VOD (1)

Plots(1)

Based on Charlotte Brontë's classic novel, Jane Eyre flees Thornfield House, where she works as a governess for wealthy Edward Rochester. The isolated and imposing residence, and Mr. Rochester's coldness, have sorely tested the young woman's resilience, forged years earlier when she was orphaned. As Jane reflects upon her past and recovers her natural curiosity, she will return to Mr. Rochester, and the terrible secret that he is hiding... Starring Mia Wasikowska( as Jane Eyre), Michael Fassbender (as Mr.Rochester) and Jamie Bell (as St. John rivers). (official distributor synopsis)

(more)

Videos (2)

Trailer

Reviews (11)

Marigold 

all reviews of this user

English 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. ()

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. ()

Ads

Matty 

all reviews of this user

English - I dream. - Awaken then. Jane Eyre is a mature synthesis of two “women’s genres”: melodrama and gothic horror. The narrative complies with the intentions of feminist discourse, taking into account the numerous restrictions that 19th-century women had to overcome, while not hyperbolising them to such an extent that the film would become another hopeless story of female suffering. The protagonist is self-confident and conscious of her abilities, and her calm dialogues with her “master” do not correspond to the traditionally depicted relationship between superiority and subordination. Cautiously being in love without fully giving herself over to her partner blunts the sentimental edges of the melodramatic level and makes it impossible to watch Jane Eyre as a straightforward tear-jerker. Fukunaga’s adaptation uses the classic novel to pose topical questions without doggedly striving for modernity in any other aspects of the film – cinematography, production design, the characters’ vocabulary. In other words, the film’s creators interpret the original novel as people instructed by developments in thinking about the social position of women, and as such logically project into it what Brontë could only consider to be a utopia in her time. Thanks to that, the film achieves an extraordinary balance between the modern and the classic. 85% ()

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...!". ()

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. ()

Gallery (131)