Jane Eyre

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. (07/25/2012)

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. (02/05/2012)

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...!". (01/20/2012)

A triumph of classicism, filmmaking and romantic proprieties. If I didn't know the actors, I'd have trouble dating the movie. Anyway, it's because of the actors and some wonderful romanticizing compositions that Jane Eyre is worth it. I'm just a little sorry that Fukunaga didn't keep it for his retirement and boldly did not go back to where he left off with Sin Nombre. (07/28/2011)

An exquisite Victorian romance, perfectly in tune with the current formal and aesthetic trends of modern filmmaking. Raw cinematography, zero pathos and spare dialogue passages, where everything is focused on editing, the actors' facial expressions and overwhelmingly unspoken emotions. Very modern yet period-accurate and full of the traditional values we love so much in these tales of fate from yesteryear. You'd almost want to say that these cinematic affairs were left in the dust somewhere in the late nineties, but thankfully that's not true, they're still around today, they're just far fewer and of a good quality. (09/08/2015)