Plots(1)

In the 19th Century-set story, Jane Eyre (Mia Wasikowska) suddenly flees Thornfield Hall, the vast and isolated estate where she works as a governess for Adèle Varens, a child under the custody of Thornfield’s brooding master, Edward Rochester (Michael Fassbender). The imposing residence - and Rochester’s own imposing nature - have sorely tested her resilience. With nowhere else to go, she is extended a helping hand by clergyman St. John Rivers (Jamie Bell) and his family. As she recuperates in the Rivers’ Moor House and looks back upon the tumultuous events that led to her escape, Jane wonders if the past is ever truly past. (Universal Pictures UK)

(more)

Videos (2)

Trailer

Reviews (11)

NinadeL 

all reviews of this user

English Jane Eyre’s life was no bed of roses. She raised herself from an orphan thanks to a good education to a person who can handle her own explosiveness and, as if by design, her first job also gave her the love of her life. But the path to love was not without its issues. Jane had to go through renunciation, the test of condemning shallow characters and had to deal with lies and rejection. And, as chance would have it, the heroine, tested by life, ended her story by finding security and was married to the right man. But lest hearts should weep, mighty fate intervened so that Rochester had to pay with his own sight for his first false marriage. ()

J*A*S*M 

all reviews of this user

English Old-fashioned English romantic dramas aren’t the kind of genre that I would go after, but the good reviews drew me to the cinema (it’s not that there are that many good films this summer to let this one pass :-D), and I don’t regret it. It’s a brilliantly made film that managed to hold my attention. Rather than romantic, as in romance, I felt it was more romantic as in romanticism, because the romance itself doesn’t work so well, but the gloomy atmosphere of the English countryside was wonderful. Fukunaga could have a go at horror for his next film, when it comes to scares, he managed some interesting things in those scenes. ()

Ads

novoten 

all reviews of this user

English As a viewer and reader who has always somehow avoided Jane Eyre, I couldn't have chosen a better version for our first meeting. However, this satisfied realization was born quite heavily. After half an hour of the main heroine's suffering almost in the style of Oliver Twist, I was shaking my head at the dysfunctionality of the events on the screen and the contradictory atmosphere that wouldn't let me properly engage in the story. But as soon as Michael Fassbender enters, the 19th century image takes on completely different colors. Whether it's the colorful reflections of twisted romance and captivating small dialogues or the darker shades in suggestive scenes of the castle's mystery. And when I reached the point and the perfectly fitting ending, I felt relieved. The heart's melody plays loudly enough, Fassbender slowly conquers the wide Hollywood scene, and there is a new (and very resonating) piece of complex historical romance in the world. ()

D.Moore 

all reviews of this user

English Why "only" three stars? The problem is with the actors, specifically the central couple. I didn't believe in Michael Fassbender's Rochester one bit. I don't know, maybe he's too much of a "pretty boy" for the role, maybe it's something else, but he wasn't nearly as cold and inhuman as I imagined him to be and as portrayed in the book, and I got the impression he got the role mainly because of his current popularity and not based on any casting. I kept thinking about Ralph Fiennes and what he did in The Duchess. That's kind of how I imagine Rochester. And then there's Mia Wasikowska - she's suitable for the role of Jana and plays it well, but I don't think she and the aforementioned M.F. go together at all and I felt minimal (no) emotion from their scenes together. That’s really too bad. Otherwise, the film is well shot, especially the "preconceived" camera makes beautiful pictures, but it didn't save me from boredom. Even Dario Marianelli didn't do much this time. ()

Zíza 

all reviews of this user

English I knew the story, and I sort of knew what to expect from it. I'd actually seen the 1996 film, which I thought was only slightly worse than this one. After all, this one had a bigger cast, a bigger budget, and I dare say a better story setup that would make you watch the movie even if you had no idea what it's about. And yet in truth, the sequence of events was fast-paced, with no concept of time and for no chance to capture a meaningful feeling. Fortunately, this was occasionally helped by the music, so then again the lack of feeling wasn’t too bad. Mr. Rochester and Jane had an interesting rapport, you could enjoy them. But even so, the film was perhaps a bit drawn out (St. Someone, getting the siblings, etc.) and cluttered. I’m giving it those four stars for the fact that it left a feeling in me, even though I don’t know how. When the credits started running across the screen, I knew it definitely hadn’t been a waste of time to see this old Victorian romance story again. Still, I can't help but like her sister Emily and her Wuthering Heights much better. A weak 4 stars and "my, their English...!". ()

Gallery (131)