Jane Eyre - Movie Reviews - Rotten Tomatoes

Jane Eyre Reviews

Page 1 of 106
March 24, 2017
Good acting and atmosphere, but no chemistry.
½ March 19, 2017
To be honest I expected more from the film Jane Eyre. It has a typical story line about forbidden love. Jane Eyre a poor girl who falls in love with her rich master. It is very predictable how the story ends and that is something that bothers me. I am not a real fan of platitudes, I prefer a unexpected ending. That would be more suprising. Although the film was released in 2011, the film seems to be produced in the 19th century. The producers did a good job because the decor was old-fashioned just as the clothings of the characters.
To my mind the film was a disappointment compared to the book. It was a pleasure for me to read it. It was more detailed than the film. In the book, Jane Eyre tried more to fight against her feelings for him which makes it more exciting to read. The end was breathtaking (I'm not going to spoil). It is everything a dramatic love story should be.
In case you didn't read it, I seriously recommand you hunt down the book.
February 26, 2017
Exceeded all expectations.
January 20, 2017
"And if God had possessed me with beauty and wealth, I could make it as hard for you to leave me as I to leave you."
December 30, 2016
Fine, but not great.
Super Reviewer
½ December 5, 2016
The production design and costumes are indeed exquisite, as well as the absorbing Gothic atmosphere. However, the film lacks passion and mystery, while the dialogue sounds incredibly cheesy and Wasikowska is too apathetic for the role.
½ November 28, 2016
Fassbender made a great Rochester and Mia did well as Jane, but the development of their relationship felt rushed. Would still recommend it, though.
September 21, 2016
Beautifully shot and wonderfully acted, this is a close adaptation that might be slightly romanticized, but no less true to the heart and soul of the novel.
September 19, 2016
Although Fukunaga panders to the audience, an ugly polish that taints his films, he does right by the classic source material with elegant framework and a perfect cast. If only surface-deep, I found it to be an undeniably irresistible period piece.
½ September 3, 2016
I wanted to watch the chemistry between Mr Rochester and Jane over and over again. This movie was better than the one in my imaginations and the acting very powerful.
August 29, 2016
I loved the cast in this one. Fassbender was perfect for Mr. Rochester. My one regret is that the mad wife didn't get much screen time in this adaptation.
½ August 8, 2016
Well that was awkward. A few hours of my life i had better spend watching the other versions. What a joke.
June 17, 2016
Fukunaga's film is dipped in naturalistic daylight and cool desaturation. At first, this aesthetic brings something to the well-known story of Jane Eyre.
The camera is a cold, observing eye. We watch these characters from an emotionally remote position in their specific environment. This treatment matches the yet subdued character of the protagonist; It does justice to the cold and loveless biography of the young, intelligent governess trying to move through a harsh life with integrity and self-respect.
But this condition is supposed to turn with her meeting Mr Rochester; somebody who makes her feel recognized and eventually loved. Yet the camera keeps on being a cold observant eye.
Mia Wasikowska and Michael Fassbender are magnificent. However, only in isolaton; they don't work as a couple.
References to Mr Rochester's ugliness and Jane's plainness are deemed ridiculous by the actor's and actress' blatant beauty. These are beautiful people. And it does do something to the story. Due to the lack of indication that there is something happening to the souls of these characters the love story appears like this: Rochester loathes being in Thornfield for a well-known reason. Meeting Jane Eyre is a welcome and unexpected diversion, she talks back to him and she's obviously ravishing. Jane has never been with a man and is easily overwhelmed by masculine and handsome Mr Rochester's approaches. Now, these two fancy each other but cannot consummate because of convention. Jane is too morally rigid, so they will marry.
That these two could be soulmates is only asserted via words - but we never see or feel them connect on that level.
It's a shame that this should be so. The film is beautifully photographed. But the impact of the scenes is not well-balanced, not well done. There's a scene of Jane strolling around in the frosty garden, pained after she has heard that Rochester and Blanche Ingram might be romantically involved. This would have been a great potential of identification had we been given the contrast of Jane being pushed around harshly (which we see executed splendidly in the film) and - Rochester taking to her, touching her soul, lifting her out of isolation for almost the first time in her life (which we don't get to see). How painful to get a taste of what you need most and have it taken away instantly! Instead she ends up exactly as Mrs Fairfax feared: as an inexperienced, naïve girl who fell for a man of the world.
Rochester does not liberate her. She says she lived a full life at Thornfield, yet Jane and he rarely laugh together, their conversation doesn't take flight, the happiness they are supposed to mean to each other appears merely an illusion of two desperate persons.
The filmmakers don't go with the sucker punches of the story. The observant eye remains cold and distant. Even the fulminating proposal is subdued and accompanied by Fassbender's motionless gaze.
In one scene there's even sentimentalism, something a story like this, one should think, would need least.
The drama that ensues after the wedding is rushed just as the shallow reunion. And we're done. Hmph.
A cowardly decision of casting gorgeous people as plain/ugly characters, beautiful photography, the impeccable Judi Dench, capable leads with little chemistry and an underwritten (!) love story.

Here's my wish: Jane Campion as director and Paul Giamatti as Mr Rochester. Too good to become true?
June 8, 2016
Mia Wasikowska was shallow and flat as Jane Eyre. No depth to her character which did this rendition such a disservice.
½ May 23, 2016
Really nice version of Jane Eyre. Well executed and the romantic vibes were strong.
May 21, 2016
Darker and more uncomfortable than I remember the book. Nicely directed and played and not bad northern accents.
April 13, 2016
I remember the book displaying the miseries of Jane Eyre much more than the film did. I would have liked to see more of this. It was a little bit touching but not engaging enough.
½ April 11, 2016
I found this movie confusing at times and at other times emotionally overwhelming. I also didn't like Janes decision when she found out about his secret. I mean he loved her despite her position financially and in society yet she couldn't do the same? What a dumb move on her part to run away. I liked the gothic and eerie style, cinematography and acting of this movie but it felt like it could've been a bit deeper and better. I didnt think the romance was developed enough. Also I kept hoping for some kind of love scene with Michael fassbender alas. The ending was a bit meh and cut short.
½ April 2, 2016
Una nueva versión de este clásico, Cary Fukunaga cumple su trabajo con creces.
March 15, 2016
First, the positives: this adaptation is beautifully filmed in Derbyshire; I liked the emphasis on St John Rivers (Jamie Bell), a character often overlooked; and young Romy Settbon is wonderful as Adele. Unfortunately, Mia Wasikowska and Michael Fassbender, while both good in the lead roles, never quite set the screen alight, either separately or together.
Page 1 of 106