Jane Eyre

Jane Eyre is a timeless classic from the pen of one of the most famous female writers of her time, which comes to life once again in an extraordinarily impressive film adaptation. An orphan, who has been pushed from one evil to another since he was a young child, grows up to become a young and intelligent woman who will not be intimidated even by the seemingly terrifying owner of a vast estate that is surrounded by more than one mystery. The cast deserves kudos all the way down to the floor. Mia Wasikowska gives her most convincing performance to date, Michael Fassbender is increasingly winning my sympathy with his chameleon-like acting, and casting Judi Dench and Jamie Bell in supporting roles was the right decision and I give them both a thumbs up. The setting of England has always appealed to me in many ways and in this film everything is perfectly captured thanks to the great production design and cinematography. And the music, which is only slight, subtly adds to the already chilling atmosphere of the film, but paradoxically warms the heart. In short, a film that delivered exactly what I expected and then some, which for me, as a viewer, is the most important thing. (09/09/2011)

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)

Extreme romanticism via an atmosphere à la Gothic horror. Simply gestures instead of speeches. Courting by the fireplace through verbal exchanges that make Nadal versus Federer a boring watch. It’s hopes of being movie theatre experience of the year are dashed by the emotionally chilly ending where gestures gave way to speeches and other maladies very familiar in most adaptations of the classics of Romanticism. (07/29/2011)

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)

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. (07/29/2011)