time, she says, "Am I a monster?" But, see, no, that's not what Mrs. Fairfax is trying to tell her, not that she's not good enough for him, not that he wouldn't want her--Mrs. Fairfax, ever so delicately, is trying to warn her that gentlemen in his station are not accustomed to marry their governesses. And the way Judi Dench (yes, Judi Dench, kthnx) delivers the line, I finally got it. (It helps that the screenwriter tweaked the next line to be something like, "Until you are actually married, try and keep him at a distance, distrust both him and yourself.") Which brings me back to the point that it was the 1840s, and for Jane, a poor young woman adrift in the world, to tell a man no, to choose herself instead of comfort and security and passion, even if the alternative is a self-imposed exile from everything she knows, is an incredible act of rebellion. I mean, Rochester even says it--"Never, never was anything at once so frail and so indomitable.... I could bend her with my finger and thumb: and what good would it do if I bent, if I uptore, if I crushed her? Consider that eye: consider the resolute, wild, free thing looking out of it, defying me, with more than courage—with a stern triumph. Whatever I do with its cage, I cannot get at it." He can't get what he wants by forcing or killing her; he wants her to give herself, her entire self, to him. And she says no, because she values that self too much to give it under terms that would diminish it. As a teenager, living in a modern world where sex has far fewer social restrictions and is not something that would ruin you utterly, I saw it as a cage Jane was too afraid to let herself out of. In the context of the era, the context of her own values, it's a cage to keep her soul safe, to keep predators out, and it takes all of her strength and integrity to keep it shut.

(I can't believe how ignorant I was about my own favorite book. Jesus.)

Somehow, though--even though I didn't understand how it all hung together, I feel like the book somehow managed to shape a lot of who I am today. Maybe I got it and just hadn't realized it yet.

So I go see this new movie.

(No, I have not seen the 2006 BBC miniseries. Everyone raves about it, and I kept meaning to, and just somehow, I never did. I am remarkably easygoing about adaptations, and my heart has room for all of them.)

Here's the thing: the very first scene of this movie is Jane fleeing Thornfield. I have never seen a Jane Eyre movie do this before--play around with the chronology, rather than just march dutifully from A to B to C. (I love the Zeffirelli version with Charlotte Gainsbourg, but... it really kind of does just that.) And as much as I love this book, I should have been upset that so much got left out along the way, but I just kept smiling through the whole thing. Just total delight, and I don't even know why. It's a very streamlined, fleet-footed adaptation that starts with the Rivers family scenes, intermingles the Reed family and Lowood scenes, and moves through the latter briskly--as memories, really. And then, after about half an hour of this, we get to Thornfield--and so, at the end, we spend relatively little time with St. John (who is Jamie Bell, because Jamie Bell is a grownup now? What?), and get back to Thornfield quickly. Moreover, I kept noticing little lines or scenes that weren't strictly in the book, but I almost always liked them. We do have a scene were St. John actually yells at Jane to give up "this lawless passion"--"WHY ARE YOU TALKING TO THE AIR??"--and I loved that, because St. John is actually kind of creepy, you guys, and this movie lets that come out to play a little. In order to streamline the story and have it make sense in the movie, he needed to confront her about that, and accuse her of wanting Rochester instead of, you know, working herself to death in a loveless marriage in India, I have no idea why this would not appeal to her, in a moment where she explicitly defies him. Instead of the Rivers family section just kind of dragging on and being anticlimactic, it's woven into the overall story in a really interesting, dynamic way that goes somewhere, and uses only exactly as much of it as the film needs. I have to say, huge credit goes here to the director, Cary Fukunaga, and the screenwriter, Moira Buffini, for being willing to create a movie, a movie that exists on its own two-hour terms rather than slog through a given set of events just because it's supposed to.

And it's a beautiful, gothic and yet down-to-earth movie, full of moaning winds and Yorkshire mud and closeups of lit matches in the dark. There are some beautiful shots of Mia Wasikowska's face half-shadowed in dark rooms, emerging like a dim crescent moon. I had wondered if she wasn't playing Jane a bit meek and teary, but she ended up doing something I like to think of as "showing courage through fear"--you're not brave because you feel no fear; you're brave because you're terrified and you press on anyway. It's the very agony of the "No, I must leave" scene that shows you how strong Jane is to walk away. And her Jane is so innocent and young, it's all the more amazing that she manages to physically wrench herself away. In particular, from Michael Fassbender. I was all clappy-squee when he was first cast because I knew exactly how his Rochester would be, and I was right, except times one thousand. I swear to God, we got to the part where Jane saves him from the bedroom fire and he's all, "What, Jane? You just saved my life, and you would walk past me like a stranger?," and then he keeps leaning closer and asking if she won't stay, and they keep staring at each other, and he's, like, burning a hole through her with the power of his smolder, and he pretty much leans in to kiss her but stops just a breath away and stays there and the screen nearly MELTED. You almost think for a moment that the whole movie might go off the rails and rewrite history. It's... just... something else.

Also, he totally loses it in the church and starts choking Mason. Awesome.

Hm. What else. The Dario Marianelli score is gorgeous. I couldn't figure out why the movie was reminding me of the 2005 Pride and Prejudice (which I love) until I saw his name on the end credits. The costumes are good--this one bonnet is, I have no other word for it, fabulous--and they do a good job of dressing Wasikowska in plain colors but interesting textures. But Jane Eyre movies don't tend to be terribly showy, and the Oscar tends to be for Most Costumes, so I don't know about awards. The gardens and grounds of the Hall are wonderful, but then, I just really like gardens. Of course, this little voice kept going, but but but, excuse me, the proposal under the tree is supposed to be at night, but for some reason the rest of me was just like, shhhhhh, we are enjoying this. There were all kinds of things missing or different and it seemed to go so fast but I just kept wishing there was more, changed or not. My only explanation is that the movie itself is so good as a movie, or that it resonated with me in some particular way, that I didn't care. I just beamed all the way through it. Even the ending--abrupt and perfect--made me happy. At this point, I'm just hoping a DVD with extra scenes comes out soon.
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 Mon Apr 25, 2011 12:56 am

http://kaist455.wordpress.com/2011/04/23/jane-eyre-2011/

Jane Eyre (2011) ☆☆☆(3/4) : Another nice adaptation of a classic gothic romance
Posted on April 23, 2011 by kaist455

The sky is gray with darkened clouds. The forest is shrouded in creepy fog. The wind is mercilessly blowing on the barren moor. And there is a huge, ominous mansion owned by the unpleasant man who has the equally unpleasant secret hidden inside somewhere in the house. And our young heroine comes to this brooding mansion to find herself attracted to her employer who is definitely someone who must be approached with a certain degree of tactfulness.

Charlotte Brontë’s classic gothic novel has been loved by many, has been imitated by many including that pathetically cheap imitation called “Twilight”, and, above all, has been adapted for many, many movies and TV miniseries since the 1910s according to IMDB. In the advertizing leaflet printed in South Korea, they say “Jane Eyre” (2011), the latest version directed by Cary Fukunaga, is the 21th adaptation, but IMDB say it’s the 20th adaptation. With so many versions, such a mistake can be forgiven.

Like its many predecessors we have seen before, the latest version follows the basic plot of the novel except some notable changes(To be frank with you, I have seen only two versions: 1943 version starring Orson Welles and Joan Fontaine and the 1996 version starring William Hurt and Charlotte Gainsbourg). As an orphan, young Jane Eyre(Amelia Clarkson) had a hard time at the house of her mean aunt(Sally Hawkins). Her aunt hated her, and so did Jane. She was sent to the harsh boarding school worthy of a Dickens novel, where she would spend most of her childhood and adolescence under the sadistic supervision by Mr. Brocklehurst(Simon McBurney), who did not like Jane’s defiant attitude from the first time they met each other.

Soon we meet adult Jane, now played by Mia Wasikowska. Although she is alone in the world outside the school as before, she is willing to lead her life despite her inexperience. She is hired as a governess at Thornfield Hall, the huge mansion where she teaches a young French girl named Adele(Romy Settbon Moore). The house environment is not exactly sunny, but Adele is a likable girl, and the housekeeper Mrs. Fairfax(Judy Dench) is kind to Jane.

She does not meet her employer, Mr. Rochester(Michael Fassbender), on her first day at Thornfield Hall, for he is usually not in his house. Some time later, he returns to his house, and, after their accidental meeting in the foggy forest and the following formal meeting at his brooding private place, the mutual feelings are generated in the hearts of both. However, bound by the customs and conventions of that time, both hesitate to reveal their feelings. In addition, strange things happen at night. There is something disturbing hidden in the mansion – something so shameful that Rochester chooses to do the wrong thing to Jane for maintaining his position as a gentleman rather than reveals his secret to her.

The screenplay writer Moira Buffini makes some deletions and changes in her adaptation. Her modifications work well in most cases. One of the notable changes in the film compared to other versions is that Jane’s childhood is more condensed through flashback. As a result, the film has relatively less power compared to other versions in that part(for instance, 1996 version, regarded by many as one of the weaker versions, was memorable with Anna Paquin as Young Jane), but it proceeds more quickly into the main plot instead, while pointing out well how hypocritically sadistic some people were at that time.

And there is notable improvement with Jane’s story with the pastor named St. John Rivers(Jamie Bell), who saves her in the opening scene where she wanders around the forest and the moor against harsh weather in quite a distressed state. St. John Rivers part has been always like the baggage that must be dealt with for the adapters, but Buffini uses Rivers as a tool to emphasize the feministic point Brontë indirectly made in her novel. In the movie, Rivers is a kind man, but his views on women and marriage is as conservative as the conventions at that time, and Jane will not agree to his opinion as a woman who wants to lead her life independently. If she marries someone, that is because she chooses him, not because she follows him.

The director Cary Fukunaga’s previous work(and also his first work) was “Sin Nombre”, a sad, gritty drama about the illegal immigrants who try to cross US-Mexico border at all costs. The world and the characters are much, much different in “Jane Eyre”, but Fukunaga knows about the hidden emotions causing the characters drawn to each other, as shown in his previous movie. And he is a talented director. In rather restrained approach, he lets the good production design, the good costumes, and the good actors to tell the story while maintaining that familiar atmosphere of gothic romance. Even when warm spring comes to Thornfield Hall with sunshine and clear sky, there is always grayness in the screen.

Again, some of you probably complain that Mia Wasikowska’s Jane Eyre is not as plain as described in the books, but, what the hell, has Jane Eyre ever been that plain on the screen and TV? Quite different from her previous appearance in “Alice in the Wonderland” and “The Kids Are All Right” in last year, Waskiowska, 21 at present, is natural as a young, intelligent woman on the verge of adulthood. She makes the maturation of her character very believable, and the chemistry between her and Michael Fassbender is low-key but appropriate for the film’s atmosphere.

Fassbender is as handsome as the other versions of Mr. Rochester we have seen, but he is brooding and callous enough to be a sullen man who is, in objective view, a liar and cad who deeply hurts Jane’s heart(we get a pretty much good idea about who Adele is in one scene, by the way). As Mrs. Fairfax advises to Jane, it is rather wise to maintain some distance from such a man. Judy Dench is also good as a prudent housekeeper; she does not say everything, but we know she knows everything happening in the house.

Will there be more Jane Eyre movies? I think so, for Fukunaga’s version is not an ultimate version due to several flaws deemed to be inevitable in the adaptation process. Sometimes the movie feels like a summarized version of the book from time to time, and you will be a little disappointed if you expect it to be a passionate melodrama. None the less, this is surely one of the better end products we can get from the classic gothic romance novel.
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 Mon Apr 25, 2011 12:57 am

http://movie-matinee.blogspot.com/2011/04/jane-eyre-201-2011.html

Friday, April 22, 2011
Jane Eyre (2:01) 2011
Jane Eyre is a chick flick based on a Bronte novel and this version is excellent. The movie was filmed on the Moors and hits home the desolation and isolation of the damp and windy English remote countryside. Jane is a strong woman who has experienced the harshest parts of middle 1850s life. She falls in love with Rochester after she is hired to be a governess for his ward. Jane is heartbroken to discover, on her wedding day, there is an impediment to their marriage. Will true love conquer all? The cinematography is excellent with the attention to costumes and period pieces being phenomenal. The spookiness of the manor and its surroundings are so realistic, we all jumped when a hawk flies in front of Jane when she is walking on a forest path. Judy Dench, as the housekeeper, is her usual excellent self. The main characters, played by Mia Wasikowska and Michael Fassbender, are wonderful together. I recommend Jane Eyre for all lovers of 19th century English period films.
Posted by DotMLogan at 5:36 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 Mon Apr 25, 2011 1:00 am

http://smrcultureplus.blogspot.com/2011/04/jane-eyre-2011-by-par-cary-fukunaga.html

Thursday, 21 April, 2011
Jane Eyre (2011) by /par Cary Fukunaga
Nineteenth film adaptation of Charlotte Brontë’s (1816-1855) classic novel first published in London, England in 1847. The intent of the director was to infuse this adaptation with a contemporary feel while retaining the spiritual timelessness of the novel. The result is a well-crafted period piece exploring the need for relationships versus asserting one’s individuality.

The film opens as Jane Eyre (Mia Wasikowska) is fleeing Thornfield Hall. Clergyman St John Rivers (Jamie Bell) brings her back to his house to recuperate. We flashback to when Jane was ten-years-old (Amelia Clarkson). Her parents had recently died and she was in the care of her aunt, Mrs Reed (Sally Hawkins). After an incident with her cousin, Jane is cruelly cast out and sent to Lowood, a charity school for girls. There, she becomes best friends with a poor and fragile child named Helen Burns. Before Helen dies, she impresses Jane to strengthen her resolve to stand up for herself and to make the right choices.

Shortly thereafter, Jane leaves Lowood and arrives at Thornfield. The head housekeeper Mrs Fairfax (Judi Dench) treats her with kindness and respect. The owner of Thornfield, Rochester (Michael Fassbender) is a man prone to dark moods. He and Jane develop a bizarre attraction for each other. They agree to get married but when Jane uncovers a terrible secret; she flees Thornfield and ends up at the Rivers home.

When John Rivers proposes to Jane, she is compelled to return to Thornfield. Will Jane finally secure her future and find the ‘family’ she has strongly desired all of her life? Will she be able to conquer that which haunts both her and Rochester?

This latest version clearly reflects a classic tale that has stood the test of time for over 160 years.

Dix-neuvième adaptation cinématographique du roman classique de Charlotte Brontë (1816-1855, qui a été publie pour la première fois à Londres, en Angleterre en 1847. L'intention du directeur était d'intégrer cette adaptation avec une ambiance contemporaine tout en conservant l'intemporalité spirituelle du roman. Le résultat est un morceau de période bien conçu, explorant la nécessité de relations versus affirmant son individualité.

Le film s'ouvre comme Jane Eyre (Mia Wasikowska) est en fuite du Château de Thornfield. Le Pasteur St John Rivers (Jamie Bell) la ramène à sa maison pour qu’elle puisse se récupérer. On retourne en arrière quand Jane avait l'âge de dix ans (Amelia Clarkson). Ses parents avaient récemment décédé, et elle était sous la garde de sa tante, Mme Reed (Sally Hawkins). Après un incident avec son cousin, Jane est cruellement expulse et envoyée à Lowood, une école de charité pour les filles. Là, elle devient meilleurs amis avec un enfant pauvre et fragile, nommée Helen Burns. Avant qu’Helen meure, elle impressionne Jane à renforcer sa volonté de se défendre pour elle-même et pour faire les bons choix.

Peu de temps après, Jane quitte Lowood et arrive à Thornfield. La gouvernante Mme Fairfax (Judi Dench) la traite avec gentillesse et le respect. Le propriétaire de Thornfield, Rochester (Michael Fassbender) est un homme enclin à l’humeur sombre. Lui et Jane développent une attraction bizarre pour l’autre. Ils sons d’accord pour ce marier, mais quand Jane découvre un secret terrible; Elle fuit Thornfield et se trouve à la maison de John Rivers.

Lorsque John Rivers propose à Jane, elle est contrainte de retourner à Thornfield. Sera Jane enfin de s’assurer son avenir et de trouver la «famille» elle a fortement désiré toute sa vie? Est-ce qu’elle sera capable de conquérir ce qui hante elle et Rochester?
Cette dernière version reflète clairement un conte classique qui a résisté à l'épreuve du temps depuis plus de 160 ans.

Posted by Sylvain Richard at 5:06 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 Mon Apr 25, 2011 1:05 am

http://annban10.blogspot.com/2011/04/jane-eyre-love.html

Wednesday, April 20, 2011
Jane Eyre Love
A few weeks ago...my fabulous cousin Megan called to inform me that the new "Limited Release" Jane Eyre would finally be in Salt Lake by the weekend.

I am starting to adore many BBC classics.. and since I had no idea what Jane Eyre was even about.. I knew if I didn't like the story.. or even understand it for that matter (haha) -- I would at least adore the Costumes.... picturesque landscapes... and beautiful decor and interiors from that time period.

I was in.

Before we saw the movie.. I found out that one of my family members had seen a pre-screening of it. When I asked their opinion.. they told me a few things they liked.. but ended with " I probably wouldn't watch it again. " -- So I went into the Theater thinking this would just be OK..
no HIGH expectations.

I loved it. Loved almost every minute of it. ~ And the only flaw I could see is how it ended.
It was so abrupt.
I believe MANY people in the room let out some sort of cry to WHAT?? That's it??

We all wanted more!!!

Luckily.. I was sitting by Megan.. and she told me the last part of the story.
She told me to watch the 2006 BBC version with Toby Stephens and Ruth Wilson.
Again... I wanted more!

I rushed home and made some phone calls to see who owned this movie.
I needed to get my hands on a copy quickly.
Why was I so obsessed with this story?

I gathered my family to watch the 4 hour 2006 version. Chad needed to know what this sudden new obsession was about.

It was probably not good to watch the other movie so close to the new version.

While I l loved the story.. and the characters.. and it was able to fill in much of the story that the other 2 hour version did not have time to show.. it lacked in some areas.. and I found myself comparing some scenes too much.

I think I may have even YELLED at the TV When it robbed me of the
"before I die scene" - between Helen and Jane.

As time went on.. I could enjoy the 2006 movie..but even after that adaption..
I still felt like I didn't get enough.

The next day I was visiting my parents and my sister Erin went and got her Jane Eyre book.
She read me some of the most beautiful lines/words I have ever heard in my life.

Thank you Charlotte Bronte.

I sat and listened to Erin read Helen's beautiful Testimony of God and Death.. and I was sucked in. I wanted more... and more... and more.

I.. Ann Marie ( that never reads books ) am going to read this book.

Even if it takes me 6 months to plow through it and understand it all.
( haha )

I do want to find/buy my own copy.... so I can underline and highlight many of the beautiful lines that spoke to my heart.

************************

Back to the 2011 Movie...



I have read many reviews on what most people think of this movie.. and it's 50/50.

In some ways I want to tell you "You won't like it..." So you will in enjoy it... but I am just going to give you my honest "Ann Marie" opinion.

I loved it.

*I loved the Characters in this movie maybe even more than the 2006 story. ( Don't hate )
*I loved the Chemistry between the characters.
Michael Fassbender was an excellent Rochester.. and I felt as though he understood the character well. I also felt the same for Mia Wasikowska. I also FELT the great love and friendship between Jane and the Housekeeper Judy Dench.


Through many reviews and opinions expressed on blogs and sites.. I have seen the statement:
" Why do they keep remaking this movie? Leave it alone! "

To this.. I have to disagree. I think this new 2011 movie would have been the most perfect of all -- if only it had more time to show more of the story. I hear and have read that if follows the book more than other previous adaptions.

With that said.. I am officially a Jane Eyre addict.
I hope to watch many of the versions made... and drink up the beauty of the book.

Why do I love Jane Eyre?

Maybe the Romance..
Maybe because she is Passionate and Direct as I am.
Maybe because of the MANY life lessons it teaches throughout.
Maybe it's everything.

I want to share 3 quotes I adore out of a thousand.

" Life Appears too short to be spent in nursing animosity or registering wrongs..."

" I ask you to pass through life at my side - to be my second self and best earthly companion."

" It is as if I had a string somewhere under my left ribs, tightly and inextricably knotted to a similar string situated in the corresponding quarter of your little frame. And if that boisterous channel and two hundred miles or so of land come brood between us, I am afraid that cord of communion will be snapped; and then I've a nervous notion that I should take to bleed inwardly.."

I look forward to more lovely quotes from the book!

Posted by Ann Marie at 8:04 AM
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 Mon Apr 25, 2011 1:06 am

http://artfullybedraggledfilmreviews.wordpress.com/2011/04/20/jane-eyre/

Jane Eyre

Title: Jane Eyre
Year: 2011
Director: Cary Fukunaga
Writer: Moira Buffini, based on the novel by Charlotte Brontë
Starring: Mia Wasikowska, Michael Fassbender, Jamie Bell, Judi Dench, Sally Hawkins, Imogen Poots
MPAA Rating: PG-13, some thematic elements including a nude image and brief violent content
Runtime: 120 min
Major Awards: -
IMDb Rating: 7.9
Rotten Tomatoes: 82%

I had the pleasure of watching Jane Eyre at the Gene Siskel Film Center when I was in Chicago in the beginning of March. There was a 7:30 Sunday showing which included a Q&A with director Cary Fukunaga and star Mia Wasikowska afterwards. As a fan of the novel on which the film is based, as well as the prior film of Mr. Fukunaga and pretty much everything Ms. Wasikowska has done up to this point in her career, it’s pretty safe to say I was quite psyched about seeing them live.

I waited over a month to write up this review for a reason, which was basically for it to simmer nicely. I mean, having a Q&A after a film is not what usually happens, and it can lead you into loving the film much more because you love what the filmmakers had to say about it, especially when the two people talking are as charming as Ms. Wasikowska and Mr. Fukunaga were. So yeah, I guess I wanted to watch the film again, without the Q&A, and give my review then.

Well, I finally got to watch it again (and then again a third time), and my opinion hasn’t changed, this is the best film of 2011 so far. I mean, for a film to tackle a material that has been adapted so many times (there have been nearly 30 feature and television adaptations of the masterpiece) and to make it feel so fresh and inspired is an extremely rare feat to accomplish, and yet here it happens with such apparent ease it’s hard not to watch this film and marvel at its many great qualities.

Mr. Fukunaga made his directorial debut a couple years ago with the Sundance hit that was Sin Nombre, that was a very daring film made in Spanish and that dealt with immigration and Mexican gangs, and it was a seriously outstanding film that showed that this was a insightful director who had a very unique vision and way of telling stories. The change of scenery, on paper at least, couldn’t be more drastic for Mr. Fukunaga. Going from telling stories about Mexican immigrants and their gangs, and doing it in Spanish, to telling the story of a character that was created a century and a half ago, and that takes place in huge English manors.

The director, however, is just as adept at handling this film, and considering the themes his debut film dealt with, and the nature of his sophomore effort, I wasn’t expecting him to be such a young guy. Mr. Fukunaga is 33, and you can tell just by the way he talks that the guy would definitely be pretty awesome to hang out with, just as you can tell that he has a huge love for his art. And the way in which he approaches, you just can’t help but think this is a guy wise beyond his years.

And wise beyond her years is also a term that wholeheartedly applies Ms. Wasikowska as well, looking gorgeous in her short chic blonde hair some ten feet away from me in the Q&A, her warm smile and face, as well as her charming Australian accent, do make her feel like she’s 21. But then you hear her talk, and you see how insightful her performances, are and you know she’s an old soul with a helluva lot of depth in her.

I’ve known about Ms. Wasikowska and how insanely talented she is since 2008, when she played Sophie on that first season of HBO’s In Treatment. Not only was Sophie my favorite patient of that season (Laura would be a kind-of-close second place if y’all are wondering), but it was so easy to see how amazing Ms. Wasikowska is, just how she went toe-to-toe with the great Gabriel Byrne in some incredibly intense scenes, it was a no-brainer that she was destined for success.

And we all know what happened next. In 2009 she started setting down her stepping stones in film, with a small role in Amelia (which wasn’t a great film) and a terrific supporting turn in That Evening Sun (which was) that got her for an Independent Spirit Award nomination. But 2010 would be the year that she became famous worldwide, and I’m so happy that was the case. And that’s because she scored both a hugely commercially successful film with Tim Burton’s Alice in Wonderland, in which she played the titular role, as well as a critical hit, with the indie darling The Kids Are All Right, which was my fifth favorite film of all last year and that saw her acting along such amazing actors as Annette Beining, Julianne Moore and Mark Ruffalo.

I guess what I’m trying to say here is that the director and the star of this incarnation of Jane Eyre are two young people who are doing everything right, and who are ridiculously talented. And that’s all evident in the film, which is shot gorgeously by Adriano Goldman, and that shows a different take on Jane Eyre, one that plays off its gothic elements, and that results in a more elegant and immediate film, with Ms. Wasikowska giving the best portrayal of the famed character there has ever been.

I feel like I’ve gone on for way too long about the merits of this film and its makers have. Maybe it’s because I just genuinely loved the Q&A afterwards and I’m biased to shower them with praise, that certainly is a factor, but just go ahead and watch this film and compare it to the ones that you were shown when you read the classic novel in school, this one is the best there is. And it’s the best there is because of a director that was willing to let his film show a different tone of the story by choosing to play off the darker parts of it, and because Mr. Fukunaga just lets his actors do their thing naturally.

Because, trust me, as brilliant as Ms. Wasikowska is, she’s not the only actor who brought her A-game to this. Michael Fassbender is here playing Mr. Rochester, and I’ve already talked in past reviews about how great I think this guy is, he’s definitely an actor that we’ll keep on seeing in things for years to come. Not to mention that Jamie Bell, Judi Dench and Sally Hawkins all appear in smaller roles they make the most of, especially Dame Dench who I thought was magnificent in how much she conveyed just with the tone of her voice and demeanor. This as a whole is just superbly acted.

This is the Jane Eyre for the new generation, one that effectively manages to balance the elements of a period romance, to the point in which there are a couple of scenes that may just make you teary, with all its gothic sensibilities. And it is, for my money, the best Jane Eyre there has been to date, and I haven’t talked about the plot at all because Jane Eyre is always about the adventure of finding it out as you go, even when you re-read the novel, you always start finding new stuff to love, and I felt much like that when I watched. Just rest assured the the repressed emotions and sense of isolation are intact here, and that, because of how great Mr. Fukunaga is at storytelling and at creating striking images, you’ll fall in love with the film.

Grade: A
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 Mon Apr 25, 2011 1:07 am

http://lavendertisane.blogspot.com/2011/04/you-transfix-me-quite.html

Tuesday, April 19, 2011
you transfix me quite
I finally saw the new Jane Eyre movie last night and while I wasn't quite swept away by it (the story is just a bit too sad and while everyone seems to like the changed around beginning, where Jane is running away from Thornfield first and then remembers her earlier life later, I found having the story folded in on itself like that didn't allow the emotion of the narrative to develop as strongly) but it still is quite good. I didn't think I would say it, but most of the actors are better in this version than in the 2006 Toby Stephens and Ruth Wilson BBC miniseries. (Insert shock.)

Mia Wasikowska is the perfect 'poor, plain and little' Jane Eyre and she has a stillness, dignity and grace to her that is quite nice to watch. The girl who plays young Jane Eyre (Amelia Clarkson) also has these qualities too and is far better than Georgie Henley from the miniseries (she's also played Lucy in the Narnia movies and is better there) in the role. Her scene with Aunt Reed (Sally Hawkins is quite chilling in this role, especially in contrast with her portrayal of Anne Elliott in Persuasion!), where she tells her that she's treating Jane badly is so well done -- contrary to the book and previous versions where she just gets mad at her, this young Jane actually seems to plead with her aunt for love, for compassion. She's so delicate, her scene with John Reed and then in the red room, is very well done and heartrending. I wish the movie had begun with her and gone forward from there, it's quite dramatic enough and would have built better emotionally by going straight forward instead of confusing viewers with so much back and forth, I think.

I also thought Judi Dench was good as Mrs. Fairfax -- at first it seems, oh Judi again, just here to prop up yet another period drama (I didn't really like her portrayal of Lady Catherine in Pride & Prejudice, it didn't seem to add anything special), but near the end she tells Jane she would have cared for her and that was the only time I cried in the whole movie. Of course it's not in the book, but it should have been! It shows her as this kind motherly figure that Jane's never had. (And maybe I was partly touched because she reminded me a little of her role as Miss Matty in Cranford and I just adore Miss Matty. These simple sweet older women that people take for granted, but oh how I wish I had a grannie like that!) I also liked the young actress playing Adele -- at first I thought they'd gotten the same girl who played the young Jane Eyre! Which would have added a whole other interesting layer, as to why Jane is so kind to Adele, although it is in the book that she pities her because of her own childhood. She's also not as obnoxious as the miniseries Adele.

And finally Michael Fassbender as Rochester. I was a fan of Toby Stephens before he was in the miniseries, back when no one thought he'd make a good Rochester, so I did quite enjoy him in the role, but Michael Fassbender just seemed gentler and less arrogant than Toby's Rochester. I know book Rochester is quite arrogant etc, but that is part of my problem with him! So I do like Fassbender in the role quite a lot too. I thought his sideburns looked unattractive in the pictures and that he was too skinny for the part (Rochester is described as rather deep chested or something like that, isn't he?), but somehow it all worked. It was his eyes and sincerity that brought it all together and his final appearance as the ruined Rochester was quite tragic. I would definitely have liked more scenes with Jane and Rochester, the story seemed so taken up with checking off all the other plot boxes that there wasn't nearly enough of them, especially for a story that's supposed to be one of the great romances. Again, if there wasn't so much time with the Rivers family in the movie there could have been more Rochester! (Although I'm rather glad there was less of the humiliating Blanche Ingram and basically no Grace Poole too, I'm always irritated with why she's in the story, misleading Jane.)

I liked the atmosphere built in the movie, showing through the barren and lonely landscape how few options there are for Jane, trapped in these large country houses and schools out in the middle of nowhere. And I loved her speech where she says she longs to be a man to go further and see beyond the horizon of the hills that is all they can see from the windows of Thornfield. It shows a spirit in her that goes beyond the simple romance of the story and explains why she's happy being a simple schoolteacher with the Rivers, having her own independence.

I saw the movie with my husband (he was actually more concerned with me getting to see it in the theatre than I was, since I haven't been feeling in the mood for a depressing Victorian story lately, but this was the last week for seeing it in the closest movie theatre to us, about an hour away, so it ended up being good to go) and we had a great discussion about it in the car on the way home. He thinks we're a bit like Jane and Rochester -- I'm quiet and compassionate and was abused as a child, while he often feels quite cynical about life due to his own difficult past -- aww. We also had an instant connection of understanding due to the things we've both been through, just like the two of them do. So I'm quite glad I got to see it with him (I'd wanted to see it with my sister since we both like the book, but it just didn't work out.), even though when I got home, I looked at the book, found it too sad and intense and went back to the much happier Anne of Green Gables (both Anne and Jane are orphans with sad pasts though), which I'm loving immensely. I haven't reread it in decades!
Posted by Carolyn at 3:23 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 Mon Apr 25, 2011 1:08 am

http://www.filmsforwomen.com/2011/04/guest-bloggers-movie-review-jane-eyre/

Guest Blogger’s Movie Review – Jane Eyre – Still As Haunting As Ever

by Alexis Bonari

I have a secret. Even though I majored in creative writing in college, I’ve never read Jane Eyre by Charlotte Brontë.

I know; I’m a woman, I’m a bibliophile, but I’ve just never done it. I did watch the current cinematic remake of the novel that’s in theaters for two reasons: the lovely German-born, Irish actor Michael Fassbender (Inglourious Basterds) and to see Mia Wasikowska, who played the quirky title character in Tim Burton’s Alice in Wonderland, turn into a mousy, troubled governess. Even though one of my fellow bibliophile friends, who’s read about a thousand more classics than I have—I’m ashamed to say—left the theater mildly miffed, I did not experience the same reaction: In fact, whether you have read the novel or not, you should go see Jane Eyre.

Like the novel, the 2011 film version starts off with Jane Eyre (played by the doe-eyed Wasikowska) fleeing Thornfield Hall, where she worked as a governess and befriended the brusque and aloof master of the house, Mr. Rochester (Fassbender). As Jane mulls over the people and events of her past, which include the mysterious Mr. Rochester with whom she had obviously fallen in love, the audience becomes aware that despite Jane’s resilience built from her childhood as an orphan, she is at her wit’s end: The problem is entangled in a dark secret she has uncovered about Mr. Rochester, a secret that possibly dooms any hope of a future Jane might have with the haunted lord of Thornfield Hall. (Editor’s Note: Readers of the novel and watchers of previous film and TV versions, will know exactly what that secret is).

Director Cary Fukunaga has been a cinematographer, producer, writer and director. Although his previous work, Sin Nombre, didn’t exactly find a sizable audience among American filmgoers, you wouldn’t know it by watching Jane Eyre. Here, in addition to Wasikowska and Fassbender, he has assembled a stellar cast of talent (e.g. Judi Dench as Mrs. Fairfax and Jamie Bell from Billy Elliot as St. John Rivers). What results is a sizzling adaptation of a classic tale.

Unlike Alice in Wonderland, Wasikowska plays a character in Jane Eyre who’s mired in a far deeper and more dramatic struggle. As a viewer, you feel her pain through her unadorned, elastic face and starched dresses. Meanwhile, the inestimable Fassbender delivers a gripping performance as the cold, nearly unlikable Mr. Rochester (maybe it’s the mutton chops, which apparently weren’t his, thank goodness). Still, the cold-hearted bastard has enough charm in his infrequent smiles to make you ache on his behalf. In fact, much of the communication within the film takes place in what isn’t said rather than what is, making much of the film’s two hours as cold and uneasy as Thornfied Hall.

There’s plenty of smolder, though, so bring a fan.
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 Mon Apr 25, 2011 1:18 am

http://www.filmchronicles.com/jane-eyre-jumps-out-in-2011/

Jane Eyre jumps out in 2011

Wow. Watching trailers while waiting for ‘SCRE4M’, I saw the ‘Jane Eyre’ trailer for the first time, and it’s a cracker! Beautifully shot, the music and editing suggest a horror take on the classic tale (look carefully, Michael Fassbender’s eyes are black at one point). Whether this will turn out to be real horror or the imaginings of a lonely girl, we shall see, but ‘Jane Eyre’ has suddenly jumped into my Must See Top Ten for the year.

Here’s the ‘Jane Eyre’ synopsis, as well as that trailer.

After a bleak childhood, Jane Eyre goes out into the world to become a governess. As she lives happily in her new position at Thornfield Hall, she meets the dark, cold, and abrupt master of the house, Mr. Rochester. Jane and her employer grow close in friendship and she soon finds herself falling in love with him. Happiness seems to have found Jane at last, but could Mr. Rochester’s terrible secret be about to destroy it forever?

‘Jane Eyre’ opens in the UK September 9th 2011.
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 Mon Apr 25, 2011 1:19 am

http://blogcritics.org/video/article/movie-review-jane-eyre-2011/

Movie Review: Jane Eyre (2011)
Share
Author: Susan Portelance — Published: Apr 19, 2011 at 11:09 am

Jane Eyre, Charlotte Bronte’s classic novel from 1847, got another film update in 2011. The Internet Movie Database (IMDb), lists 22 incarnations already produced for TV and film. With so many versions already available, do we really need another?

A classic can always use a fresh perspective and new readers may be introduced to the book after viewing the film. Director Cary Fukunaga does justice to the lush, gothic scenery of the book. His version of Thornfield Hall is as imposing as the descriptions in the novel.

Mia Wasikowska makes a marvelous Jane. The indomitable spirit of the plot’s heroine shines through her performance. Wasikowska’s Jane is headstrong, forthright and resolute in her convictions. She is well matched by Michael Fassbender as the brooding Edward Fairfax Rochester. He cuts a dashing figure and his chemistry with Jane is palpable. Judi Dench is delightful as Rochester’s maid, Mrs. Fairfax.

The concern with this version is the same for most book-to-film adaptations. A two-hour movie never has enough time to cover all of the novel’s characters and plot points. The early years of Jane’s life, which span almost 100 pages of the novel, are covered at breakneck speed in the film. While her time at Thornfield Hall rightfully fills most of the film, giving short shrift to her early life doesn’t allow the viewer time to fully appreciate the hardships Jane experienced, or the depths of her early relationship with Helen Burns.

The time Jane spends with the Rivers Family after her flight from Thornfield Hall is likewise glossed over. The film also misses the wonderful denouement of the book. The ending of the movie feels quite abrupt to anyone who has read the novel.

Although the time constraints cause parts of the film to feel rushed, it is still an excellent adaptation worthy of the name Jane Eyre. Fans of the novel will enjoy the chance to once again see Jane, Rochester and Thornfield Hall on the big screen.
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 Mon Apr 25, 2011 1:19 am

http://unobtainium13.com/2011/04/19/lisa-marie-does-jane-eyre-dir-by-cary-fukunaga/

Lisa Marie Does Jane Eyre (dir. by Cary Fukunaga)
Posted on April 19, 2011 by Lisa Marie Bowman

Hey, ladies! Did your man make you sit through Battle Los Angeles? Did he spend the whole time going, “Oh Hell yeah!” every time something exploded? Did he insist on repeatedly going, “Hoorah!” after the movie ended?

You want to get revenge? Well, here’s what you’re going to do. You’re going to go up to him and you’re going to tell him, in the sweetest way possible, that he’s going to take you to see the latest film adaptation of Jane Eyre. Tell him that this is a revisionist take on the story and that its full of scenes of lesbian flirtation between Jane and Helen. Of course, that’s a lie but this is the same guy who just gave you a card for Valentine’s Day. You don’t owe him a damn thing.

And who knows? He might find something to enjoy in Jane Eyre because it’s one of the best films of 2011 so far. (Though I doubt it because Jane Eyre really is an unapologetic chick flick.)

Charlotte Bronte’s Jane Eyre is one of those books that has a timeless appeal to it. I don’t know if it was the first novel to feature a young governess isolated in a creepy mansion but it certainly set the standard that all other gothic romances would have to meet. The first film version was a silent film from 1910 and since then, Jane Eyre and the enigmatic Mr. Rochester have been played by everyone from Joan Fontaine and Orson Welles to Susannah York and George C. Scott to Charlotte Gainsbourg and William Hurt. In this latest version, Jane is played Mia Wasikowska and Rochester by Michael Fassebender and the end result is probably the best film version of Jane Eyre to date.

With a few notable exceptions, the film is faithful to Bronte’s book. Jane is an orphan who, after being mistreated by her wealthy aunt (Sally Hawkins, cast very much against type), is sent away to a “charity school” where she is again mistreated and abused until finally, she turns 18 and she leaves the school to take a job as the governess for a young French girl named Adele (Romy Settbon Moore). Adele is the ward of the mysterious, arrogant, surly, but oh so hot Mr. Rochester. Though Rochester is, at first, a rather fearsome employer, he soon starts to warm up to Jane and the two of them defy the 19th century class system by falling in love. However, not everything is perfect. Jane discovers that Rochester has secrets of his own and then there’s the constant sound of footsteps and moaning that seem to echo through the old mansion late at night. Fires are mysteriously set. A guest is savagely attacked in his sleep. When Jane discovers the truth, she also discovers that nothing is as perfect as it seems.

One reason why the original novel has remained such an important work (and one that is still readable as opposed to say, The Scarlet Letter) is because Bronte used her narrative to tell several different stories. Me, I’ve always related to the character of Jane and her struggle to maintain her independence in a society where women are not encouraged to think for themselves. Others see the story as an early soap opera, a melodramatic romance in which true love conquers all. There’s also an argument to be made that the book is primarily meant to be an examination of the 19th century British class system. Of course, if that’s all a bit too much for you, you can always just read Jane Eyre as an early “haunted house” story.

The genius of this latest film adaptation is to be found in the way that director Cary Fukunaga and screenwriter Moira Buffini brings all of these various themes to life while still crafting a compelling and entertaining movie out of them. Perhaps the biggest change they made is to begin their film near the book’s conclusion. They then proceed to tell the story of Jane’s childhood and romance with Rochester through flashback, a move that recreates the book’s ground-breaking 1st person narration (ground breaking because, before Jane Eyre, it was rare that any female character was allowed to tell her own tale). While some may complain that the 1st half of the book is pretty much reduced down to 15 minutes of screen time, Fukunaga and Buffini pick their scenes carefully and, most importantly. the essence of Bronte’s narrative comes through if not the exact details.

As a director, Fukunaga plays up the gothic aspects of the story. Whenever Jane ventures outside, the skies are overcast and you can almost literally feel the chill of a desolate wind. Meanwhile, the interior scenes are so full of menacing shadows and expressionistic camera angles that Fukunaga’s film almost feels like the noir version of Jane Eyre. By doing so, this Jane Eyre becomes not just a prototypical gothic love story but instead, it becomes a true coming-of-age story with the mysteries of Mr. Rochester coming to symbolize the mysteries of life itself.

Fukanaga is helped by some excellent performances. Jamie Bell and Judi Dench — playing a clergyman and a housekeeper respectfully — both bring life to characters that have been reduced to stereotypes in previous versions of this story. Fassebender is a perfect Rochester, displaying both strength and weakness in equally believable measures. However, the film’s success or failure obviously lies with Mia Wasikowska’s performance in the title role and this is Jane Eyre’s crowning triumph. Wasikowska gives a fiercely, intelligent performance. Her Jane is strong-willed, indepedent, and intelligent without ever becoming so idealized as to be unbelievable. If Jane Eyre was the first strong woman to appear in literature, Wasikowska gives a performance that is equally strong. There have been over 20 Jane Eyres since 1910 and Mia Wasikowska may very well be the best.
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 Mon Apr 25, 2011 1:20 am

http://rusty-sarcasm.blogspot.com/2011/04/jane-eyre-rusty-review.html

April 18, 2011
Jane Eyre, the Rusty review
10:15 PM Posted by Heather
Dear readers, yesterday a miracle happened: the stars aligned, the box office was bored, or someone at the Penn Cinema has a serious love of period drama. Jane Eyre was playing. Playing more than once. Like, for serious. And when I found out the theatre was only 30 minutes away (which is WAY closer than one would imagine), I roped my mother into taking me to the matinee. (Click here to see if its playing in your town.) There were only 11 people in the theatre, of whom I was the youngest, and half were forced into seeing the movies with their girlfriends or wives. Now that I've set the scene, lets discuss the movie.

I'll warn you now, if you thought this would be a glowing review, put your big girl corest on, you might not like me much at the end. That being said, somethings were done REALLY well, but if I was only 4 years younger, this adaptation would be called the bane of my existence. Bronte purists stay away. There. I've warned you.

First off, I want to give credit where credit it completely due: if you haven't read this Jane Eyre Review by Jean and Vic, posted at Jane Austen Today, you must. It describes the foundational plot issues in the new Jane Eyre, which I agree with fully. Even I, who has seen -- and you know I'm not joking -- practically every adaptation, was confused by the first seconds of the movie. Had I not be warned by the above article, I wouldn't have been able to coach my mother through the first 15 minutes with the proper back story. And she's seen a few Jane Eyres too. The short version - post Rochester meltdown, wandering on the Moors. Likewise, the use of flashbacks as a central plot device changes the tone of the story in very interesting ways.

Condensing events and scenes chomps at the plot and dizzies the viewer. This adaption plays more like a highlight reel for Jane Eyre fans, more than a cohesive, understandable story that can stand on its own. For instance, Adele and her mother's story is never told; Rochester's bed one night, just shows up lit on fire; There is no gypsy scene period and the proposal has no strong build up and falls pathetically flat. Bertha -- wait for it -- is characterized as a ghost-vampire that haunts the halls at night, but the suspense and fear she could invoke is never capitalized on.

Clearly Fukunaga could not commit to making either a romance or a suspense, and both story lines suffer for it. I would have been happy to see either road taken; however, this washy, middle of the road muddiness plays out as a symptom of the whole film's mediocrity. His characters suffer from a strange flatness I didn't expect and the stark locations only seem to heighten how flat everything is. I wasn't sure what to commit to, wasn't sure who to be afraid of: the intensity to stand behind a character simply wasn't there.

Its not that this Jane Eyre is awful. Its not. But neither is it brilliant, neither is it passionate, neither is it intense. Instead of getting the sense that Fukunaga strove for something and it just didn't work, like that hideous Ciran Hinds version, this film just ambles along. Its content to be just another adaptation in a long line of adaptations.

Michael Fassbender's Rochester is not excluded from the above critique. I shall try to be diplomatic, I know I need to see the film again, and I know I WAS HIS BIGGEST SUPPORTER FOR THIS ROLE. I know. Trust me, I know. Fassbender plays Rochester with a tortured subtly. His performance does not reflect Rochester's changeability, depressions, or fierce longing for Jane. Overall, he reminds me of Michael Jayston Rochester. (And you all know I like my Rochesters broody, but I respect the interpretation of the character.) Personally, I was expecting a touch of his character from HEX to show up: the cockiness, the latent danger, the recklessness. Not getting that was a let down; chalk this one up to completely personal preference, but I was disappointed. It wasn't bad, but it was good. And with only 1 real moment of brilliance, it just doesn't stack up for me.

That moment? What I call the "Jane don't leave me scene." Fassbender struck something there that was breathtaking. Its beautiful, its painful, its not really hampered by wordiness, and the emotion is overwhelming. This is the only scene where I think Fassbender and Mia Wasikawska have powerful chemistry. Any chemistry at all, actually.

If Jane doesn't have chemistry with Rochester, who does she then? Go figure...St.John. Yep. Mista St.John Rivers has more chemistry with Jane than MR. ROCHESTER. I know, I die a little too just writing it. His reaction to Jane's refusal later in the film is just as powerful as Rochester's and striking. I honestly think his reaction in those 3 minutes are my favorite part of the movie. (At least 1 of my reasons to watch Jane Eyre panned out right.)

You meet Jane around the same time as St.John at the beginning of the film, and Jamie Bell is brilliant. Actually, I will openly argue with anyone that he's the standout performance of this adaption. Meeting him when we do, seeing him with his sisters, before we meet Rochester and without Jane's colored perspective, we see a St.John who is kind and sweet, and a very normal young man. He is neither overly cold, nor is he austere; he is simply a man. It is refreshing to think of him finally in a different way.

While St.John is a fully fleshed character for the first time, characters such as Grace Pool and Bertha, yes even Bertha, are practically non-existent. Others like Mason and Helen are quick plot devices in relation. And Jane? Well Wasikawska isn't Ruth Wilson. I'm sorry, she was better than most Janes, but without any of her own conviction, or any chemistry with Rochester, what else can I say? She shines, as do all the characters, in the scenes with the Rivers. There she has chemistry, there she has unreserved conviction, there we have a little but more life in our character.

And then, there's the fan service moment. What is fan service? Its normally in fanfiction and its a moment created JUST for fans to make them scream or giggle or forgive all injustices anywhere else in a story.This Jane Eyre has one. Fukunaga doesn't even try to hide it. Its just there. More like, BAM, o! hi! If you've seen the movie, you know the moment I'm talking about. If you haven't I'll set the scene: snow. door. Rochester. Kiss. YOU WISH THIS WAS REAL. Yep. A total fan service moment meant to make us Jane Eyre fans forget all the things we weren't sure of in this adaptation. While I applaud the effort, a little more finesse would have been nice. Even my mom knew exactly what I meant when I whispered "fan service?!" to her in the theater.

Overall, what does this reviewer think? Well, I think I think what I always was nervous about happened: the new, shiny, 2011 version is just an okay Jane Eyre adaptation. My hopes weren't particularly high; how could they be after Toby Stephens and Ruth Wilson basically changed how the game is played? I'm still very glad I saw it. And I will still buy when it comes out. And will I still post pictures from it? Heck yes. But I am most glad I only had to spend $7.50 plus gas instead of +$60 to see it.
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 Mon Apr 25, 2011 1:21 am

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

Sunday, April 17, 2011
Jane Eyre
Loved it, loved it, loved it! Mia Wasikowska ("Alice in Wonderland") and Michael Fassbender ("Inglourious Basterds") star in this latest retelling of Charlotte Brontë's classic novel. By the way, did I mention I loved it? The story begins as Jane Eyre flees Thornfield House, where she has been working as a governess to Edward Rochester's young ward. After a frantic race through rain swept moors, she finds succor from the elements and her own broken heart with a young preacher and his sisters. As she reflects on her recent past, we learn that as a child the orphaned Jane had been sent by a cruel aunt to a boarding school where she was horribly mistreated until she'd been able to escape by taking the governess job at Thornfield Hall. After an awkward and contentious first meeting with her employer, trust and friendship slowly develop, and ultimately love blossoms between the plain and honest young governess and the brooding lord of the manor. Of course, that love is tested when Jane learns a horrible secret about the man she loves.

I can't say it enough times. I loved this movie! As a true romantic, this had everything you could ask for - love, betrayal, redemption. Throw into the mix incredible cinematography, beautiful wardrobes, a great screenplay and perfect casting and you have an instant classic. Mia Wasikowska is the best Jane Eyre ever. Every look, every word, every nuance shared between her and Michael Fassbender as Rochester, ring so true. It was like she became Jane Eyre, she didn't just play the role. This is one movie which I'll be adding to my DVD collection as soon as it comes out. Loved it!
Posted by Maria at 8:39 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 Mon Apr 25, 2011 1:24 am

http://www.frolic-blog.com/frolic/2011/04/jane-eyre.html

April 14, 2011
jane eyre

A few weekends ago I watched the new Jane Eyre (upon Amy Merrick's suggestion). While this version just scratches the surface of the book and doesn't feel quite dark enough, the photography, styling, and acting won me over. Filmed with a hand held camera, the movie is a beautiful peek into Jane's world. It drew me in emotionally and let me escape into the world of a girl I admire.

On a purely visual note: Mia Wasikowska dons the loveliest navy calico dresses, capes and intricately braided hair as she runs through secret gardens and off through moors. Michael Fassbender looks like a young Christopher Plummer (I am smitten!). Rumor has it that Mia took behind the scenes photos with her Rolleiflex camera. I would love to see them (couldn't find the photos released anywhere!). Have any of you seen the new Jane Eyre? What did you think?

P.S. The book is so special to me. I still remember reading and crying over it my Freshman year of college on Christmas break. Have you read it?

Photos: Focus Features.
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 Mon Apr 25, 2011 1:27 am

http://www.nuvo.net/indianapolis/fukunagas-jane-eyre/Content?oid=2168471

Fukunaga's 'Jane Eyre'
by Laura McPhee

3.5 stars (PG-13)

The fact that director Cary Fukunaga decided to follow his feature debut Sin Nombre with a retelling of Jane Eyre, one of the most well-read and revered novels of all time, is impressive. What's more impressive is just how well the young director has succeeded, aided greatly by Moira Buffini's terrific screenplay and the superb performances of Mia Waskikowska (Jane Eyre) and Michael Fassbender (Edward Rochester).

Charlotte Bronte's classic novel has been translated to film more than two dozen times in the past 100 years, and Fukunaga's version is certainly one of the better. That doesn't mean, however, that it successfully brings the novel's depth of plot and character from the page to the screen in a way that will satisfy even casual lovers of the book.

Jane Eyre is a taut and tense two hours, and that is the film's biggest problem. In cramming the epic story into 120 minutes, Fukunaga, like his predecessors, has to either leave out whole sections or move too quickly. He does the later, and the result is much like being rushed at an expensive restaurant where each course is hurried in-and-out by an eager waiter seemingly hell-bent on breaking a land-speed record getting you to dessert.

Bronte's love story about a mousy 18-year old governess and her dark and brooding 40-year old employer is nearly legendary, as is the dark secret that Rochester keeps hidden in his attic. While it's hard to know how much of a spoiler it would be to reveal the secret of one of the most popular books of the last two centuries, suffice it say that the couple faces some fairly significant and scary obstacles on their way to the altar.

Unfortunately, Fukunaga doesn't give the love story any room to take root, grow or blossom. Months of sideways glances, double-entendre conversations and seething sexual tension that Charlotte Bronte recounts in chapter after chapter, are condensed with great accuracy and efficiency in the film. But it's simply not enough to be believable. The film doesn't provide enough evidence that true love can conquer the distance between Jane and Edward's ages, backgrounds, experiences and worldviews.

Crucial elements are condensed, out of necessity, to expedite the story; but other important elements are glaringly absent. The Gothic mystery of the novel taunted in the film's trailers figures very little in the actual movie, for example, and key scenes from the book are entirely skipped over in setting up Rochester's 'crime', which makes the climax seem, well, less climactic when it arrives.

When Fukunaga's film ends, quite abruptly and differently than the novel, those who have read the book will cringe at a few cut corners, but ultimately be left wishing it didn't feel so much like Cliff's Notes. Those who have never read Bronte's version are likely to think the romance too contrived, Rochester too much of jerk and Jane too much of a prig.

Fukanaga may come close to doing Bronte's novel justice, but he, like so many others, falls short in the end. Sometimes you just can't fit a round peg into a square hole. Until a filmmaker realizes that a novel as expansive and dense as Jane Eyre doesn't stay whole when squeezed into a two-hour narrative, maybe it's best left on the page (or as a BBC mini-series).
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 Mon Apr 25, 2011 9:51 pm

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

Monday, April 25, 2011
M+J: Jane Eyre

M: Jenn and I went to see Jane Eyre earlier this week after having talked about it for a few weeks. We thought it'd be a perfect opportunity to do a joint post! Smile

Overall Assessment:
M: I really enjoyed it! I thought it captured the story really wonderfully and I was immersed in every second of it. There were a few scenes that worried/scared me, but I thought it was beautifully done without trying to make everything look so Hollywood beautiful, if that makes sense.
J: I appreciated the craft of this movie (acting, cinematography, music, etc) but I don't think I really loved it. I'm used to watching much longer BBC/Masterpiece Theatre miniseries productions of these kinds of classic novels and I felt like this was just too...short. The romance in Jane Eyre is the epitome of "slow burn" and there just wasn't enough time for that. I was a bit mixed on Mia Wasikowska as Jane. She was really good in scenes where Jane was allowing her "passion" to come through but the rest of the time I thought she was too bottled up and a bit too frail and delicate looking.

Book vs. Movie:
M: So I've read Jane Eyre at least twice, but both times were well over a decade ago. Given that I can barely remember anything in books I read 10 months ago, 10+ years ago = I remember nothing. I have a vague sense that there was a crazy lady in the attic and I knew the main characters were named Jane Eyre (no duh!) and Mr. Rochester, but that was about it. What I remember of reading the book was that I thought it was a bit boring. I thought the movie did a good job of staying interesting. Smile I probably should re-read the book sometime soon...
J: I remember the book pretty well. The movie took some liberties and shortcuts in the story (which I think it had to) but I wasn't upset over any of that. The book does get a little boring at points...there's actually a lot of stuff about religion...

Favorite Thing About the Movie:
M: Uh, Mr. Rochester. Michael Fassbender was extremely good-looking, almost reminiscent of Colin Firth as Mr. Darcy in Pride & Prejudice (5 hour BBC version). I cannot wait to see him (the actor) in X-Men: First Class. Also, given that Jane is supposed to be plain, I did like the fact that Mia Wasikowska was not made to look beautiful all the time, just sometimes. Other times with her weird hair, she really did look plain.
J: Ditto on Michael Fassbender, although I'm pretty sure Mr. Rochester was described as not being very handsome in the book. I also liked the scenes with young Jane, and the landscapes and grand houses in these kinds of movies are always wonderful.

Least Favorite Thing:
M: The goatlike Mr. Rivers. I couldn't stop thinking about how he'd make a fantastic satyr/faun.
J: I thought the ending was rather abrupt. After all that I think a little bit more explanation or time with the reunited couple would have been nice. Also I thought Judi Dench was pretty much wasted as Mrs. Fairfax. I've never thought of that as being a particularly interesting or important role. Oh, and the hairstyles in this movie were all pretty unattractive, though I can't comment on whether they were historically accurate.

New Movie vs. Previous Adaptations:
M: Um, yeah, unlike Jenn, I have not seen any previous adaptations...
J: I'm a big fan of the 2006 BBC miniseries with Toby Stephens and Ruth Wilson. Like I said before, the four hours just gave it more time to develop. The performances are slightly different...Toby Stephens is a bit wilder and Ruth Wilson's Jane had more poise and actually smiled on occasion. In general I liked the miniseries better. Not that this was that bad...

Miscellaneous:
M: Really glad I got to see it! Yet another movie for my 2011 resolutions!
J: I enjoyed it but when I'm in a Jane Eyre mood I'll reach for the miniseries or the book (both of which I own) instead.

Labels: blogchat, movies 2011, resolutions 2011;
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 Mon Apr 25, 2011 9:56 pm

http://www.cinemaviewfinder.com/2011/04/movie-review-jane-eyre-2011.html

Monday, April 25, 2011
Movie Review: Jane Eyre (2011)
by Tony Dayoub

Compared to the couple of adaptations I've seen in the past (neither of which I remember well enough to dwell on) the most recent Jane Eyre best captures the spooky dread of Charlotte Brontë's Gothic novel. Between the previous adaptations' focus on the title character's early feminism and the romance which attracts many of the book's most ardent fans, the first thing to usually go is the story's eerie atmosphere. Not in this film version, though.

Restructuring the story as a flashback, director Cary Fukunaga (Sin Nombre) starts at the point in which a homeless, sick Jane (Mia Wasikowska), having deserted her governess job at Thornfield Hall, is taken in by the devout St. John Rivers (Jaime Bell) and his sisters. Once she recovers, St. John finds her a teaching job in the local village, and we learn of Jane's childhood. The orphaned Jane is sent to a boarding school by her cruel aunt (Sally Hawkins). There, the students are all mistreated by the headmaster, and Jane's closest friend dies as a result. Upon graduating, Jane takes the position of governess for the young ward of Edward Rochester (Michael Fassbender). Master of Thornfield Hall, he is a brooding, unfriendly man "given to ill-tempers," according to the housekeeper, Mrs. Fairfax (Judi Dench). A bond develops between Jane and Rochester after she saves his life from a fire mysteriously set in his bedroom while he lay sleeping. Though class separates Rochester and Jane, this leads to the stirrings of a romance in both. But what are the mysterious screams and noises Jane hears echoing through Thornfield Hall late at night? Who set the fire? And what secret is Rochester holding back from Jane?


A great deal of Jane Eyre's success begins with the casting. Usually the pivotal roles of 18-year-old Jane and the much older Rochester are played by actors who are closer in age than the characters as portrayed in Brontë's novel. By casting 22-year-old Wasikowska opposite 34-year-old Fassbender, Fukunaga transposes the romantic strain which (in the novel) arises from class differences to a tension stemming from their age disparity. In present day, the age difference is much more cause for ostracization than class difference is (note the impending nuptials between a British royal and a commoner). Yes, some may argue that young actresses are cast opposite older actors all the time, but the differential is more pronounced in Jane Eyre because Wasikowska, frequently cast as a teenager, looks even younger than her years, while Fassbender projects more maturity than many of his contemporaries.


Set against Thornfield Hall, in which Jane's naivete in carnal matters—her reluctant sexuality, if you will—is amplified and given life as the horrifying wailing of a fearsome "something," Fukunaga's version of the story finds the distinct voice of Brontë that often eludes other adaptations. If there's any flaw, it is that Jane Eyre feels rushed, flying from one important scene to another like a Cliff's Notes summary of the novel without giving even its most significant moments a chance to just sit and breathe. The twist upon which much of Jane Eyre's third act hinges is resolved far quicker than the buildup to it would suggest, to the detriment of the movie and the atmosphere it's cultivating. But despite turning in a noticeably abridged adaptation of the tome, Fukunaga deftly balances the inherent warmth of the story's tempestuous romance with the chilly darkness of its spine-tingling secret to forge a Jane Eyre that falls just short of being definitive.
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 Tue Apr 26, 2011 2:30 pm

http://ionarts.blogspot.com/2011/04/for-your-consideration-jane-eyre.html

26.4.11
For Your Consideration: 'Jane Eyre'
by Charles T. Downey | Tuesday, April 26, 2011

Charlotte Brontë's classic novel Jane Eyre has been transformed into film too many times, going back at least to the 1943 classic with Orson Welles and Joan Fontaine (not to mention a score by none other than Bernard Herrmann and a cameo for the young Elizabeth Taylor as Jane's only friend at her cruel boarding school). The most recent attempt for the big screen was by Franco Zeffirelli (with William Hurt and Charlotte Gainsbourg, somewhat improbably), and the BBC (or a similar network) seems to undertake an adaptation about once each decade, most recently an excellent mini-series by the BBC in 2006. This latest version was adapted for the screen by breakout writer Moira Buffini, who made the ingenious choice to tell the story in an order other than the chronological one found in Brontë's novel. The film begins with the novel's second plot, with Jane found on the heath by St. John Rivers and his sisters, which makes that part of the story seem much less like a cumbersome add-on, a Romantic deus ex machina that Brontë used to tie up the loose ends as Jane gets a fortune.

As directed by Cary Fukunaga, in his first major feature after Sin Nombre, which had some success at Sundance, this is a stylish film that plays heavily on the ghost-story associations of the source novel, long on Gothic gloom and happily short on mawkish sentiment. There is nothing about the film as an adaptation of an over-adapted story that demands viewing, but it is beautifully shot (cinematography by Adriano Goldman), well acted, and the novel's long, sprawling narrative is convincingly streamlined. Anyone who enjoys watching English history pictures will enjoy this one, too. We are clearly going to be seeing more of the young, Australian-born actress Mia Wasikowska, last noted as a relative newcomer and the best part of The Kids Are All Right. She also starred in Tim Burton's Alice in Wonderland, a movie that we enjoyed very much but did not get around to reviewing. Now she has the title role in Jane Eyre, and her performance and look are quite similar to that of Ruth Wilson in the 2006 TV series: with hair framing her face too close and an emotionless pallor, one might forget how pretty Wasikowska really is. She brings the same impassive calm she had in The Kids Are All Right and Alice in Wonderland, with emotional reserves that lurk just around corners.

Other Reviews:
Roger Ebert | A. O. Scott | Washington Post | Los Angeles Times | Wall Street Journal
David Denby | TIME | Slate | Salon | Village Voice | Movie Review Intelligence

Fukunaga seems to take Brontë at her word as far as the irritability and general undesirability of the character of Mr. Rochester, who employs Jane as a governess for a French girl who is his ward. Michael Fassbender (Inglourious Basterds) plays him with scruffy beard, sharp tongue, and general peevishness, so much so that one does wonder at times just what Jane sees in him. Of course, the dour would-be missionary St. John Rivers, played here with parsimonious expression by Jamie Bell (Billy Elliott), proposes to Jane more as a business matter than one of love, so her choices are limited. It was wise to concentrate most of the servants at Thornfield Hall into the person of the housekeeper, Mrs. Fairfax, played with matronly authority by Judi Dench. All of the production team deserves credit for a plush and authentic look to everything in this movie, from the costumes to the locations (all actually in Derbyshire) and interiors. It does bring to mind a certain absence in my movie-going life for a historical-film partnership like that of Merchant-Ivory, since the death of Ismail Merchant certainly but really going back to The Remains of the Day (1993) and, maybe, Surviving Picasso (1996) to find a film I really liked. Is there a career to be had in being the next Merchant-Ivory franchise? I don't know, but I know that I would watch more films like this one.
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 Tue Apr 26, 2011 2:31 pm

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

Tuesday, April 26, 2011
Jane Eyre

Some avid Shakespeare attendees I have found develop an abhorrence for Hamlet. Everyone does Hamlet and it's a very long and arduous play. I knew a woman who refused to see the David Tennant Hamlet at the RCS because she was so over Hamlet. I couldn't imagine this! Every Hamlet is new! and David Tennant! Although Hamlet is not my favorite, so I might have skipped it as well had I not been such a Tennant fan, but we're not going to talk about Shakespeare. We're going to talk about Bronte!

With the recent movie Jane Eyre being the 4th in fifteen years I think that some of us have become a little weary of this particular piece, but not me! It was hard for me to imagine a better telling than the most recent BBC production starring Ruth Wilson and Toby Stephens. At four hours it included everything I loved and gave a new life to the story.

When I heard about the new version I was skeptical at first. The Jane, played by Mia Wasikowska, did not thrill me as she was nothing special in Alice in Wonderland. Rochester looked hunky, but I was concerned that he was barely ten years older than Jane, not close to twenty. The costumes of course (by Oscar winning designer Michael O'Connor) were going to be a win, but even after watching clips online I was unsure about casting and was interested to know how this version could be different or noteworthy among the so many others.

In truth you can't really change Jane Eyre up too much. This version did change the order of things a bit, but that was perhaps the most novel thing about the actual story line, but that was the best part! This version went back to some of the essentials in the book that I feel have been missing from other versions, while updating it enough to make it palatable for the audience. Case in point: the after the wedding scene.

In the Timothy Dalton version this scene is followed faithfully with Rochester going NUTS and throwing the biggest tantrum ever, as the literary Rochester does.
In the Toby Stephens version this scene is split up into memories of Rochester in Jane's room in less than vertical positions.
In the newest version the essence of the book, Jane and Rochester's absolute defeat, is portrayed beautifully, violently on Rochester's side, but without turning the audience off to him. It was just absolutely breathtaking.

Other scenes of note are of course after the fire, when Rochester falls off his horse, and the proposal. The very former was again, breathtaking.

Wasikowska's performance was better than I'd ever hoped. Again, the script returned to the book in such a way that the real, feisty but careful Jane was revealed. I was so pleasantly surprised by her performance. Michael Fassbender was fantastic, and attractive in such a peculiar way that while not being ugly enough for Rochester (no man yet cast has been) had a strange look about him that wasn't entirely knock you over attractive. His portrayal of Rochester I feel was new enough and lovable.

Other performances of note were Dame Judi Dench as Mrs. Fairfax and a never looking better Jamie Bell as St. John (whom, opposite of Rochester, has never been cast handsome enough).

The costumes were perfect to distraction. The accuracy in the women's wear was exhaustive, even down to the little known flap on the front of Jane's chemise to prevent any chance that her corset might be seen. The material choices in the menswear were especially interesting as Rochester's evening ensemble seemed to be some sort of polished cotton. In general Rochester was costumed impeccably, if not mildly stylized and slender. Set in the 40s when the book was written Rochester had a fly front pair of pants, something I'll have to research. I don't doubt O'Connor found research for this. Down to the collars and bustles (not to be confused with the 1870s usage) the costumes were spectacular.

As was the hair and make up. Oh man, so great, and pristine.
Posted by Shelby at 7:39 AM
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 Tue Apr 26, 2011 2:32 pm

http://the27th.blogspot.com/2011/04/jane-eyre-2011.html

Tuesday, April 26, 2011
Jane Eyre (2011)

A faithful and satisfying adaptation of Bronte’s great novel. Mia Wasikowska is excellent as she always seems to be. She can certainly play a mix of strength and vulnerability; I wonder if she will stay with those types of roles. As Jane, she is perhaps a bit too pretty for the role but her looks are slightly unconventional so it works. Michael Fassbender was just fine as Rochester.

The plotting was solid and covered all the key elements from the book. The first 30 minutes of the film were somewhat rushed as the events from Jane’s childhood are shown in flashbacks. I would have liked to see an extra ten minutes or so added to this section but with the runtime already at two hours commercial reasons make the shortening reasonable. When the pacing slowed down to take on the Jane-Rochester romance the film strengthened. The St. John character was uneven, alternating between harsh religiosity and friendly concern. I believe these qualities were more mixed and simultaneously present in the book. The film's approach of having him take on different characteristics in alternate scenes felt odd.

Some of the camera work was interesting with canted angles and the like used to bring out the gothic elements. These seemed to go away from some reason in the last third of the film.
Posted by 27 at 4:06 AM
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 Tue Apr 26, 2011 2:33 pm

http://bnowalk.blogspot.com/2011/04/jane-eyre-bride-of-rochester.html

Tuesday, April 26, 2011
Jane Eyre: Bride of Rochester

For a film about a singular meeting of minds, Cary Fukunaga’s Jane Eyre is kind of undistinguished. Now, the words remain delicious morsels straight from Charlotte Bronte’s novel, and the performances (Mia Wasikwoska, Michael Fassbender, Jamie Bell, and Judi Dench) embody three-dimensions like James Cameron never dreamed of. But like Never Let Me Go, another painterly romance where the words preach transcendence and the style settles for ordinary, Jane Eyre is pretty in the usual ways—jewel tones, peat planetscapes, lived-in antiques—animating everything in Bronte’s story except its spirit.

Well, not everything’s straightforward. The story is jumbled, opening with Jane fleeing Rochester’s mansion and finding comfort in the welcome, dashing arms of a freshly worked-out Jamie Bell, and instead of Bronte’s one-way road we keep yanking from flashbacks to present for no discernable reason beyond injecting gloom over the central romance since we know how it ostensibly ends. It purports to be noirish haze but is actually a cheap fake-out. It’s like Joe Gillis narrating a story that opens with his body floating in a pool, only once we catch up to that point, he climbs out, towels off, and kisses his beloved in her decaying mansion.

How anyone could fail to understand what Jane sees in Michael Fassbender’s Rochester—a sharp, mysterious vision—is beyond me, but Fukunaga doesn’t show us what he sees in Jane. Surely their meet-cute wasn’t it, as he snarls at her for startling his horse, but by their next encounter, he’s already fascinated with her, as smitten as a brooding Heathcliff can be. Not only does it suggest a simply physical lust that belies all the talk of intellectual connection, but it smacks of fatalism, a problem considering the major themes are of equality and independence.

Fukunaga’s Jane Eyre is a sumptuous romantic landscape I would gladly get lost in with gothic set-pieces that deliriously evoke its self-destructive wonder. It’s a detailed reincarnation of the monster’s every body part lacking only the metaphysical electricity that charges it.
Posted by Brandon Nowalk at 4:30 AM
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 Tue Apr 26, 2011 2:47 pm

http://thinklooklisten.wordpress.com/2011/04/26/movies/

f you can only get to one movie this week, it should be…

Jane Eyre: Okay, maybe this applies to the ladies only, but Jane Eyre is the greatest, most satisfying love story ever written. The latest version, starring Michael Fassbender as Rochester and Mia Wasikowska as Jane, does an excellent job at bringing the book to life. This is a difficult thing to do as the majority of the excitement/action in the book occurs in Jane’s internal dialogue. Yes, there is a dark secret hidden, quite literally by Rochester and it brings the plot to a climax, but the best part of the story comes from Jane’s constant reflections. That’s difficult to transfer to the screen and although the movies try and try, something always seems amiss. However, the story never gets old: Jane’s strong morals, Rochester’s brooding, and their undeniable connection which makes you want them to please, please, please just get together and live happily ever after already. Oh, and Michael Fassbender is pretty easy on the eyes, too.

Seriously.
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 6 of 6 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


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