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
October 2019
SunMonTueWedThuFriSat
  12345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
2728293031  

Calendar Calendar


Jane Eyre reviews and spoilers 2

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

Go down

Jane Eyre reviews and spoilers 2 - Page 6 Empty Re: Jane Eyre reviews and spoilers 2

Post by Admin on Tue Mar 22, 2011 12:38 am

http://ruthlessblogs.com/2011/03/21/jane-eyre-movie-review/

Celebrity & Entertainment — March 21, 2011 5:19 pm
Jane Eyre Movie Review
Posted by RuthlessBlogs Collaboration

Reel Review: Jane Eyre is a film directed by Cary Fukunaga and starring Mia Wasikowska and Michael Fassbender. The screenplay is written by Moira Buffini based on the 1847 novel of the same name by Charlotte Brontë. The film was released on March 11, 2011 in the United States, and will be released on September 9 in the UK.

What’s Inside: The sixteenth feature film version of Charlotte Brontë’s 17th Century novel follows a young orphan’s “tale of woe” from a family that doesn’t love her to her position as a governess for a mysterious man in a creepy old castle.

Wrapping It Up: The tension in the genre is often generated by a virginal girl’s attraction to a dangerous man. The more pitiful and helpless the heroine the better, but she must also be proud and virtuous, brave and idealistic. Her attraction to the ominous hero must be based on pity, not fear; he must deserve her idealism.
Admin
Admin
Admin

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

Back to top Go down

Jane Eyre reviews and spoilers 2 - Page 6 Empty Re: Jane Eyre reviews and spoilers 2

Post by Admin on Tue Mar 22, 2011 12:41 am

http://liljastudyingmedicine.blogspot.com/2011/03/weekend-movies.html

21.3.11
Weekend movies
Jane Eyre written by Charlotte Brontë is probably one of the best books I have ever read. Now there is a new dramatization of the book, done by BBC films. There are a lot of movies based on this book, which I unfortunately have not seen.

In this version we can see Mia Wasikowska as Jane Eyre. A year ago she was the leading actress in Alice in Wonderland. Even though she is quiet a young actress, I think she has played these both roles very good!

Rochester is played by Michael Fassbender. He has done some movies, most famous of them is Inglorious Basterds. He will play in several movies during 2011 and 2012.

The good thing was that it is about 5 years since I read the book, so I did not remember that much. But of course, a book with several hundred pages can't be squezzed into a two hour movie. But I think this was a good film based on an amazing book.

Upplagd av Lilja kl. 20:28
Admin
Admin
Admin

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

Back to top Go down

Jane Eyre reviews and spoilers 2 - Page 6 Empty Re: Jane Eyre reviews and spoilers 2

Post by Admin on Tue Mar 22, 2011 12:41 am

http://weetiger3.livejournal.com/29131.html

Finally, on Sunday morning, came the film that I was undoubtedly looking forward to the most: Jane Eyre.

Oh, Focus Features, I forgive you for so shamelessly toying with me. Your film was well worth the enhanced anticipation you created by making me wait an additional week and in fact, you had me at the title card.

Cary Fukunaga, with all of two major films on his resume has positioned himself to be a cinematic force to be reckoned with. It’s staggering, considering how young he is, to think of the career that is ahead of him. Back-handing away any notion of a sophomore slump, he followed up the beautiful Sin Nombre with the equally beautiful and haunting Jane Eyre. On the surface, these two films could not be more different, but at their core they are both about the fragility and resilience of the human spirit. Fukunaga has created a film as beautifully and deftly as any old world master would put paint to canvas.

I’ve seen many versions of this story and they all have something to recommend them. This one is my new favorite. Screenwriter Moira Buffini’s choice to land us in the middle of the story and use flashback to fill in the gaps helped to make it seem fresh. It was the most atmospheric and gothic production, although two recent BBC versions came close, that I can recall. It was again augmented by the use of natural light, which in those days meant a few candles and a hearth. When Jane creeps through the dark hallways of Thornefield Hall holding a single candle, we only see as much as she sees, all of us waiting for something to jump out of the darkness. There is an instance where the entire audience did jump and it happens in broad daylight (well, as broad as it gets in the north of England,) but I won’t spoil it here.

The chemistry between the two leads was palpable from their first exchange. When they are onscreen together, everything and everyone else falls away. This scene that I showed you a few weeks ago, encapsulates all of that (and would have shown again if my post weren't "too big".)

What I said at the time, “This is the hottest piece of celluloid that I have seen in a LOOOOOONG time. I can’t stop watching it. And every time I do, I sit here with my mouth agape and my chest heaving with the effort to resume the breath caught in my throat, a hot tickle in my stomach…

TMI? Or the ultimate compliment to the palpable sexual allure of Michael Fassbender, an allure that has heretofore not so much remained hidden, but severely underutilized.”

I thought I was prepared. I thought I’d seen it so often that the magic had worn off, that I couldn’t possibly “feel it” the way I did the first time I saw it. I was wrong. Think about the frame of that scene a thousand times larger, with that voice booming out in Dolby THX (or whatever the hell the sound system at your local theater is)…imagine that and you’ll begin to get an inkling. It not only still took my breath away, but it rocked me to my toes. It was quite simply…erotic. Considering that the participants were both fully clothed and only their hands touched, that’s saying something.

Beyond all of that, (and frankly because of all that, Fassbender and Wasikowska could have been acting on a bare stage,) the English country side was used to spectacular effect. Just as LA became another character in The Lincoln Lawyer, so did the moors of northern England in Jane Eyre. It is easy to forget that England is geographically such a small country when there seem to be so many vast areas that appear to remain untouched, natural and wild and mostly uninhabited. In the film, as in the novel, the harsh landscape is a reflection of Jane’s life. We see it flower and bloom very briefly when Jane does, but for the most part it is harsh and unyielding.

The supporting cast, led by Dame Judi Dench as the housekeeper Mrs. Fairfax and Jamie Bell as St.John Rivers, is all marvelous, as is befitting a movie made in a country where it appears every one of its citizens lives to act.

I must also mention the score by Oscar winner Dario Marianelli. (He won in ’07 for Atonement and was nominated for 2005’s Pride and Prejudice.) Gorgeous, just gorgeous. Actually, lush is a better word. It’s not too early for me to predict another nomination.

JMHO, but the entire thing was utterly swoon-worthy and I can’t wait to see it again. It goes without saying that I highly recommend this one and I’d go so far as to say, see it, if at all possible, on the big screen. It will no doubt play well at home, but the sight and sound of 10 ft. tall Fassbender is worth the price of the ticket.

May I also just reiterate what a joy it is to see a movie at an art-house where only adults go to see movies? Not only were there people waiting for the doors to open for the first showing of the day (and not just for Jane Eyre, but obscure films like Poetry,) but inside the theater you could have heard a pin drop throughout the entire movie. (Unlike Limitless where I had to endure the five kids from the nearby technical high school that acted like they were on a field trip and came in 15 min. in, parked themselves next to me in the front row and proceeded to talk to the screen and to each other the entire time. Between them and the transient loudly SNORING at the end of the row, you people are lucky you didn’t see me on the news.)
Thus endeth my weekend at the movies.
Admin
Admin
Admin

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

Back to top Go down

Jane Eyre reviews and spoilers 2 - Page 6 Empty Re: Jane Eyre reviews and spoilers 2

Post by Admin on Tue Mar 22, 2011 12:52 am

http://www.keiraandrews.com/2011/03/21/in-praise-of-fictional-assholes/

In Praise of Fictional Assholes
Posted on March 21, 2011 by Keira Andrews

Saw the new Jane Eyre on the weekend and absolutely loved it. I simply adore this type of story, and even though there have been 897675 versions, I’m always happy to see another. Mia Wasikowska was phenomenal; I think hers is my favourite interpretation of Jane yet. She’s such a talented young lady. Michael Fassbender was dead sexy as the mercurial Rochester, and Judi Dench is of course always a treat. Gorgeous cinematography as well. I’m also quite smitten with the poster. Beautiful.

Seeing this new version of the classic story got me thinking about why it is I enjoy the Rochester archetype so much. With little exception, if there’s a brooding, glowering, slightly assholish hero, I’m there with bells on. Of course, he must be tortured by his secret manpain and be redeemed and fall truly in love with the heroine or other hero by the end — I have no interest in an unrepentant jerk.

Mr. Rochester’s the kind of guy I’d never, ever give the time of day in real life. He’s way too high maintenance. But in fiction, I just adore a character who’s mysterious, tortured and often plain ol’ rude.

Naturally, I also love it when he falls for the mousy, quiet and unassuming character whom everyone else has unfairly cast aside or underestimated. I’m a sucker for the ugly duckling trope.

I do also enjoy fictional heroes who are good and kind and not rude at all. But there’s something about the Mr. Rochesters of the world that pushes my buttons very hard. Why is that, I wonder? I suppose it’s because men of his type are very much a thing of fantasy. As I said, in real life, I just have no patience for moody, broody people. But in fiction, the formidably handsome rake can be changed by love, revealing his tender heart.

So what about you? Do you enjoy fictional assholes? Or do you think Jane Eyre should have run away from Thornfield and never looked back?
Admin
Admin
Admin

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

Back to top Go down

Jane Eyre reviews and spoilers 2 - Page 6 Empty Re: Jane Eyre reviews and spoilers 2

Post by Admin on Tue Mar 22, 2011 12:53 am

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

Sunday, March 20, 2011
Jane Eyre

Q: What’s the movie about?

A: Based on the famous novel by Charlotte Bronte, Jane Eyre (Mia Wasikowska) is a governess who falls for her master (Michael Fassbender), despite their difference in social class.

Q: Who’s in the movie?

A: Mia Wasikowska, Michael Fassbender, Judi Dench, Jamie Bell, Imogen Poots, Sally Hawkins, Amelia Clarkson, Romy Settbon Moore, Holliday Grainger, Tamzin Merchant, Simon McBurney

Q: Is this movie worth the price of admission?

A: PhotobucketGo! I would say you should go because seeing the movie is way easier than reading the Cliff's Notes, but the people who will be tempted to see this in the first place, are the same morons who probably read the whole book.

Q: Will this movie make me laugh?

A: I had a funny thought when Jane was punished as a little girl, and made to stand on a chair without food. You see her best friend sneaked her a piece of bread, and forgetting that there once existed a time without audio/video recording devices, I couldn't stop thinking, "You idiot! There are cameras everywhere!" Which is not so much funny as it is sad, both in that we live in a time where you can no longer get away with sneaking your friend a piece of bread, and in that the 21st Century surveillance level is so ingrained in my way of thinking, that I can no longer relate to period pieces.

Q: Will this movie make me cry?

A: Yes, and surprisingly at romance. There is a scene so romantic, and overflowing with words so visual and expressions of love so passionate that you will cry like you're at your best friend's wedding, and are suddenly struck with the realization that (while you're very happy for her) you are never going to hear from her again.

Q: Will this movie be up for any awards?

A: Do a period piece, get nominated for a Costume Design Award... Them's the rules.

Q: How is the Acting?

A: Mia Wasikowska's performance is as understated as Michael Fassbender's is in your face.

Q: How is the Directing?

A: The beginning is very slow and uninteresting all the way up until the point when Michael Fassbender arrives on the scene. Cary Joji Fukunaga would have done well to tell the story in a linear fashion, getting to the point fassbenderer, rather than introducing us to the drama with unnecessary bookends. The non-linear editing somewhat confuses the time-line and makes this story more difficult to follow than it has to be.

Q: How is the story/script?

A: I have never read the book. Not because I'm unread, but rather because none of my teachers ever forced me to read it for school. Come on, how many classics have you read just for fun? I'm guessing for most of you the answer is none.

Q: Where can I see the trailer?

A: Jane Eyre Trailer

Posted by Monique at 10:04 PM
Admin
Admin
Admin

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

Back to top Go down

Jane Eyre reviews and spoilers 2 - Page 6 Empty Re: Jane Eyre reviews and spoilers 2

Post by Admin on Tue Mar 22, 2011 12:54 am

http://bellusforma.wordpress.com/2011/03/21/jane-eyre-and-the-2011-version/

Jane Eyre and the 2011 Version

Posted on March 21, 2011 by Roxanne

So, as promised, I will now write about Jane Eyre, which I watched just a few short hours ago.

Initial reaction: Strongly Liked It

Spoilers Contained: Sort of (If you already know the story of Jane Eyre, I reveal nothing new)

Uncharacteristically for these types of period movies, we start by being plunged right smack dab into the middle of the story. We are running away from Thornfield Hall, without aim, into the cold and blistering moors. I was not really taken in by this sudden plunge (as I’m thinking the director was hoping) because our cascade of feelings for the characters come as a result of being led through the story in sequence. Jane Eyre is not a story, I feel, that can handle modernistic film styles such as flash-backs and fast-paced montages. As a result, we do not really and truly feel pity for Jane because we don’t care about her yet. We are brought to the chronological beginning of the story by means of a flash-back Jane has while in the semi-delirious state caused by her moor-wandering.

I must say that I really loved the attention to details in this film. For instance, when we are introduced to young Jane her teeth are crooked (it lends well to the authenticity of the period and the fact that most children have crooked teeth) and she looks tired and stressed. We can see by her face the hellish environment she is living in. Also, while this isn’t a violent movie, the violence shown towards her by her brutish cousin, John Reed, really makes you understand the abusiveness she would have been experiencing. We even see that most of this violence goes about behind the prejudicial and unaware eyes of Mrs. Reed.Jane Eyre Display

Another fine detail in this adaptation were the costumes. I didn’t find that they were subtly altered in a modern way to compliment the figures of the players (although they were beautiful costumes) and what I mean by what I say is that back then, just like now, some clothing styles don’t fit someone well or look particularly awesome on someone and I’m sure that the same idea applied back in the 1840s. I reference in particular a scene where John Reed is wearing some frightfully unflattering trousers caused by his having to wear suspenders and causing the pants to rise and bunch. I think you get my meaning.

In terms of storyline, I found that a lot was missing. A scene that stood out brightly in my mind as missing, was the one in which Mr. Rochester disguises himself as a gypsy woman telling fortunes to winnow out Jane’s true feelings for him. I only noticed it because not only did it fast-forward a lot of the story, but it’s a pivotal scene as well as one of my favourites.

Also you would think from the film having begun with Jane’s landing in the life of the Rivers’ that the relationship there would be fleshed out a little bit, but it too was contracted to the point where when St. John (pronounced “Sinjin”) proposes marriage and gets angry at her for her refusal to go as anything less than man and wife you kinda want him to cool it a bit because you haven’t fully grasped the shades of his emotional progression from benefactor, to friend, to step-brother to wannabe husband. He’s more just there as benefactor, benefactor, benefactor, awkward step-brother, “Marry me!” No logical progression there at all (this though is a fault of the editing process as I’m sure if we watched all the footage you would have seen this progression).

Jane Outfit #1Which moves me on to my next point: pace. I know that only so much can be covered in 1hr and 50mins, but I have unfortunately seen a few of the other adaptations (as have the other femelles I went with) which were unencumbered by such trivialities as time limits. I mean, I could almost see the cut marks where the director was told to hurry it up. “Too much love story here. Lose it!” So, while we weren’t forced to hold our bladders for a four-hour epic, I think I would have been happier if we had been. The tension between Jane and Edward needs time to develop and become an intense slow burn. In this version we kinda just lit a match and huddled around it. We burned ourselves occasionally on the heat, but in general weren’t warmed by the flame.

With that said, there were two scenes where I could feel my heart start thumping for the romanticism and crackling emotions of it all! One, where she rouses and helps Edward extinguish the flames in his room. This scene always gets me based on the actions alone, but the chemistry between the two actors was amazing! Mia Wasikowska and Michael Fassbender were believably starting to like each other. Their hesitance and her final decision to get outta dodge before he landed his lips on hers was exciting. Scene number two; where he pleads with her to run away with him after his first wife is exposed. Again the emotions these two showed us took my breath away. His desperate attempts to hold onto the small shred of happiness he has by means of Jane and her excruciating want to comfort him, but knowing that as a married man she cannot give into her emotions… well it was so heartbreaking. “God help me!” she yells before exiting the room. If we have ever been in that situation we know how hard it is to just walk away.

The cinematography/editing in this film really reminded me of another film (triggered by the montage sequence of the two lovebirds getting to know one another post-engagement), which I can’t for the life of me think of, but I really, really liked it. The scope and framing of everything really worked well. Even the adherence to how much light a candle actually generates was good (I hate it when a candle is lit and it can light up a space the size of a coliseum, so unrealistic).

So Hawt!Anyway, I was happy with this film. It had stuff about it that was better than the rest (the chemistry from some scenes, costumes and sets, the general production value) and some areas which were limited by time (emotional progression on a whole, pace, the extraction of scenes, reliance on the audience’s prior knowledge of the story), but all in all it was an enjoyable time.

I will probably buy this film and add it to my plethora of period go-to movies for a nice night in.

Ciao,

~ S
Admin
Admin
Admin

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

Back to top Go down

Jane Eyre reviews and spoilers 2 - Page 6 Empty Re: Jane Eyre reviews and spoilers 2

Post by Admin on Tue Mar 22, 2011 12:55 am

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

Monday, 21 March, 2011
Jane Eyre (2011)
Photobucket

Dir: Cary Fukunaga (Sin nombre)
Cast: Mia Wasikowska, Michael Fassbender, Jamie Bell, Judi Dench, Sally Hawkins, Valentina Cervi
UK, 2011

Seen: March 18, 2011 at the Varsity

Reason to see: It's the March Film Selection for the Movie Moxie Book to Film Club

It feels odd to say this, but Jane Eyre one probably the book to film adaptation that I was most hesitant about for the Book to Film Club, because I hadn't read the novel Jane Eyre by Charlotte Brontë before this year and the number of historically set films based on books that I've enjoyed is, well, limited at best. But things were looking up as I absolutely adored the book, and hopefully but cautious about the film. I didn't watch any of the trailers and had seen just a few posters and images which seemed to aptly capture the tone and period as well as showing the cast looking striking.

I also had several hesitations going into the film, because it's such a great story and the character of Jane Eyre is truly wonderful in so many ways that you really want the film to capture her and her story just right. And it really is her story, I would have been miffed if they shifted that focus at all but thankfully it's true to the book in that sense and keeps it very much her story. Mia Wasikowska (Alice in Wonderland (2010), The Kids Are All Right) does a great job of bringing Jane to life, from her frankness to her realism and also her strong sense of right & wrong at all times. I found that her strength of character was aptly depicted, especially how she is an active decision maker regardless of the trying circumstances she may be in, but I do wish they had also showcased her intelligence as much as her emotional strength, because it's such an essential part of the character. It's still there, but not as present as I had wished and that could be from particular scenes and moment from the book that resonated particularly strongly with me.

It's a huge undertaking to adapt a book like this, and there are several moments especially in her earlier life I wish we had seen, but I'm not overly surprized that they choose to focus on her days at Thornfield and the relationships with Rochester as well as St. John. I have to say that the casting in the film is fantastic, when I heard that Michael Fassbender (Fish Tank) would be playing Rochester I knew we were in for a treat and he's absolutely perfect. Jamie Bell (Billy Elliott, The Eagle) is also great as St. John, although they downplayed the religious nature of his character which was quite a surprize. There were several changes and choices that I was surprized at, and actually didn't love, although they often felt like choices that would make the story feel more accessible for current day audiences but I would have preferred them to be true to the book. There were lots of things that I resonated more with the story while watching it as a film over reading though, namely the character of Mrs. Fairfax, played by Judi Dench and the vastness of Thornfield and surrounding countryside which made it feel like nothing at all could be nearby and thereby making the world feel spectacularly enormous. They also highlighted a repeated sense of the slightly supernatural, hints of which I must have totally missed while reading!

I feel like I'm harping on the little things here and there, but that's because each and every other moment was amazing. The tone and pace was just right. The characters & relationships were complicated and true. And Jane Eyre was Jane Eyre, a hold strong, fantastic woman who is aspiring, inspiring and true. I'm so glad I read the book first, and would highly recommend people do the same but even so Jane Eyre (2011) is a very powerful, magnificent film.

Shannon's Overall View:
I really enjoyed it
I'll watch it again
I strongly recommend it, especially for those who enjoy period pieces and/or films with female protagonists
Admin
Admin
Admin

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

Back to top Go down

Jane Eyre reviews and spoilers 2 - Page 6 Empty Re: Jane Eyre reviews and spoilers 2

Post by Admin on Tue Mar 22, 2011 12:56 am

http://thisisjasmine.wordpress.com/2011/03/20/friday-night-at-thornfield-hall/

March 20, 2011 · 10:26 pm

Friday night at Thornfield Hall

I’m not superstitious, but this encounter last Friday does not fill me with confidence. However, I will continue to keep my fingers crossed and hope for the best. As well as, of course, continue to look for work.

Apart from that awkwardness, my Friday was fantastic. Actually, my fantastic Friday started Thursday, when I hung out with Jeff. It continued over lunch with Rozi and baby Anna. Then Danita and I saw Jane Eyre. I really enjoyed it because I am so very fond of Michael Fassbender. I mean, look at him!

Ooh, he’s all a-smolder. (image from focusfeature.com/jane_eyre)

Danita didn’t think much of the things that didn’t make the leap from the book to the adaptation — namely that the Rivers siblings were Jane’s cousins (in the movie they are of no relation) but I didn’t miss it. They got St. John’s character right, but by that point in the movie, I think it was obvious that (spoiler alert!) Jane would return to Rochester, and they would live “happily emo after” in a burnt-out castle.
Admin
Admin
Admin

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

Back to top Go down

Jane Eyre reviews and spoilers 2 - Page 6 Empty Re: Jane Eyre reviews and spoilers 2

Post by Admin on Tue Mar 22, 2011 12:57 am

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

Sunday, March 20, 2011
Jane Eyre...

Where to begin?!?! I guess the beginning will do. A few years ago I was watching the movie Definitely, Maybe with my sister. If you've seen the movie, you know that April, Isla Fisher's character, has sentimental ties to the Charlotte Bronte novel Jane Eyre. I had heard of this many times, but never read it, so I finally decided I would read it. I went out and bought it, and quickly fell in love with it. Now fast forward a couple years. British Lit required text: Jane Eyre. I was so excited! So we read it again, and Dr. Ross brings a copy of the movie to show us a clip. Of course, after seeing a few short minutes of it, I wanted to finish it. So my sisters and I search the local movie store, failing to find it. So I ordered it online, and am now the proud owner of the Masterpiece Theater version of my favorite novel.

About a year ago I discovered that a new movie adaptation was in the works, set to release March 11, 2011. I was SO excited! So I've waited about a year for this movie, the week comes for it to release, and I discover that it's only showing in select theaters...aka ONE theater in Dallas. And not even on the release date, but a week later. So upsetting. So I wait a whole nother week, and FINALLY see it.

As soon as it began, my heart started sinking. I knew it would be downhill from there. It begins as a flashback-something that I felt would be totally confusing to those who have not read the novel, and I was right. (it confused all five of my moviegoing companions)it was stressing me out. When things finally got underway, I began noticing things that were either poorly stressed, or left out all together.

I found the part where Jane leaves Lowood school to be entirely confusing-one second she was a young pupil, the next she's grown up and leaving. They gave no detail of her position there as an older girl, or explanation of how she advertised for her position at Thornfield. Once she arrived at Thornfield, things got worse. There was never allusion to Grace Poole-viewers weren't introduced to her until close to the end of the film-the part with Blanche and her companions dwelling several weeks at Thornfield was reduced to barely five minutes, and emphasis on that time, which is so crucial to the development of Jane's feelings toward Mr. Rochester-were completely nonexistent.

During Jane's time with the Rivers siblings, more things were left out. When St. John tells Jane of her new inheritance, they left out the important detail that they are COUSINS-meaning Jane finally has people in her life that she can count on-relatives, that is. And finally, the reunion of Jane and Rochester. The most vital quote of the entire novel is left out.

All this said-I hope I haven't spoiled the book for you. I always know, going into movies whose books I've already read, that there are bound to be disappointments. I fully realize that it would've been impossible for every single detail of the story to be included in the movie. At the same time, however, I strongly agree that the vital, important parts should ALL be included. It's those very things that make the novel; those very things are what moviegoers who love the novels long to see played out on screen, out of their mind almost to real life. I would also like to mention that other than leaving so much out, it was a decent film. Wonderful acting, it was well made, and lovely. Michael Fassbender at the end of the movie-oh, my heart skipped a beat. Beautifully bearded and shaggy haired. Lovely. I think that, other than the confusing flashbacks, viewers who had not read the book would thoroughly enjoy the film. The jury's still out on whether or not I will purchase it once released.

Disclaimer: I just typed this on my phone. Blame all typos on that. Smile
Posted by meawhitbrown at 9:58 PM
Admin
Admin
Admin

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

Back to top Go down

Jane Eyre reviews and spoilers 2 - Page 6 Empty Re: Jane Eyre reviews and spoilers 2

Post by Admin on Tue Mar 22, 2011 12:57 am

http://mw-u2.livejournal.com/416924.html

Jane Eyre (2011): A Very Brief Review
March 20th, 2011 (10:57 pm)

On Friday evening I was invited out to see the newest Jane Eyre film. This week has been a hard one on me, so I readily agreed. Jane Eyre is my favorite novel and I had high standards, but rather high hopes for this adaptation. I was ready to be disappointed, but I was hopeful that I would not be.

The film was stunning.

At the end of the thing I turned to the people I was with and whispered (in what I thought was a quiet way), "That was so good!"

It turned out not to be such a quiet whisper, as a large portion of the people around me laughed.

However, I doubt they were laughing at what I said. The film was fantastic and awesome. And when I saw 'awesome' I imply a much older use of the word. One in which the 'awe' is the main focus. 'Awful' in that classic sense would also be appropriate.

Cary Fukunaga achieved something which Joe Wright attempted in 2006: He condensed a beloved novel coherently and in a manner that was satisfying to the audience. I enjoyed Joe Wrights adaptation of Pride and Prejudice for it's minimalist retelling and highlighting of the commonplace acts and items unmentioned in the text. Cary Fukunaga applied that same theory to Jane Eyre. Two hours is a long film, but not nearly enough time to dedicate to the full richness of the novel. Pieces had to be removed and some events smoothed to make an evenly paced story.

Jane's character was never compromised and a lot of the deep inner dialog was expressed as conversations within the film highlighting much of Jane long hidden from a film audience. Jane's boundless passion and strength and revolutionary feminist ideas are handled well not only by the writer, Moira Buffini, but by the actress, Mia Wasikowska. There were some places where I did not agree with her choices, but I understood exactly why she did them and where in the novel those opinions could be formed.

The editing of the film also lead to a new way in which we could learn about Jane Eyre as a character. The film begins with Jane's flight from Thornfield and uses memories to display her life and choices. To me, this highlighted the internal burdens of Jane. There are things in the novel which she only tells the readers. Rochester never hears the story of Helen Burns, and likewise the intimacy we as watcher feel glimpsing these memories makes us connect with Jane all the more. Especially when she is faced with stranger after stranger. The use of flashbacks were not distracting, but rather evocative. When we were placed within the first few the read as memories, but as these memories turned from her early childhood to her time at Thornfield, I felt less and less that I was in a memory and more and more as if I was in the present tense.

The use of memory also allowed for the pacing of scenes and the removal of others. While in the novel Jane is writing of her memories to a series of readers and therefore is putting everything upon paper, in this film the memories are for her own pleasure (or pain) and the jumps in time and understandable as well as the singular focus of some scenes.

Michael Fassbender's interpretation of Rochester was intriguing. He is the first Rochester I have seen play the scene in which he threatens Jane with violence using actual violence. Toby Stephens used kisses and William Hurt used diction. Fassbender walks the edge of violence, passion, love, and pain. He highlights the haughtiness and impatience of Rochester. He makes him unhappy and disturbed without over given to angst. Rochester, the first and greatest troll, is made understandable (though a lot of that was made in removing some of the most trolling scenes... sadly). The change in Rochester because of his love for Jane is apparently: a stability of motion. With what was chosen to use for scenes, Fassbender executed a perfect Rochester for the piece. He is what the film needed and he balances well with Mia's Jane.

The supporting characters were well cast. Jamie Bell was a great, sympathetic St. John Rivers, and then slowly evolved his hardened heart. There were several choices about his character that were evoked due to time, but by introducing St. John to us first and noting his lingering kindness, we are able to see what the choice was that Jane had to make. A dedicated, honorable, noble, and demanding good man who did not love her, but merely demanded love or a impatient, passioned, disgraced, tempestuous man who loved her so much he was willing to damn her as well as him.

Judi Dench was woefully underused. Mrs. Fairfax doesn't have the largest part in the world, but they do insert her whenever they could. She brought something powerful to each scene. And it was not because of her character. She played Mrs. Fairfax with false confidence. With Jane and other subordinates she seemed to reign; but when placed within proximity to Mr. Rochester, Mrs. Fairfax shook. Fassbender played to that aspect of Dench and he displayed with Rochester an impatience with Mrs. Fairfax never really touched upon by previous incarnations. Judi Dench is also awarded one big hurrah scene near the end of the film, explaining what happened to Thornfield Hall. But with all of that, I found myself wishing that she would sneak into a scene somehow.

Adele is not given too much, but is much less annoying that the over acting girl from the 2006 miniseries. The girl who played young Jane (Amelia Clarkson) played to Jane's defiance, but also to her loneliness. As much as I love Lucy from Narnia, she always played Jane thoroughly terrified. The young Jane in the book, while often scared, always owned herself and knew who she was. Clarkson plays the self-awareness well. The loneliness created much by the screenplay and the shots of the film, but the mere fact that this was highlighted well was great. I love the 2006 version, but I never believed that that Jane was lonely.

Mostly, the cinematography was well executed. There were several jump scares where I felt there needn't be any, but each shot was filled with something. Negative space was used beautifully. Candlelight and dawn were a majority of the lighting, and it was superbly done. People could be easily scene, but were highlighted by the darkness.

Some of the editing did repeat. The film opens with her flight from Thornfield, and yet we see it again in flashback an hour and a half later. I know it helps the fluidity of a story, but they are the exact same shots (until she reaches the moors). The exact same shots. That was one of the points I really didn't need in the film. Change the angles at least. There was new footage spliced in (Rochester finding her room abandoned, etc), but not enough to break it up. It was as if there was no confidence in the audience to make the jump or a more fluid transition could not be found to remove the audience from such a long flash back.

The soundtrack, however, was excellent. It stole the film. Dario Marianelli, who won an oscar for his score of Atonement (and wrote the score for Pride and Prejudice (2005) which is one of my favorites), pulls out all the stops for the soundtrack. In Atonement and Pride and Prejudice he used airy piano movements to express longing and delicate emotions and interactions. In Jane Eyre, Marianelli utilized the creepy violin. Well, perhaps creepy is not the best way to put it. He utilized a minor key which reminded me of the kind of melodies used in Jewish folk music. Rustic, but not without purpose. There was longing inherent in the music, and it framed the shots perfectly. When I got out of the theatre I could not praise the sound track enough.

I thoroughly enjoyed seeing this adaptation of Jane Eyre. I think that it pulled off a minimalist version of the novel in a spectacular way that wasn't understated. I think that where the 2006 version of Pride and Prejudice failed was in so many people comparing the film to the 1996 miniseries instead of to the book. In comparing this Jane Eyre with different film versions, instead compare it with the novel. Each filmed version highlights what it can of the text, and this Jane Eyre highlighted the loneliness, passion, and feminism of Jane Eyre with exacting measures which were a joy to watch.
Admin
Admin
Admin

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

Back to top Go down

Jane Eyre reviews and spoilers 2 - Page 6 Empty Re: Jane Eyre reviews and spoilers 2

Post by Admin on Wed Mar 23, 2011 8:56 pm

http://www.fwweekly.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=4638:jane-eyre-viewer-i-married-him&catid=60:reviews&Itemid=388

Jane Eyre: Viewer, I Married Him
A crisp new version of the story lacks a certain something.
Wednesday, 23 March 2011 08:43 KRISTIAN LIN
E-mail Print PDF
Share |
A girl in petticoats and great distress runs across a fog-encrusted heath while lush orchestral music on the soundtrack speaks to the tumult in her soul. Oh yeah, we’re in Jane Eyre. Specifically, we’re at the very beginning of this latest film adaptation of Charlotte Brontë’s novel, and while I could say that this is the best movie we’ve ever had of the story, that would tell you surprisingly little. That’s because even though Jane Eyre has been filmed over and over, no previous iteration of it has been remotely good enough to stick — not the 1943 version with Orson Welles devouring all the scenery and a bland Joan Fontaine along with it, not the 1970 version with a too-old Susannah York in the title role, not the 1996 version with a wildly mismatched Charlotte Gainsbourg and William Hurt. (Contrast this with Emily Brontë’s Wuthering Heights, which received a definitive film version in 1939 that hasn’t been approached since.) This latest version of Jane Eyre works only up to a point, but it’s the first one that made me feel like I was watching Jane Eyre and not “Jane Eyre,” a real movie rather than an exercise in wrestling the novel into the shape of a movie.

film

Mia Wasikowska steps out on the heath as Jane Eyre.
The story begins toward the end of the novel, with a traumatized Jane (Mia Wasikowska) landing on the doorstep of a missionary named St. John Rivers (Jamie Bell), having walked through a thunderstorm from Thornfield Hall. As St. John and his two sisters (Holliday Grainger and Tamzin Merchant) nurse Jane back to health, the film skillfully flashes back to young Jane (Amelia Clarkson) and her emotionally and financially impoverished childhood. As great a novel as Jane Eyre is, its story is unwieldy, and film versions often trip up over the parts of the movie that don’t involve Jane and Rochester. So it’s nice to see this one cover Jane’s early years so adroitly, thanks to the script by Moira Buffini, who adapted another literary work to similarly good effect in last year’s Tamara Drewe.

Jane Eyre boasts some terrific talent in the supporting roles: Judi Dench as Thornfield’s eminently sane housekeeper, Sally Hawkins as Jane’s frigid Aunt Reed, Simon McBurney as the dictatorial schoolmaster. However, with Jane Eyre there are only two roles that really matter. Michael Fassbender is properly haunted and dissipated as Rochester, and he doesn’t shy away from the character’s erotic attraction to the governess who’s half his age, especially during the scene after Rochester’s bedroom has mysteriously been set on fire. Yet the German-Irish actor has been better elsewhere; you probably know him as the heroic film critic-turned spy from Inglourious Basterds, but he brought more to a similar character in last year’s British working-class drama Fish Tank. He’s also too good-looking for the part, and although few viewers will complain about this, you do wonder whether Jane needs glasses when she pronounces him not handsome. (Brontë insists on her two main characters’ physical unattractiveness, but I’m not aware of any movie version of Jane Eyre that follows through on that.)

Notwithstanding, her excellent work as a contemporary American teen in The Kids Are All Right, something about the pale-skinned 20-year-old Wasikowska seems to make filmmakers want to put her in corsets and crinolines. After being swallowed up by the special effects in Tim Burton’s Alice in Wonderland, she asserts herself here rather more forcefully. She has the right degree of awkwardness, as Jane’s unvarnished opinions and depth of feeling fight their way through her natural timidity. The young Australian actress also does an impressive job with the particular burr that English people speak with in the northern part of the country close to Scotland. She is a major talent to keep an eye on. With her facial features, there’s an Emily Dickinson biopic out there somewhere waiting for her to star in.

The film serves as an abrupt change of pace for director Cary Joji Fukunaga, who made his filmmaking debut two years ago with the Mexican gangster drama Sin Nombre. His direction is astringent, intelligent, and fleet without undue haste. He gives the locations like Thornfield and Lowood a pleasing grit that makes them look lived-in. (Compare the typically overstuffed décor that Franco Zeffirelli brought to the 1996 film.) He even pulls a few horror-movie tricks to good effect. So it’s a pity that he can’t rise to the occasion in the film’s latter stages, which call for something more. The breakup of Jane and Rochester’s wedding and the subsequent appearance of Bertha Mason (Valentina Cervi) aren’t nearly grotesque or powerful enough. The scene when she leaves Rochester is well-played by the two actors, yet the movie never seems to give in to its emotions the way Jane gives in to hers. For all this director’s gifts, shock value and grand romantic passion don’t seem to be in his repertoire. Those aren’t qualities that you want Jane Eyre to be short of. Yet this sharply executed film has so much else to recommend it that Charlotte Brontë fans still have reason to line up.

Jane Eyre

Starring Mia Wasikowska and Michael Fassbender. Directed by Cary Joji Fukunaga. Written by Moira Buffini, based on Charlotte Brontë’s novel. Rated PG. Now playing in Dallas.
Admin
Admin
Admin

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

Back to top Go down

Jane Eyre reviews and spoilers 2 - Page 6 Empty Re: Jane Eyre reviews and spoilers 2

Post by Admin on Wed Mar 23, 2011 8:57 pm

http://www.phillyburbs.com/to-do-list-see-jane-eyre/article_e2271a4c-5549-11e0-842e-00127992bc8b.html

To do list: See 'Jane Eyre'

Posted: Wednesday, March 23, 2011 8:12 am

To do list: See 'Jane Eyre' Deidre Wengen Calkins Media, Inc.

Within the next couple of weeks there are plenty of things that I need to get done. I have to move to a new apartment and pack up for an upcoming trip to Ireland. But one of the tasks that tops my list is getting to the theater to see the new adaptation of "Jane Eyre."

I first read the novel by Charlotte Bronte last summer and immediately fell in love with the entire haunting story.

The story of poor, unloved, plain Jane and the dark, brooding, ill-tempered Mr. Rochester is undoubtedly one of the greatest classics of our time.

The new adaptation of the film looks intriguing. It stars Mia Wasikowska ("The Kids are Alright" and "Alice and Wonderland) and Michael Fassbender in the main roles with support from dame Judi Dench as well. The set design and special effects look particularly good.

But will this version of the movie match those that have been done before? Many fans have a soft spot for the 2006 BBC version starring Ruth Wilson.

Either way, I'm looking forward to seeing this film. Check out the trailer to get a better idea of the latest "Jane Eyre" adaptation.

Copyright 2011 phillyBurbs.com .
Posted on Wednesday, March 23, 2011 8:12 am.
Admin
Admin
Admin

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

Back to top Go down

Jane Eyre reviews and spoilers 2 - Page 6 Empty Re: Jane Eyre reviews and spoilers 2

Post by Admin on Wed Mar 23, 2011 9:01 pm

http://www.examiner.com/movie-theater-in-denver/indie-spotlight-shines-on-mia-wasikowska-and-michael-fassbender-jane-eyre

Indie spotlight shines on Mia Wasikowska and Michael Fassbender in "Jane Eyre"

* March 22nd, 2011 5:33 pm MT

Thomas Fowler

The Esquire Theatre, one of Denver’s most unique movie theaters profiling independent and foreign language films, will begin showing the critically acclaimed Jane Eyre this Friday, March 25, in a limited engagement. The film is certainly not the first version of the film, the Internet Movie Database shows 22 exact results that began filming over 100 years ago, the first exact result being released in 1910. This latest version features two actors on the cusp of superstardom, Mia Wasikowska and Michael Fassbender.

Wasikowska, most known to the public as Alice in Tim Burton’s vision of Alice in Wonderland, portrays Jane, the infamous character that changed literary approach in the 19th century. The film is an adaptation of the book by Charlotte Bronte and tells the story of Jane’s layered relationship with Rochester, played by Fassbender. The dark secrets and tumultuous relationship between the two are just a few facets of the detailed narrative as delivered on screen by director Cary Joji Fukunaga, whose previous work was Sin Nombre.

Wasikowska will be difficult to miss with no less than seven titles scheduled for release this year and next. Fassbender is quickly becoming a favorite for film lovers after successful displays of his undeniable talent as the cocky Stelios in 300 and then the irresistibly charming Lt. Archie Hicox in Inglorious Basterds. The highlights of his upcoming films include playing Carl Jung opposite Viggo Mortensen as Sigmund Freud in A Dangerous Method, as Magneto in the newest X-Men film, First Class, and Ridley Scott’s return to form in Prometheus, a prequel to the Alien franchise.

Jane Eyre has received rave reviews thus far, being called one of the better interpretations of the Bronte novel. It will be playing in the Denver Metro area at the Esquire theatre only. The Esquire’s parent company, Landmark Theatres, has five unique theatres in the Denver Metro area to offer filmgoers a wide variety of film selection from wide releases to cult classics.

Do you think the world needs another version of Jane Eyre? Do you hope that this will be the definitive version to which all other Jane Eyre film versions will be compared? Chime in below and be heard. Keep checking back to find out more about what will be playing in Denver movie theaters, subscribe to receive articles instantly.
Admin
Admin
Admin

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

Back to top Go down

Jane Eyre reviews and spoilers 2 - Page 6 Empty Re: Jane Eyre reviews and spoilers 2

Post by Admin on Wed Mar 23, 2011 9:08 pm

http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2011/3/22/jane-eyre-review/

'Jane Eyre' a Creepy Recreation
Jane Eyre -- Dir. Cary Fukunaga (Focus Features) -- 3.5 Stars
By Charlotte D. Smith, CONTRIBUTING WRITER
Published: Tuesday, March 22, 2011

Jane Eyre (Mia Wasikowska) and Rochester (Michael Fassbender) share a moment in Cary Fukunaga’s adaptation of Charlotte Brontë’s iconic novel.

Though Cary Fukunaga’s “Jane Eyre” is the eleventh movie adaptation of Charlotte Brontë’s iconic gothic novel, the dark elements of the film overshadow the traditional love story, giving the tale a fresh if not altogether congenial flavor.

Moira Buffini’s screenplay stays true in letter, if not in spirit, to the original novel’s basic storyline. Jane (Mia Wasikowska) is mistreated by her aunt in her youth, attends a dismal boarding school for a time, and ends up as a governess to the mysterious Mr. Rochester’s (Michael Fassbender) young ward, Adele (Romy Settbon Moore). But while the plot is familiar, the movie’s artistic emphases are less so.

At film’s outset, instead of focusing on Jane and Rochester’s mild flirtation as the novel does, Fukunaga chooses instead to direct attention to the mystery enshrouding Rochester’s mansion. The audience is led to overlook the interplay between Jane and Rochester in favor of learning why screams and maniacal laughter echo from the darkest corners of the manor at night. The horror aspects of the gothic storyline are thus privileged over its romantic ones.

Within this claustrophobic atmosphere, Wasikowska’s portrayal of Jane is ideal. Her statue-like stillness—reminiscent of the submissive femininity of the Victorian era—works well in contrast with her piercing gaze, which hints at a fire burning within her ostensibly docile character that societal conventions could not extinguish. Wasikowska walks an emotional tightrope throughout, projecting Jane’s fear and sadness concerning her relationship with Rochester from beneath a socially-imposed mask of passivity. She plays the character of Jane as though on the verge of a mental breakdown, and in doing so makes the emotional pain inflicted upon her character by the film’s events that much more palpable.

Less successful within the film, and particularly its horror-tinged environment, is Michael Fassbender as Jane’s would-be lover, Rochester. In line with the film’s more macabre stylings, Fassbender attempts to fuse Rochester’s charming façade with an element of unsettling instability—but the resulting performance is more confusing than engaging. Rochester’s advances toward Jane come across as desperate and creepy rather than gentlemanly and sweet. Thus, while it is apparent that Rochester is taken with Jane, it never appears as if his intentions are entirely noble, undermining the story’s central romance.

Even as the movie’s tonal choices prove to be of mixed quality, the artistry which creates them serves as the film’s most appealing feature. When Jane wanders around the mansion lost in thought, the film is edited to look choppy and unsteady, aptly reflecting the character’s sense of uncertainty. The same technique is also effectively deployed when Jane flees from Rochester; it is as if the audience is fleeing along with her.

Fukunaga also makes constant use of evocative lighting schemes to generate the movie’s moody ambiance. The scenes concerning the mystery of Rochester’s mansion are appropriately dark—even the audience struggles to see the characters in the dim candlelight. By contrast, those scenes in which Jane and Rochester revel in their love for one another are brighter, even as they are never entirely vivid, in a nod to the constraining nature of the film’s social setting.

Costume designer Michael O’Connor contributes greatly to the film’s realism; his outfits feel authentic rather than like Hollywood-enhanced versions of the period wardrobe. O’Connor’s elaborate 19th-century suits and gowns—complete with hoopskirts—do much to enliven the film’s setting and make it believable; indeed, to take advantage of O’Connor’s talent, Fukunaga shifted the events in the original novel from 1830 to 1840, thereby incorporating a more diverse array of English fashions. The costume design is thus an example of creative license enhancing the novel’s retelling, rather than muddying it, as the film’s darker narrative lens occasionally does.

In the end, while Wasikowska and Fassbender’s on-screen interplay seems to be a little mismatched, the film as a whole does an adequate job of preserving the key elements of the eldest Brontë sister’s classic novel. Though not entirely successful in the endeavor, the film distinguishes itself as a unique adaptation by shifting the story’s tone from one of a classical romance to one of a dark and troubled love affair. Through it all, the film’s exquisite cinematography and artistic choices remind the audience that Jane’s tale is one of sorrow and woe at the hands of fate—circumstances that are only made bearable by the strength that she finds within herself. For all its unevenness, “Jane Eyre” deserves credit for enabling an old medium to convey a new message.
Admin
Admin
Admin

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

Back to top Go down

Jane Eyre reviews and spoilers 2 - Page 6 Empty Re: Jane Eyre reviews and spoilers 2

Post by Admin on Wed Mar 23, 2011 10:00 pm

http://thecanonball.wordpress.com/2011/03/23/the-canonball-review-of-jane-eyre/

The Canonball Review of Jane Eyre
March 23, 2011 //
0

Mia and Lindsay discuss the latest film adaptation of that book which, contrary to popular belief, was not written by Jane Austen.

Lindsay: This weekend Mia and I took a Canonball Field Trip (an activity we previously would have referred to as “hanging out”) to see Cary Fukunaga’s adaptation of Jane Eyre. And having a few days to reflect, we’re prepared to share our thoughts. Mia, have you readied your arsenal of “Reader” puns?

Mia: “Reader, I loved the movie.” “Reader, I gave it two thumbs up.” I’ll trust our readers to insert the proper puns as our conversation continues.

Point is, this was one of my favorite Jane Eyre adaptions that I’ve seen. As I said to Lindsay as we were exiting the theater, even though some parts of the book were omitted – including, notably and lamentably, the scene where Mr Rochester dresses up as a female gypsy – I feel like this film captured the emotion of the story. And that includes humor, which I’d never seen so well-executed in a Jane Eyre adaptation. How did you like the film?

Lindsay: Sorry to disappoint the readers who are looking for some Siskel & Ebert style carnage, but I loved it too. I think we both agreed that one of the film’s biggest strengths was the way it played with the novel’s chronology – using what you rightly identified last week as the most boring part of the novel (St. John and the pious cousins) as a frame story rather than an unwelcome and overly coincidental tangent in the narrative. And Fukunaga’s approach to the novel’s chronology also echoes the refreshing way he approached the source material in general: with neither stuffy reverence nor over-the-top, Baz Lurman-style modernization. It felt like a film that really found a happy medium between those two impulses.

Mia: Agreed. And while we’re going over the basics, I guess we’ve got to talk about whether the actress who plays Jane was plain enough? My feeling is no; no actress is ever plain enough to fulfill all the plain fantasies I’ve had about Jane’s plain, plain face. That being said, Mia Wasikowska is a bit of an unconventional beauty so I guess we can sort of pretend she’s unattractive. Perhaps more importantly, though, she’s actually young, and she played Jane a bit less stiffly than I usually imagine the character – which is good; she seemed like a real person.

Lindsay: Yes, I agree that Wasikowska struck just the right note of plainness, thanks in part to her vaguely Kirsten-esque ‘do. But we were also joking earlier about how frustratingly unavoidable the “Is she plain enough? Or is she too pretty?” question is when discussing the many actresses who, over the years, have played Jane. The terms of the discussion are kind of dumb, but at least in this case they’re often also applied to the male protagonist, to whom Jane refers at least once in the book as “ugly.”

Mia: True! And, if we were having that discussion, I might point out that this Rochester (Michael Fassbender) was way too handsome. Even after he was in that awful fire, he just looked like some skinny, bearded dude who just biked to some house party you’re at. I guess unattractive romantic leads are too subversive for such a widely released film? But there are some aspects of this film that are noteworthy. Mostly, all the reviews have been talking about how the director is a man whose last film was not, in fact, a costume drama. Do you think people are more inclined to take this Jane Eyre seriously, as a result?

Lindsay: Hmm, that’s a tough one. Upon leaving the theater, I had this weird inclination to applaud Fukunaga for perhaps challenging gender stereotypes and providing a sensitive, personal take on what’s traditionally been seen as a “women’s story.” But then I was like, “Wait a minute, basically every other adaptation of Jane Eyre was directed by a man, too!” Hollywood certainly tolerates men telling women’s stories much more readily than women telling men’s stories – just think of the recent hubbub surrounding Catherine Hardwicke saying she wasn’t even allowed an interview when she expressed interest in directing The Fighter.

Mia: That’s a good point. And, while on one hand, I’m suspicious of the sentiment behind reviews that applaud Fukunaga for making the film dark and un-costume drama-y (read: not a “woman’s story” which are less important than men’s stories and are therefore alienating toward male viewers), on the other hand, I have to agree that Jane Eyre is better dark because it should be dark. Because a woman’s story can be dark! I think he does a wonderful job of making that apparent. And if he wins over some unlikely viewers in the process, I’d say it’s as much a testament to his vision as it is to Bronte’s story.

On that note, I want to put the Bronte-Austen comparisons to rest. I was ranting earlier about the number of reviews I’ve read that call Jane Eyre the original chick lit novel. Which is like, no. And I’m not denigrating chick lit, because the genre’s legitimacy is a whole other conversation. I’m just saying, if you’ve read Jane Eyre, you MIGHT HAVE NOTICED that it’s not a light story.

Lindsay: Hear, hear. And I like that point so much that I am just going to quote what you said in an email to me earlier: “I think the Austen comparison that comes up again and again (hell, I just used it) is telling: there’s not enough room in our English-speaking cultural history for more than one female author from the 19th century. People assume that Jane Austen’s witty, middle class stories are the history of all women from the entire century.”

And, personal tangent alert, I bought into this thinking well into college. I personally have never been an Austen fanatic, and my freshman year of college I had to take a British Lit survey. When I saw Charlotte Bronte (who I’d never read, mind you) on the syllabus, I distinctly remember turning to a friend of mine and saying, “Oh, GOD.” I was also contemplating changing my major at the time. Well, suffice to say, I resisted my bratty, defeatist urge to drop the class. I read Shirley. I loved it. My prof did a queer reading of one of the scenes between Shirely and her female cousins and my bratty little 18-year-old mind was blown out the back of my skull. And then, Reader, I declared my English major. Point is, I feel like we are culturally primed to lump “all those female authors” together rather than tease out their differences. Sort of like, I dunno, women?

Mia: It is a truth universally acknowledged that all women are the same. That’s a great anecdote though because I feel like one of the wonderful things about feminism is that, once you start questioning everything as you’re bound to when you become a feminist, you realize all the cool woman-centric stuff you’ve been missing out on. Like Charlotte Bronte, for instance.

Lindsay: Although. There are admittedly genre conventions to some of these novels, and especially their contemporary film adaptations. At the risk of sounding like the President of the Dana Stevens Fan Club (which is RIDICULOUS; as I am merely the Treasurer. James, you’re late on this month’s dues!), I enjoyed her take on the film, especially for this assessment of Rochester: “if Fassbender took the low road and chose to make a career as the thinking woman’s literary dreamboat, I wouldn’t complain.” Which leads me to ask, Mia, is there reverse sexism going on in the way modern women respond to this familiar trope? Is the Thinking Woman’s Literary Dreamboat (see: Colin Firth, Alan Rickman, and feverish adoration thereof) merely the Manic Pixie Dream Girl in drag?

Mia: Hold on, I have to watch this Rickman video in its entirety before I can formulate an opinion.

Well, my feeling is that the Thinking Woman’s Literary Dreamboat tends to be a more developed character than the Manic Pixie Dream Girl. He tends to have a backstory and a life outside of our female lead, which is perhaps a result of how society was and is structured: men went out and DID stuff, while ladies stayed home. Whereas the MPDG exists only as a wacky foil to the male lead. That being said, I do think we might crush on these dreamy male characters to a ridiculous degree. And I include myself in that group. I’m just sayin’ that Mr. Rochester probably isn’t the kind of guy you should waste your energy on. Because if a guy will lock his first wife up in the attic, god only knows what he might do to you.

Lindsay: Truth. Well, Mia, I hope we’ve convince people to go see this movie and perhaps even to think more critically about the way they talk about Jane Eyre, Charlotte Bronte, and the TWLD. Now if you’ll excuse me, I’ve got to run off to go dress up like a gypsy and read Colin Firth’s palm so that I can tell him he’ll soon fall in love with a plain but spirited feminist blogger. (OK, that’s a lie, I’m actually about to go cut an Alan Rickman fan video to the tune of an Evanescence ballad.)

Mia: Let’s hope the next Jane Eyre film stars Alan Rickman. Until then, readers, may you find no madwomen in your attics.

Lindsay: And may your rich uncles bequeath you all exorbitant sums of money at the most convenient of times. Until next time, dear Readers.
Admin
Admin
Admin

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

Back to top Go down

Jane Eyre reviews and spoilers 2 - Page 6 Empty Re: Jane Eyre reviews and spoilers 2

Post by Admin on Wed Mar 23, 2011 10:13 pm

http://voice-of-film.blogspot.com/2011/03/review-of-film-jane-eyre.html

Tuesday, March 22, 2011
Review of film: "JANE EYRE"
2011, 03-22:

This is the latest version of Charlotte Bronte’s famous story from 1847, directed by “SIN NOMBRE’s” director CARY JOJI FUKUNAGA...

... As the movie starts out, Jane Eyre (MIA WASIKOWSKA) has run away from a castle-like mansion in England, & is exhausted running in the rain thru a bunch of rocky and muddy fields...

... She finally sees a lit house in the distance, and wearily goes up to it & sort of faints at the doorway. She’s taken in by the owner, St. John Rivers (JAMIE BELL) and his two sisters, Diana (HOLLIDAY GRAINGER) and Mary (TAMZIN MERCHANT)...

... Jamie is a REVEREND, with plans to become a missionary. Mia has “changed” her last name to Elliott in speaking to him, and he & the women make her feel very welcome as they nurse her back to health... They find her to be an unusually “straight-speaking” person who isn’t afraid to be “politically incorrect” (which was rare for women in those times)...

... The story keeps using FLASHBACKS to tell us her “background”... We learn that, some years before, when she was 10 years old, she (at this point played by AMELIA CLARKSON) was the niece of an extremely rich woman, Mrs. Reed (SALLY HAWKINS)...

... Sally took her in to her home (called “Gateshead”) because Sally’s brother (“Jane’s” father) and other of her relatives had supposedly died (leaving “Jane” / Mia an “orphan”)...

... Sally & her teenaged son John (CRAIG ROBERTS) acted very bitter & hurtful to her, & Mia refused to silently “accept” such treatment... Because she “spoke back” & expressed herself honestly and wouldn’t “kow-tow” to the woman, she was forced to leave the estate & go into a girl’s “charity” (orphanage-like) school named Lowood...

... The people there were even worse in their treatment to Mia than the previous home-- constantly putting her down, threatening her (& other girls) physically, & (since they didn’t like her independent streak), the other girls were ordered by those in charge of the place to AVOID her...

... The other girls all did that-- except for Helen Burns (FREYA PARKS), who, unfortunately, dies soon after they meet... But, meeting poor Freya in-effect makes Mia an even “STRONGER” person with even more determination to stand-up for herself and her innate rights...

... Mia eventually in-effect “graduates” from the school (with a good education, even if no real friends), & the “flashes” return us seeing her at Jamie’s place called “Moor House”... Jamie appreciates her book-learning, &, tho he doubts she’d be interested, mentions there’s a job available as a TEACHER of girls...

... He’s surprised when she eagerly ACCEPTS the position, despite the fact that it doesn’t pay much. As she openly tells him, she’s very pleased with the position, because it lets her do something she really ENJOYS, & even provides a house of her own to live in...

... At one point, Mia (now a teenager) is told that a rich person wants her as a governess... She likes that idea, and soon goes to the very large mansion called “Thornfield”. There, she meets the housekeeper, Mrs. Fairfax (JUDI DENCH), who she initially thinks owns the estate. Judi explains, no, no, the place is owned by Mr. Rochester, who’s seldom around...

... Mia sets to teaching ENGLISH to a pre-teen French girl Adele Verens (ROMY SETTBON MOORE), who had been left in the care of Edward Rochester. Mia finds herself quite content there overall, as she’s treated with kindness and respect by Judi and others, and the place is comfortable (tho a little “spooky” due to some strange “sounds” at times)...

... Eventually, mansion-owner Mr. Rochester (MICHAEL FASSBENDER) RETURNS to Thornfield. He’s handsome, smart, and “imposing”-- but clearly “troubled” by some things, as shown by the way his tone is often “dark” & “unhappy”...

... Michael likes to sort of “challenge” Mia intellectually, & seems pleased that she speaks “BACK” to him-- all the while doing that in a “courteous” way... He seems to take a “liking”” to her. But, highly-moral Mia sees herself as very “plain” & of not much “interest” to the opposite sex, so she’s “OBLIVIOUS” to his tentative “flirtations”...

... In time, life becomes more and more “difficult” for Mia, as things become “STRANGE” at the Thornhill house: there’s a sudden unexplained FIRE in the room of sleeping Michael, and Mia discovers it and saves him...

... Also “weird” is the way Michael has a surprise visit from a young man named Richard Mason (played by HARRY LLOYD -- who’s the great-great-great-grandson of writer Charles Dickens) from Spanish Town, Jamaica, who he greets with a warm hug, but doesn’t fully “introduce” to Mia as to “WHO” he is in Michael’s life...

... Later, that young man Harry is somehow badly injured, bleeding from his neck area (while in a bedroom near the “off-limits” ATTIC area of the house)... Michael insists that he say nothing to Mia as she’s “tending” to his wounds, & she’s to say absolutely nothing to HIM...

... Shortly after that, Harry is taken away by carriage... And, it’s not until considerably later that we learn his important “relationship” to Michael...

... In time, Michael finally makes his “interest” in Mia clear to her...

... At first, she’s THRILLED when he asks her to marry him-- until the mysterious previously-injured Harry RETURNS to the area & a huge SECRET is revealed to Mia about Michael & the house...

... We then learn it’s that “skeleton in the attic” that causes Mia to RUN AWAY from the Thornhill house & go to Jamie’s home... There, even MORE secrets are learned (about Mia’s relatives, etc.)...

... Will Jamie want to get “with” Mia, &, if so, will she be “INTERESTED”?... Who does she really love, & what (if anything) will be “done” about it?... Are there any more “secrets” or “TWISTS” to the life of “plain Jane” (Mia)?...

... This is a finely-acted film (even tho some people might find all the talking to be somewhat “sleep-inducing”, as happened during my screening)...

... I know someone who complained that MIA supposedly doesn’t “fit” the “classic” image of Jane being someone “frail” physically. I really don’t care about that element-- all I’m really concerned with is her performance, which I found to be EXCELLENT (effectively showing the “grit” & “resilience” of her character)...

... Since the acting & the “mood” of the film are so well done, I’m rating the movie at 8.25 out of 10 stars...

(o_
/\
= = = … ( <> ^ <> ) ...
Posted by The Voice Of Silence at 11:46 PM
Admin
Admin
Admin

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

Back to top Go down

Jane Eyre reviews and spoilers 2 - Page 6 Empty Re: Jane Eyre reviews and spoilers 2

Post by Admin on Wed Mar 23, 2011 10:15 pm

http://blog.gmcdesigns.info/wp/review-jane-eyre

Review: Jane Eyre
March 22nd, 2011 | Author: Wookie

Review: Jane Eyre
Jane Eyre Poster

Director: Cary Fukunaga (Sin Nombre)
Novel: Moira Buffini
Screenplay: Charlotte Brontë
Producers: Alison Owen, Paul Trijbits
Starring: Mia Wasikowska, Michael Fassbender, Jamie Bell, Judi Dench, Sally Hawkins
MPAA Rating: PG-13
Running time: 115 min.
****½ (4.5/5)

When something has been adapted as often as Charlotte Brontë’s tale of true love between individuals who can’t possibly end up together but do anyways, another adaptation always seems unnecessary, especially when the story is based so closely on the original and not “updated” for a modern audience. The same argument can be made for Jane Austen whose works have also seen a barrage of adaptations over the years but something about these works, be it the nature of the stories themselves or the heroines that live within the pages, transfer beautifully into repeated adaptation. Sure, some are better than others but there’s usually at least one redeeming quality in all.

Jane Eyre StillWhen it was announced that for his follow up to Sin Nombre director Cary Fukunaga would be taking on yet another adaptation of Jane Eyre, the initial reaction from many wasn’t one of dismay at yet another take on the already familiar story but more of a surprise that the director would select a period piece and one as recognizable as this one. The casting of the leads certainly made many happy since, for the first time, it appeared that the story would take into consideration the age disparity between Rochester and Jane, something which previous versions had mostly overlooked. So what of Fukunaga’s take on the classic novel? Does it live up to the source material and outshine previous incarnations? It’s a positive on all accounts and though it’s not perfect, it comes very close.

Moira Buffini chooses to start her adaptation in the middle of the story and we see Jane escaping Thornfield Hall and her eventual arrival at the Rivers’ home where she recuperates and begins her new life as a village school teacher. It’s in this “present” that we see how Jane became the young woman she is, in flashback sequences which recount her youth with her aunt, her eventual banishment to Lowood School and eventually her post at Thornfield where she meets and falls for Rochester. Unsurprisingly, most of the story focuses on this portion of Jane’s young life as it is here that she comes into her own and the romance which permeates and has survived well over a century develops.


The pacing and script are excellent, including key sections of the story and leaving out others which would simply slow the film down. This is adapted by someone who has an excellent understanding and knowledge of not just the basics of the story and plot but the emotions that drive these characters. Buffini understands that we have to believe in the emotions and her script relies a great deal on the actors to fill the void, avoiding the death sentence of voiceovers.

Jane Eyre StillMia Wasikowska is a wonderful Jane Eyre. She embodies the characters strength and passion and when later the story comes full circle and we see her running from Thornfield after seeing her past unfold (for those that may not be familiar with it), it’s heartbreaking that she’s willing to cast herself away from the person who she loves in order to remain true to herself and her beliefs. For his part, Michael Fassbender is both a cold and later charming as Rochester and the passion between the two is wonderful. My single complaint is that there seems to be a disconnect between the passionate moments of this story and the moments when that passion is fulfilled. Everything leading up to their kissing is titillating but when their lips actually meet, there’s no great emotional explosion. It actually seems mute and somewhat awkward. It’s a minor complaint and one that doesn’t detract from the overall enjoyment of the story, it’s not as if they’re constantly at each other, but it is a minor fault in an otherwise perfect romance.

Fukunaga’s take on this story is respectful of the characters, the themes and the audience which is, for the most part, already familiar with the material. This version of the film feels much more accessible than some of the earlier versions. It could have something to do with the actors but also with the film as a whole which doesn’t feel tied down and held back by the archaic language.

I love that Fukunaga took on this challenge and succeeded and I would love for him to tackle more classic romances but I appreciate that he is a director that likes to keep things fresh and interesting. We’ll always have his Jane Eyre and I can’t wait to see what he has lined up for us next.

Click “play” to see the trailer:
Admin
Admin
Admin

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

Back to top Go down

Jane Eyre reviews and spoilers 2 - Page 6 Empty Re: Jane Eyre reviews and spoilers 2

Post by Admin on Wed Mar 23, 2011 10:25 pm

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

Tuesday, March 22, 2011
Jane Eyre - Review
Posted by Anthony at 12:48 AM
This past week I had the opportunity to sit down and watch an advanced screening of Jane Eyre (2011). The main reason that I put the year behind the title is because there are many different renditions of the classical book that was written in the 1800's. This book has had movies made from it in 1934, 1943, 1996 and now this one. I had watched the trailer and I wasn't quite sure what to expect from all of this. The trailer seemed to advertise this as a major drama and I'm not going to say it wasn't but I wasn't sold. I was just hoping that it wouldn't have a lot of slow areas throughout the movie. I will admit that I haven't read the book and I don't necessarily plan on it either. Not having read the book beforehand I had no idea what the complete storyline was.

Jane Eyre follows a girl name Jane, played by Mia Wasikowska, who flees the house that she works in. She was a governess for the wealthy Edward Rochester who is played by Michael Fassbender. Jane didn't have the best childhood but she eventually found solace and ended up in his house. As she reflects upon the people that she has met in the past couple of years she realizes how it has defined herself as a women. She now has to act properly to preserve her self image and come to terms with the past that haunts her. While Jane is working for Rochester she finds herself having certain feelings towards him. Those feelings at first were that he was cold and heartless, but then eventually they lead to her loving him. The real question is how is she going to handle the terrible secret that Rochester has been keeping from her all this time.

The acting throughout Jane Eyre is pretty good. Like I stated earlier Jane Eyre is played by Mia Wasikowska. Mia has recently been in The Kids Are All Right and Alice in Wonderland. I enjoyed her in The Kids Are All Right but not necessarily in Alice in Wonderland. I felt like she did a very good job at being genuine throughout the entire film. The movie also stars Michael Fassbender as Edward Rochester. Fassbender did an excellent job at portraying the cold and heartless master that he was, yet later he had plenty of emotion. I really enjoyed Michael Fassbender in his past roles in 300, Centurion, and Inglourious Basterds. Of course his most recognizable movie is Inglourious Basterds. Another movie that I'm really looking forward to from him is that of X-Men: First Class. He will be playing Magneto in that one. Jane had another master in her childhood and his name was St. John Rivers. Rivers was played by Jamie Bell. I don't really know a whole lot about Bell except that he was in Billy Elliot.

Jane Eyre was great in terms of cinematography. Some of the lighting and angles of the shots were incredible. I didn't really expect it to be that wonderful, but it actually helped me out a lot more than I thought. When I was getting bored in some of the slow parts I was able to focus on the lighting and shading in certain shots and it brought me back into the movie itself. There were a few of the shots that were at such a wide angle and up in the air while Jane was walking across open fields that were fantastic looking.

Alrighty, lets jump right into my thoughts on this movie. Take in mind, like I stated earlier, I haven't read the book. Some of the confusion that I have towards the storyline or thought process might become more clear if I had read it. Well Jane Eyre is a classic love story that is from quite a long time ago. I keep being told that there are two different love stories throughout this movie, and I clearly do see both of them prevalent. One is obviously clear as day and the other doesn't quite become clear until later in the movie. That brings me to my second issue, after the certain events that unfold how can you still love someone after you find out that they have been covering up such a big lie to you. If you have read the book or seen the movie you'll understand that last sentence. I guess I'm just confused on who in their right mind would fight through things like that.

To draw the Jane Eyre review to a close I just want to sum up a few key points. It seemed like the story was dull and boring. I think the length of the movie could have been the main contributor of the dull and boring. It was a two hour movie that felt like they could have cut some time. When it came to the acting, it was genuine but yet left a stale feeling of not being able to connect to them. There was no draw to like or dislike each character. There were a few laughs here and there but not many. I found myself laughing a few times when everyone else was in ah or shock. Sadly, even though this is a classic story I don't find myself recommending it to anyone who hasn't read the book. Almost everyone who was at the screening that had read the book, liked the movie. So I guess if you have read it you might like it.

Jane Eyre - 6.5/10
Admin
Admin
Admin

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

Back to top Go down

Jane Eyre reviews and spoilers 2 - Page 6 Empty Re: Jane Eyre reviews and spoilers 2

Post by Admin on Wed Mar 23, 2011 10:34 pm

http://www.hollywoodchicago.com/news/13671/film-review-mia-wasikowska-judi-dench-float-on-jane-eyre

Mia Wasikowska and Michael Fassbender in Jane Eyre
Jane Eyre

The pretty, moody, well-acted new adaptation of Charlotte Bronte's "Jane Eyre" rests on a key early scene between Mia Wasikowska, as Bronte's protagonist and narrator, and Michael Fassbender, as the storm warning known as Edward Rochester.

This is one of the most famous getting-to-know-you passages in 19th century literature, chronicling the second encounter and first civil conversation between the new governess of Thornfield Hall and her employer.

With a disarming mixture of candor and restraint, Jane acquits herself so nimbly in the face of so much bluff, it's as if the charismatic bad boy with a secret were discovering a new species -- a rare object of fascination and adoration.

Thanks to the enduring draw of Bronte's 1847 two-volume novel, generation upon generation of readers have made the same discovery.

Without making any provocative new discoveries, the latest film version of the novel, directed by Cary Joji Fukunaga, honors the source material. It's certainly a start and, if you have the right actors, sometimes it's enough for a satisfying finish.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Back to top Go down

Jane Eyre reviews and spoilers 2 - Page 6 Empty Re: Jane Eyre reviews and spoilers 2

Post by Admin on Wed Mar 23, 2011 10:35 pm

http://www.hollywoodchicago.com/reviews/13669/mia-wasikowska-judi-dench-float-on-jane-eyre

Mia Wasikowska, Judi Dench Float on ‘Jane Eyre’
Submitted by PatrickMcD on March 18, 2011 - 9:53am.

HollywoodChicago.com Oscarman rating: 3.5/5.0
Rating: 3.5/5.0

CHICAGO – Film adaptations of classic literature are often lose-lose scenarios. The ardent admirers of the source often sour on what is left out, and the average filmgoer might wonder what the fuss is about when experiencing a truncated interpretation. There is obvious passion behind the latest adaptation of “Jane Eyre,” with performances that follow that lead.

Director Cary Fukunaga does a sensational job providing a sense of scope and gravity to the oft-filmed tale (over 20 TV/film adaptations according to IMDB). The screenwriter Moira Buffini found a place in the novel in which to anchor flashback scenes, so Fukunaga can compactly tell two parts at once, capturing the essence of the whole story. Mia Wasikowska portrays the title character, lacking a bit of nuance while embracing an age-appropriate aspect of Jane.

In the beginning of the film, Jane is famously seen lost on the moors, floundering towards nowhere. She ends up lost and shattered onto the doorstep of complete strangers. Somehow, the home takes pity on her, and brings her in to live and foster a new school. St. John Rivers (Jamie Bell) and his two sisters are Jane’s new family, and through her survivor’s narrative, we are treated to flashbacks of her difficult path.

Although born into wealth, Jane loses her parents at an early age, and at her uncle’s dying request moves into the home of her Aunt Sarah (Sally Hawkins). The cruel aunt treats her like a servant, and eventually banishes her to a boarding school. The school is even crueler that her home situation, as the headmaster is instructed to basically break her. Jane is tougher than her circumstance, and seems to gain strength as her schooling grows more difficult.
Cliff Notes Twosome: Michael Fassbinder as Edward Rochester and Mia Wasikowska in ‘Jane Eyre’
Cliffs Notes Twosome: Michael Fassbinder as Edward Rochester and Mia Wasikowska in ‘Jane Eyre’
Photo credit: Laurie Sparham for Focus Features

After graduating from that atmosphere, she advertises her services as a governess. The ominous Thornfield Manor is her new home, anchored by a moody patriarch named Edward Rochester (Michael Fassbender). Her only ally is the bi-polar Mrs. Fairfax (Judi Dench), who cooly oversees Jane’s eventual romantic closeness with Rochester. The secrets and surprises, both with St. John Rivers and Thornfield Manor, stirs the plot and character of Jane Eyre.

This is a costume drama set in the mid-1800s, which harkens back to the famous 1930s studio executive quote about not doing any more movies where they write with feathers. But Jane Eyre is a beloved classic, just given the number of times it has been redone. The choice of Mia Wasikowska (Alice in last year’s “Alice in Wonderland) to play Jane was on paper a good one. But she takes a one note approach to the character, there is never a feeling of transition through change. It could be choice of how a woman would react to such tragedy at that time, but there was no flavor to this subdued performance.

The second most famous character in the book, the moody Edward Rochester, is distantly approached by Michael Fassbinder. If it was the production’s intention for Rochester and Jane to have little chemistry, then it succeeded. Even in their attempts to coincide, Fassbinder and Wasikowska seem only to waver. Again, it may have been a choice in portraying the era as more cautious and distant in human relations, but with no spark there is no romantic energy.

Leave it to the old pros Judi Dench and Sally Hawkins to add a bit of spice. Hawkins obviously relishes her mean aunt role, and she pours on the vitriol with a psychosis that lasts all the way to the deathbed. Dame Judith is the type of performer we want to applaud every time she appears on screen, and her subtle Mrs. Fairfax again invites the hands to come together. Jamie Bell, who is fast becoming a memorable screen actor, imbues St. John Rivers with an almost perfect naiveté.

The young director Cary Fukunaga (this is his second feature after the Sundance favorite “Sin Nombre”) obviously loves the source material and takes great care in making it present. He creates a sweeping scope, which concurs appropriately with Jane’s epic story. His atmosphere evokes an appreciation for where these characters live, both on-screen and within the lovers of the source novel. Despite some chemistry problems, the characters spring from the pages with a whole essence, and Fukunaga encapsulates this essence with a reverent adaptation.
Nothing Like Dame: Judi Dench as Mrs. Fairfax in ‘Jane Eyre’
Nothing Like Dame: Judi Dench as Mrs. Fairfax in ‘Jane Eyre’
Photo credit: Laurie Sparham for Focus Features

Inevitably, there will be comparisons with earlier efforts. Some will say that Orson Welles (in 1943) may be the best Rochester, or the miniseries gave the novel its best realization, but the reason that Jane Eyre keeps getting remade is that every generation can take it out for a spin and give it a new breath of air, for new audiences.

Cary Fukunaga accomplishes this freshening, and proves his mettle in handling different types of stories, with different types of meaning. Both author Charlotte Bronte and her famous character Jane Eyre couldn’t have asked for a better caretaker.

“Jane Eyre” continues its limited release in Chicago on March 18th. Check local listings for show times and theaters. Featuring Mia Wasikowska, Judi Dench, Sally Hawkins, Jamie Bell and Michael Fassbender, Screenplay by Moira Buffini, directed by Cary Fukunaga. Rated “PG-13.” For the HollywoodChicago.com interview of Mia Wasikowska and director Cary Fukunaga click here.
Admin
Admin
Admin

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

Back to top Go down

Jane Eyre reviews and spoilers 2 - Page 6 Empty Re: Jane Eyre reviews and spoilers 2

Post by Admin on Wed Mar 23, 2011 10:36 pm

http://www.centredaily.com/2011/03/17/2590721/jane-eyre.html

'Jane Eyre'
By MICHAEL PHILLIPS
- Chicago Tribune
March 19, 2011 3:11am EDT

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

* http://www.chicagotribune.com/

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

JANE EYRE

3 stars

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

Directed by Cary Joji Fukunaga; written by Moira Buffini, based on the novel by Charlotte Bronte; produced by Alison Owen and Paul Trijbits. A Focus Features release.

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

Running time: 2:00.
Admin
Admin
Admin

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

Back to top Go down

Jane Eyre reviews and spoilers 2 - Page 6 Empty Re: Jane Eyre reviews and spoilers 2

Post by Admin on Wed Mar 23, 2011 10:40 pm

http://dvdpinson.wordpress.com/2011/03/18/jane-eyre-review/

Jane Eyre

The latest incarnation of “Jane Eyre” is a blend of contemporary and classical storytelling making for a sort of hybrid entertainment. The film sounds ages old, pulling the words directly from the influential 1847 novel of the same name. Simultaneously the film looks and feels modern with breathtaking cinematography and vital performances. The mixture makes for an intriguing affair that should appeal to audiences unfamiliar with the material as well as those well versed.

Jane Eyre’s (Mia Wasikowska) story is a “tale of woe” though she adamantly denies it. Orphaned at a very young age, she is sent to live with her aunt, Mrs. Reed (Sally Hawkins), who detests her strong spirit. Finding the young Jane (played with verve by Amelia Clarkson) impossible to handle, Aunt Reed trucks the girl off to Lowood School for girls when she is beat and mistreated but never broken. Years pass and Miss Eyre leaves the horrid school to take employment as a governess at Thornfield Hall. There she meets Mister Edward Rochester (Michael Fassbender), master of the Hall, who is almost instantly intrigued by the young governess. Unlike what was expected of women of the time, she is assured and empathetic without being disobedient and Rochester finds her engaging. Their love blossoms but something lurks in the corridors of Thornfield Hall that may get in the way of their happy ending.

Director Cary Fukunaga (“Sin Nombre”) does a masterful job in staging the familiar story in a way that feels current. He fractures the story, telling parts out of order through the first two acts, adding more mystery to a film that is already dripping with secrets. The gothic aspects are fully exploited to the point that segments play like outright horror. This film contains a few shocks and squirms that rival anything passing for a scary movie in the last few years. There also small, personal moments that we spend with Jane during her struggles. We follow behind her, camera handheld, in shots pulled right out of Sophia Coppola’s “Marie Antoinette”. This goes along way in allowing us to relate to Jane and succeeds in creating a real living person behind the ancient clothes and customs.

Wasikowska also plays a huge role in giving her Eyre life. Her performance is subtle and skilled. Looking much like a young Gwyneth Paltrow, she says little with words and much with her eyes as she processes the world around her. When she is allowed to let loose, it is wrenching. With solid work in last year’s “The Kids are Alright” followed by the title role in Disney’s/Burton’s billion-dollar grossing “Alice in Wonderland”, Wasikowska is a new force in Hollywood. “Jane Eyre” merely continues to illustrate her versatility. Fassbender plays Rochester pretty straight and brings the role a dignity and vitality that is evocative of an Old Hollywood performance that suits the material well. There are “made for PBS/BBC” moments that pop up every now and again but the film is mostly brisk and exciting.

March 18, 2011
Admin
Admin
Admin

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

Back to top Go down

Jane Eyre reviews and spoilers 2 - Page 6 Empty Re: Jane Eyre reviews and spoilers 2

Post by Admin on Wed Mar 23, 2011 10:40 pm

http://www.theyoungfolks.com/?p=1420

Film Review: One of the Best Adaptations of ‘JANE EYRE’ Yet!
March 23, 2011

Being one of my favorite stories of allllll time, I was never happy with any of the several film or mini-series adaptations of Jane Eyre. Well, there is finally an adaptation that I really enjoyed. The latest Jane Eyre, starring Mia Wasikowska and Michael Fassbender, is gothic, intense, and entertaining.

If you are not familiar with Jane Eyre, the story is about a girl named Jane, who went through a rough childhood and grows up to be a governess at the Thornfield estate. Thornfield is owned by Mr. Rochester, and after getting to know each other, Rochester and Jane fall in love. But Rochester has a secret that causes their relationship to break.

Right from the beginning, I knew this movie did something right. It began in the middle of the story, where you see Jane running from Thornfield and ending up at the door of the Rivers. From that point, we see the movie is flashbacks. Shorter flashbacks show us her childhood and the last flashback is shows Jane’s time at Thornfield until everything meets up to the opening scene. This really worked for the story because I always felt that part when Jane is with the Rivers a little boring. Having the flashbacks stopped the movie from slowing down and losing a good pace.

The performances are great. Mia Wasikowska plays Jane with passion and subtle power. Michael Fassbender is intense and interesting as Mr. Rochester. He’s so fascinating to watch; it’s no wonder that Jane falls in love with him. Jamie Bell, Judi Dench and Sally Hawkins also star and act well.

Another thing that intrigued me about this movie is its director, Cary Fukunaga. I was impressed by his first movie, Sin Nombre. I was excited that he brought back the same cinematographer for Jane Eyre. The cinematography in Sin Nombre was stunning, and it is the same for Jane Eyre. It compliments the movie’s tone and story. It just works.

If you’re not a fan of Jane Eyre or Masterpiece Theater-like films, you’ll probably find this movie slow and boring. But if you love this kind of movies, you’re guaranteed to enjoy Jane Eyre.

Jane Eyre is now playing in select theaters.
Admin
Admin
Admin

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

Back to top Go down

Jane Eyre reviews and spoilers 2 - Page 6 Empty Re: Jane Eyre reviews and spoilers 2

Post by Admin on Wed Mar 23, 2011 10:41 pm

http://tolucantimes.info/section/entertainment/jane-eyre/

Jane Eyre
By Tony Medley on March 23rd, 2011 Printer-Friendly

Jane Eyre

Run Time 103 minutes.
OK for children

Mia Wasikowska is “Jane Eyre.”

If you want romantic, this is your cup of tea. With spellbinding performances by Mia Wasikowska in the title role and Michael Fassbender as her elusive love Rochester, some guys might find this slow, but I was completely blown away.

Director Cary Joji Fukunaga takes a fine script by Moira Buffini, translating Charlotte Brontë’s 1847 novel, atmospheric cinematography by Adriano Goldman, and music by Dario Marianelli, and locates the story in the gothic house, Thornfield, at Haddan Hall in Derbyshire. Haddan Hall is one of the oldest houses in England. The original corner dates to the 11th century.

But it wasn’t just Haddan Hall that makes the Derbyshire location spectacular. The countryside, with its craggy rocks and bracken, provides the opportunity for vast shots of forbidding landscapes, especially when Jane is running away.

What really makes this film work is the heartbreakingly emotional acting by Wasikowska and Fassbender. Intentionally made to look plain, Wasikowska exhibits Jane’s feisty spirit and compassionate, forgiving heart, in portraying the 19th-century woman who overcame a horrible upbringing with very little love to still make her life worth living, even if it’s just as a governess.

Previous films have cast actresses who are older than Jane was when she’s involved with Rochester. While Jane should have been around 18 years old, Joan Fontaine was 26 when she played Jane opposite Orson Welles in 1943, and Virginia Bruce was 24 when she played Jane opposite Colin Clive in 1934. Wasikowska was 21 when this was filmed, which is much more age-appropriate for the sexually and romantically inexperienced Jane.

While I felt that Wasikowska was the moving force in the film, Fassbender contributes a powerful performance as the gruff, dark, emotionally spent Rochester, a man to whom Jane is drawn despite her youth, inexperience and low social position, which makes any proper relationship with Rochester almost inconceivable.

Even though I guess every girl reads this when she’s young, I never read it. So I was watching it with fresh eyes and it just swept me away. As far as I’m concerned, this is a don’t-miss-it film.
Admin
Admin
Admin

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

Back to top Go down

Jane Eyre reviews and spoilers 2 - Page 6 Empty Re: Jane Eyre reviews and spoilers 2

Post by Admin on Wed Mar 23, 2011 10:45 pm

http://artsfuse.org/?p=26877

Fuse Theater Review: A Superb “Educating Rita” Fuse Theater Review: An Epic Tale of Pursuer and Pursued — NT Live’s “Frankenstein”
Fuse Movie Review: A Gorgeous but Air-Headed "Jane Eyre"
Featured, Film Add comments
Mar 222011

It may be beautifully photographed, but this attempt to capture Charlotte Bronte’s literary classic on screen doesn’t bring anything new to the table, aside from playing up the hooking up in the manor. Jane Eyre should be more than a simple country romance.

Jane Eyre. Directed by Cary Fukunaga. The cast includes Mia Wasikowska, Michael Fassbender, Judi Dench, and Jamie Bell.

By Sarah Sanders.

Mia Wasikowski (Jane) at an apprehensive moment in JANE EYRE.

Yet another remake of a nineteenth-century classic for Hollywood. This time it is Charlotte Bronte’s classic, quasi-Gothic novel Jane Eyre. Starring Mia Wasikowska (Alice in Wonderland) as the eponymous character, the latest version of the warhorse starts out very strong. The early misfortunes of a young Jane are presented with a graphic intensity: orphaned as a child, Jane lives with her wealthy but cruel aunt, who sees fit to send her to a strict religious boarding school where those around her reject her. After surviving the classes, Jane takes a post as a governess at Thornfield Hall, believing her life to be finally hers to control.

But young Jane soon learns that life at Thornfield isn’t what it seems. Peculiarities crop up in the massive manor house and her employer, Edward Rochester (Michael Fassbender), is an abrasive and callous man who challenges and intrigues her. A cinematographer by trade, director Cary Fukunaga relishes in whipping up the ghostlike atmosphere of Thornfield Hall, with its dark, mysterious forests and deserted moors. The dreary weather of England’s countryside compounds Jane’s loneliness—she is a young girl adrift in a creepy world.

The film’s early scenes of bleak despair and an encroaching eeriness, juxtaposed against Jane’s own optimism and fragility, generate an old-fashioned, satisfying complexity. But then Rochester falls for Jane and, quite literally, the clouds disappear. Their love blossoms apace with the deepening spring. The cinematographic evidence of their budding love is graceful, but the romance degenerates into cloying cliché.

One of the biggest disappointments in the movie is the enigmatic love obstacle, Bertha Mason. Bertha is an excellent device in the book and her tremendous presence is felt though we rarely see her. In the movie, the character is dealt with entirely nonchalantly, as if it isn’t a problem that Rochester has been keeping his deranged wife locked up in the back of the house. Apparently, anything goes at Thornfield, and Jane is only surprised to find out he has a wife, not that she’s a caged, maniac arsonist.

Once Michael Fassbender (Rochester) and Mia Wasikowski (Jane) embrace all is sunny in this version of JANE EYRE.

In addition, little of the novel’s dialogue makes the adaptation—there are few long exchanges in the film. Instead, for the supposedly visually obsessed generation, there are reams of cheerless silences and scenery. When Jane speaks, she’s full of spunk, holding her own against the brusque affect of Rochester, though the heroine is far less energetic than she is in the book. Bronte’s Jane is an unloved waif, denied simple kindness at every turn, who has somehow generated the inner strength to tackle the world. Wasikowska, once she gets her man, puts Jane on cruise control.

So why remake Jane Eyre? Fukunaga debuted as a director two years ago with his gritty, violent, and emotional Spanish language drama, Sin Nombre, which he wrote and directed. There were no punches pulled in Sin Nombre, and Fukunaga was rewarded at Sundance for his risky direction. With Jane Eyre, he plays it safe, never building on the school-time sadism and macabre atmosphere he establishes early on. Are the earlier movie versions, such as the not-so-old 1996 turn starring Charlotte Gainsbourg and William Hurt, no longer up to snuff? This new, albeit beautiful, attempt to capture the venerable book on screen doesn’t bring anything new to the table, aside from playing up the hooking up in the manor. Jane Eyreis more than a simple country romance.
Admin
Admin
Admin

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

Back to top Go down

Jane Eyre reviews and spoilers 2 - Page 6 Empty Re: Jane Eyre reviews and spoilers 2

Post by Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

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

Back to top

- Similar topics

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