Just realized I never posted my review here:

Whether you have read Charlotte Brontë's beloved novel--for pleasure or for school--or seen one of the several film adaptations (the '40s version with Joan Fontaine and Orson Welles, the '90s version with Charlotte Gainsbourg and a very miscast William Hurt, or another), chances are at least the main characters and basic plot of Jane Eyre are ingrained in your mind.

Now you can see what has long eluded the courtship of plain Jane and her brooding, haunted lover, Rochester: a perfect cinematic embodiment, driven by two well-matched stars (and it is hard to imagine a finer pair than Mia Wasikowska and Michael Fassbender) and helmed by Cary Joji Fukunaga (Sin Nombre), a superb young director who has clear and present reverence for Brontë's venerable tome, yet is also unafraid to condense, challenge, and personalize it when he wishes.

One significant change Fukunaga and screenwriter Moira Buffini (Tamara Drewe) have made is opening the story in media res, with Wasikowska's desperate, devastated Jane leaving Thornfield Hall, becoming lost on the unforgiving moors, and finding a place in the home and care of the well-intentioned, pious St. John Rivers (Jamie Bell) and his sisters (Holliday Grainger and Tamzin Merchant).

The audience then witnesses Jane's lifelong tale of woe and hesitant love. There is the cruel aunt (Sally Hawkins) who sends her to an abominable "school"/prison for girls. Then there is Thornfield, a grim manor with a secret, where Jane is hired as a governess for Adèle Varens (Romy Settbon Moore), ward to Mr. Rochester (Fassbender). The relationship between Jane and Rochester is, of course, the heart of this or any Jane Eyre: the playful, yet terse early conversations, which quickly give way to deeper feelings.

No stranger to inhabiting iconic female characters (she, of course, rose to fame playing Alice in Tim Burton's film last year), Mia Wasikowska is stellar as Jane Eyre. Though certain members of the Brontë faithful may claim she is too attractive for the role, I can't imagine any of them arguing she doesn't nail the role's every emotional beat. Jane is a character with enormous inner strength, a fierce conviction born of trial and tribulation, but also a certain vulnerability. It's a blend Wasikowska projects with ease.

And Fassbender creates by far the best screen Rochester I've seen. Welles' grand-posturing, anachronistic portrayal nearly consumed that entire movie, while Hurt's mild interpretation was just odd. Fassbender, however, delivers an athletic, charismatic, fiery, and dashingly misanthropic performance which is completely in step with the overall movie. Plus, he shares a touching chemistry with Wasikowska. The key scene where Rochester proposes to an upset, planning-to-leave Jane ("I have known you, Mr. Rochester, and it strikes me with anguish to be torn from you") is a heartstrings wrencher of the highest order, acted to perfection by the leads.

The supporting cast, including Judi Dench as housekeeper Mrs. Fairfax, is well-chosen and utilized. None of them overshadow or overwhelm the stars, but each leaves an impression. Best is Amelia Clarkson, a vivacious presence in her few scenes as Young Jane.

Fukunaga's direction is spot-on. It balances two extremes--Masterpiece Theatre formalism and Baz Luhrmann-esque modernity. Balance is a good word to describe this film general, from its technical presentation to Buffini's writing. The film is both a swooning love story and a gothic tale of madness and mystery, and neither side is shortchanged. Many viewers may be surprised how frightening the film is, in fact. There are passages of horror-movie intensity, including a trip through the dense forest surrounding Thornfield, full of shadows, strange noises, and suggested menace.

The film, as shot by d.p. Adriano Goldman (Conviction), puts natural locations to good use. The moors have an undeniable atmosphere and scope. They can't help but be cinematic. Goldman's frequent hand-held approach and well-honed eye for wild natural beauty further set this Jane Eyre apart from older, stodgier versions. He also shot Fukunaga's Sin Nombre, a contemporary tale of two wayward youths racing towards the U.S./Mexio border. While Sin Nombre and Jane Eyre, on the surface, couldn't be more different, there are, upon closer inspection, striking similarities. Both are love stories with wounded, tragic characters unfolding in dangerous and untamed natural environments. Michael O’Connor's (The Last King of Scotland) costumes and Will Hughes-Jones' production design are, of course, impeccable and Oscar-worthy. And Dario Marianelli's (Atonement) original score, featuring significant contributions by violinist Jack Liebeck, is a character unto itself, capable of generating anxiety-inducing suspense and feelings of immense romantic warmth.

But technical perfection is common in modern historical films. Becoming Jane, for example, was gorgeous to behold, but was not a memorable or very moving picture. Credit for this transfixing new vision of Jane Eyre must first and foremost go to the core trio of Fukunaga, Wasikowska, and Fassbender. They breathe electrifying depth, grit, and life into familiar material and should be celebrated for their top-notch efforts. One of 2011's very best films!

A

Unfilmable.

This latest film adaptation of Jane Eyre tries it's hardest, but still doesn't even cast a shadow on the experience of reading the novel. The depth of mood captured by Bronte's brilliant text comes across as trite when acted out.

The acting was inconsistent. Mia Wasikowska plays the titular character quite well, but Michael Fassbinder comes nowhere near capturing Mr. Rochester. An endless look of smirking consternation does not a role make. Jamie Bell also seemed ill suited to his part and Judi Dench uncharacteristically misplayed her part as Mrs. Fairfax. Sally Hawkins was not visible long enough to make a proper impression.

The story is the story, though as mentioned above, film is simply not the media of choice for this artistic masterpiece.


2 out of 5.

_____________________________________

Important Note:

Anyone who has not read the original book, please... please take a moment to read this thread:

!!!WARNING::::Jane Eyre:::::WARNING!!!

Calm down, Bradley!



Sorry you didn't enjoy it. It's not the novel, of course, but it shouldn't be--what matters is the essence is intact.

Look who's talking shouting.

I used normal font, though.

Wasikowska and Fassbender are great (as expected) and have terrific chemistry, but the thing is badly edited (both overall and within individual scenes), half-baked, and not altogether moving. It makes no real sense to start the story in medias res, and the fabulously Gothic feel of the novel is barely captured; Rochester's dark reveal needed to be built up far more than it was. Still, it manages to slide by on the backs of its leads and a generally great sense of atmosphere, even if it's chopped to bits by the cut-happy editor.

I didn't particularly like Sin Nombre either, so maybe Fukunaga just rubs me the wrong way. Or perhaps he just doesn't know how to direct well.

Jane Eyre is a fantastic adaptation with strong performances from both Mia Wasikowska and Michael Fassbender. The settings are appropriate and the costume design is quite strong. The entire story flows very well and overall just a great film. ***1/2

I enjoyed it. Not as much as I've enjoyed other period films but I thought it was a solid movie. The leads had great chemistry.

B

9/10 -> A-

Excellent. Wasikowska and Fassbender are brilliant. I thoroughly enjoyed the feel and the look of the movie, music also.

God, I love this film. I believe I enjoy it more every time I see it.