Tina Willis
I wonder if the higher reviews are from people who have never read the book, or seen other adaptations. This movie did not capture 1/10 of what was possible, with this story.The actors are clearly capable, but have the limits and boundaries of the direction and screenplay and of time restrictions.Although I appreciated the cinematoghraphy, (and the score was wonderful) it was like the rest of the film, went in a direction that when it came together just lacked the HEART of the story and of the other adaptations. The Quality and Intent was there....but in the end,it just fizzled for me.
SnoopyStyle
Jane Eyre (Mia Wasikowska) runs away from Thornfield Hall and finds shelter with St John Rivers (Jamie Bell), and his sisters Diana (Holliday Grainger) and Mary (Tamzin Merchant). As an orphan child, she was mistreated by her aunt Mrs Reed (Sally Hawkins) and her son. She was sent to Lowood School for Girls ruled by the cruel Mr Brocklehurst and branded as a liar by Mrs Reed. She leaves the school to be a governess for French orphan Adèle Varens at Thornfield. Mrs Fairfax (Judi Dench) is the housekeeper. Edward Fairfax Rochester (Michael Fassbender) is the often absent owner.Cary Fukunaga brings a haunting cinematic brutal beauty to this Charlotte Brontë classic. The script has been stripped down to the needed scope. Mia Wasikowska has her sense of fragile determination. The acting is impeccable. This is less a costume romance and more a Gothic theater. It is really a painting of mood and deep feeling.
Jan Newson
A good adaptation but not the best. I don't know why the BBC funded this when they had their 2006 mini-series version (Ruth Wilson as Jane). I suppose they have so much of our TV licence money (yes it is 2016 and we in the UK are still having to fund the BBC with a compulsory fee of £160), they throw it at any project. Anyway, to the film. It's good with good performances from the leads and Jamie Bell. Unfortunately Dame Judy couldn't make out which accent to use; Yorkshire, upper class English and back again.Not sure why the makers felt the need to chop the story around. We start with Jane leaving Thornfield and arriving at the Rivers' house. It then flashes back to her time at Aunt Reed's house (where the book starts), then to her time at Lowood School and then to Thornfield. Easy enough to follow but unnecessary. It also ends very abruptly. There is much more to tell/show at the end.It was watchable but did we need another version?
wes andrew
OK so I watched this movie in English and it didn't make any sense, the story is really boring I mean every minute is another 60 seconds of monotony. I know a lot of you arrogant English scholars and pretentious hipsters aren't going to like this but this was just awful, the story is too confusing, she starts off as a kid and then is taken to some priests house and then there's a time skip. at this point it gets really boring and confusing, she becomes a teacher but then she quits or something like that, then she is working at Micheal Fassbenders house and its all good, then there's a fire (with NO explanation to why there is a fire I might add) and then Fassbender is about to marry the main character but it turns out he already has a wife, and his wife appears in the movie for about 2 minutes and is never heard from again. then they are in a field and there's a character called St David (not the saint of wales) is calling for her and she runs off, then the house is destroyed and a maid's ghost is there then Fassbender is blind and she looks at him and the movie cuts to black. That plot made no sense whatsoever. Everyone in my class agreed it was terrible. This film made it to the top 5000 how did it do that? The story is terrible, the acting is bland, the dialogue switches from 18th century English to 21st century English way to much. There are too many time-skips, half the events are just filler, the only fun I had watching this movie was making fun of it with my friends about how bad it was. Do not watch it
AD
