Jane Eyre Reviews
A few lulls in the Jane character, but ready to forgive w so much more going on here.
The director meticulously touches on each important detail from the eponymous novel, and is visually and emotionally satisfying.
I did my high school thesis on this novel, and never wanted to see a typically uninspired movie version - I somehow had a feeling I should see this version, and it paid off in spades!
I love this one, it's brilliant in scope, passion, feel, eloquence, and truth.
4.5 of 5
Is there nothing to enjoy in this version? Well like i said, this movie is gorgeous to look at and is rich with atmosphere. Judie Dench is wonderful in the role of Mrs Fairfax. And the Farewell scene like i said is probably one of the best in any adaptation..
Overall, this adaptations is beautiful eyecandy, but it lacks the substance that makes Jane Eyre so enjoyable. it tries too hard to make it serious and dark which leaves it lifeless and bland and that in turn makes it loose the charm, mystery, beauty, and occasion sweetness of the original story.. Diehard Jane Eyre fans will enjoy one or two scenes and the general movie going audience who are not familiar with other adaptions or the book may enjoy it.. But if you want a passionate, visually beautiful adaptation's with life in them, i'd recommend either the 2006 BBC miniseries starring Toby Stephens and Ruth Wilson or the 1983 version starring Timothy Dalton.
Until next time
The main detractor for me was pacing; the scenes prior to Thornfield lag, then after Jane and Rochester meet time flits by making every scene between them feel rushed.
There was one unintentional uplifting comedic moment - when the young Jane Eyre gets knocked out by head butting a locked door - add a laugh reel and it's better than any hopeless Adam Sandler gag - but here needed to be left on the cutting room floor.
While I enjoyed this adaptation, I felt that the characters lacked some of the depth they possess in the book. Jane and Mr. Rochester do not seem to make sense together. They do not particularly challenge one another intellectually or balance each other's shortcomings; at least not to the same extent that they do in the book. Jane has her bluntness, but less of her self-reliance and wit. Rochester has his harshness, but less of his humor and passion. Then on the other end of the spectrum we have St. John Rivers, who appears to be charming and personable rather than the cold, emotionless statue he is in the book. While under his care, Jane feels suffocated by his rigorous demands, and he shows no real affection toward her, only asking for her hand in marriage out of utility rather than love. And when she turns down his repeated, obstinate proposals, he essentially declares her refusal an act against God's will. In this movie, however, it seems foolish of Jane to turn down the sweet and enthusiastic St. John in favor of the brash and controlling Mr. Rochester.
With that having been said, what the story is missing in personality, it makes up for in beauty. The characters look fantastic (albeit perhaps a bit too pretty; St. John is said to be handsome, but Jane and Rochester are plain at best). The setting is breathtaking. The raw emotion captured by Jane as she collapses in the rain at the beginning is spot on. And I appreciated the unique way they arranged the sequence of events, starting with Jane coming to Moor House and retelling the story of her life as though she had started writing her memoir there as opposed to following the book chronologically. It added an air of mystery that immediately sucked me in. Over all, it was a well-made movie. It's just tough to convey 500 pages of detailed, first-person descriptions in a two hour film.