Movies: 18454 | TV Series: 3282 | Added today: 0 | Storage: 65882 GB
- Forgot password?
- | Register
- | Support
- | FAQ
- | Help
Download, Watch online Jane Eyre Movie.
| Genres: | RomanceDr |
| Starring: | Su Elliot, Sally Hawkins, Simon McBurney, Jamie Bell, Jayne Wisener, Mia Wasikowska, Lizzie Hopley |
| Director(s): | Cary Fukunaga |
| Country: | USA, UK |
| Year: | 2011 |
| IMDB Rating: | 7.4 |
After a bleak childhood, Jane Eyre goes out into the world to become a governess. As she lives happily in her new position at Thornfield Hall, she meets the dark, cold, and abrupt master of the house, Mr. Rochester. Jane and her employer grow close in friendship and she soon finds herself falling in love with him. Happiness seems to have found Jane at last, but could Mr. Rochesters terrible secret be about to destroy it forever?
 |
Jane Eyre (iPod) | Resolution: 480x320 px | Total Size: 270 Mb |
|
|
 |
Jane Eyre (DivX) | Resolution: 720x480 px | Total Size: 1559 Mb |
|
Movie Photos: We have taken some photos of "Jane Eyre". They represent actual movie quality.
Visitor Reviews: (20)
Andrew Marshall 18 May 2012
Not engaging enough
I must confess that I saw Jane Eyre at an outdoor screen and it wasvery windy which probably isn't the ideal environment to watch thistype of movie. The film is obviously based on the book by Charlotte Bronty and followsthe difficult life of Jane Eyre as she is brought up in the 19thcentury. The story has obviously been dramatised numerous times in thepast. The lead actors Mia Wasikowska (Eyre) and Michael Fassbender(Rochester) certainly put in good performances, but I was never reallyengaged in the film. This may well have something to do with theenvironment which made it difficult too hear the dialogue so I willwatch it again on the small screen to see whether this makes adifference.
MYeah_Gorlomi 17 May 2012
Beautiful, performed superbly by Mia Wasikowska, and appropriately subtle.
'm gonna get into my review of Jane Eyre, based on the classic novel byCharlotte Bronte.Centering on young, seemingly emotionless girl, Jane Eyre (Playedterrifically by Mia Wasikowska), the film follows her struggles throughan orphaned childhood, and then to the age of 19, a time where she nowworks as a governess for a rich, but cold Englishman (Played by MichaelFassbender). Over time, it appears as though the two of them fall forone another, and it seems as if Jane has finally become happy, but whatfollows is a series of mysterious twists, and routes paved withemotional devastation.Jane Eyre, to the mistaken eye, could strike someone as being justanother overly produced period drama - akin to The Young Victoria -without even having seen it. To the eye willing to give it a chance,the film is a more thoughtful, austere, and subtle piece ofstorytelling. Director Cary Fukunaga and screenwriter Moira Buffinitake time to develop their characters and story lines withoutcompromising the tone they establish.This is just as much a benefit to the actors as it is to the story,including miss Wasikowska. A gem of a performer, indeed, she embodiesthe role of Jane seamlessly. Though her facial expressions may appeardry, the true acting lies within her eyes, and what her character isthinking. It's a powerful expression of quiet emotion that easily makesher the MVP of the cast, and that's saying something, considering thatshe has to hold her own against the likes of Michael Fassbender andJudi Dench.I must also applaud the film's visual designers for contributing lovelywork to the movie. The cinematography is soft and flowing, theproduction design is exceptionally conceived, and the costumes aredesigned with typical period appropriate elegance, but also withcharacter and personality in mind to contribute to that.Superbly acted, beautifully designed, and well told: All in one. I giveJane Eyre *** out of ****
16 May 2012
Jane Eyre
This review is from: Jane Eyre (DVD) I am a new comer to Jane Eyre and Mr. Rochester. This production had a theme of portraying the strength of character which Miss Eyre displayed throughout her life, from when she was banished by her aunt to the day she confronted the dying and bankrupt aunt in her empty parlor. The countryside of England was breath taking. I was also struck by the use of candlelight throughout the home of Mr. Rochester. Judy Dench was wonderful such a beautiful actress in all her roles.
degrimstead-1 15 May 2012
Films of this book have always been good
Because I adored the book I've found all film versions of this story tobe enjoyable, though I think I enjoyed the 2006 TV mini-series best.But maybe that was just because they drew it out in four separateepisodes; it's such an engrossing story. These actors were quite good,with Mia Wasikowska's eyes and face being a perfect canvas for Jane'semotions and Michael Fassbender playing a fine Rochester. My onecriticism would be that, rather than telling the story chronologicallyas is done in the book, and in all other filmed versions I've seen,here they chose to jump around in time, even starting the film in themiddle. Maybe this is what led to their leaving out Jane staying on atLowood and becoming a teacher (though they referred to this they didn'tshow it, which was disappointing). And they didn't show how her youngfriend at school contracted her illness, either. Still, a very good twohours and I do recommend it.
downsabel 13 May 2012
Characters misrepresented - Comments on specific scenes
Not sure these comments would spoil the viewing but just in case, to beon the safer side, I do comment on certain very specific points.Entertaining enough, but if you have read the book I'm sure you'll findthis movie doesn't do justice to it. It offers a totalmisrepresentation of the characters, the weaker are stronger, thestronger are weaker. The totally unpassionate portrayed as seeminglymadly in love, the strong heroine a weepy girl. Even the ugliest andgrotesque is omitted to give us a model-like physical appearance. Ithink it skips, deforms and steals value from 2 very important scenes:the meeting and the fire in the room ones, more importantly this lastone, since 'he' appears composed, when in reality he wasn't, takingaway the whole idea of her being his supporter, both mentally andphysically. The fact the writer of the book made a stronger heroine 150years ago and that the film wouldn't follow through with the properconsequences of 'his' acts, keeping him 'cute' for sales' sakes is verysad, even disturbing. I understand you have to chop and shape 400 pagesof complex narrative to fit into a film BUT I do believe that neitherthe scrip writer nor the director did actually read the book. By theway, the times would absolutely have prevented the behaviour displayedin front of the servants after 'M' was agreed to, honestly, I found it'most' shocking. The actors in themselves were good, if not the rolesgiven to them. It is a pity they couldn't bother with a real 'plain'girl in contrast to the rest, she was truly so, and that was importantto the plot too. I said to friends who also read the book 'save yourpennies'.
13 May 2012
Fresh approach to a classic
When I first saw this version I was initially disappointed because all my favorite quotes from the book had been omitted. Even the ending was missing one of my favorite lines. Once I could over come that and look at the movie without my past prejudices, I grew to really love this movie. As many of the other reviewers have stated, I too have see all the movie and TV versions of Jane Eyre and have read the book countless times. What a joy it was for me to see the director bring something new to the interpretation. The Gothic feel and look to the movie is breathtaking. I thought the two leads did an outstanding job conveying the passion that would have existed between two people from a different era. Unlike the 2006 BBC version which was a cross between the vampire movies and Jane Austen, this one stays true to the intent of Bronte's book. Is this the definitive version of Jane Eyre? No, I don't think it is possible for anyone to capture ALL the complexities and intricacies of the book. However it is a version that deserves watching.
whirlwind06 10 May 2012
A worthy adaptation... but left me wanting more
The oft-filmed Charlotte Brontë's Gothic novel has been adapted into TVand film more than two dozen times. Here's a summary of what works andwhat doesn't in this 2011 version:THE GOOD:  Cary Fukunaga's direction. He preferred natural light for much of thefilm, forgoing camera lighting and instead opted for candles whichcreated the proper dark, moody and gloomy atmosphere that matchesRochester's temperament perfectly. He used some hand-held camera workto great effect, but not too much so that it became distracting.Thornfield Hall, Rochester's expansive mansion looked like somethingCount Dracula could comfortably settle in. It practically becomes itsown character here and adds the necessary spookiness we come to expectfrom this Gothic tale. Judi Dench as Mrs. Fairfax  When does Dame Judi ever disappoint?Apparently never. Even in small roles, the scenes she's in are one ofthe best ones in the movie. There was an important scene involving Janeand Rochester where Mrs. Fairfax didn't utter a single word, but shemade quite an impact just with her expression. Mia Wasikowska as Jane. A lot of the issues I have with literaryadaptation is that the supposedly plain heroine usually ends up beingplayed actresses who are too glamorous for the role. Fortunately inthis one, Wasikowska was believable as a plain young girl, though sheobviously is a pretty girl. At 18, she's also the perfect age for therole. If I were to nitpick though, she's not exactly 'little' as she'sdescribed in the novel as Rochester doesn't quite tower over her. Inany case, I thought she did a wonderful job carrying the film. Shecaptures the essence of the strong-willed character who holds her ownagainst her much older subject of her affection, and one who despite'not being well-acquainted with men' doesn't seem intimidated by them. Michael Fassbender as Rochester. In many ways, we evaluate a JaneEyre adaptation by its Rochester, and as long as we use that'calculation,' I think he measures up quite well. He has a strongscreen presence and is the kind of actor who's usually the best thingeven in a so-so film, and he makes the most of what's given to him.Even with the relatively short screen time, which is less than what Ihad hoped, he's able to make us care for Rochester. THE NOT-SO-GOOD:  This cliff-notes version feels way too fast. With a complex storylike this, no doubt it'd be a challenge for any filmmaker, no matterhow talented, to pare it down into a two-hour movie. So it's inevitablethat this film just moves along too quick for me. Of course that is notFukunaga's fault and he really made the best of it, but still thisversion just leaves me wanting more. I guess this is perhaps a more'accessible' version for the crowd that otherwise would not watch JE.But to me, the story is compelling enough that an extra half-hour wouldonly enhance the viewing experience and allow enough time for thecharacters to develop an authentic connection. Dialog omission. This is perhaps a result of being 'spoiled' by thecomprehensive 1983 version (which at 5.5 hours is perhaps the longestscreen adaptation). Of course it's impossible to include every singledialog from the book, but I was hoping at least some of the importantones are kept. The famous quotes such as "I am no bird; and no netensnares me", "Do as I do: trust in God and yourself", "Reader, Imarried him" are not spoken in this adaptation. I also find some of thedelivery lacks bite, y'know that certain oomph that an actor does tobring those timeless words to life. Jamie Bell seems miscast. Now, keep in mind I really like Jamie as anactor and have said so many times on my blog(http://tinyurl.com/mozzs5) However, I don't feel he's right for therole of St. John Rivers. Firstly, when you've already got someone asstriking as Fassbender as Rochester, I'd think the casting agent wouldhave to find someone much fairer than he. No offense to Jamie, butthat's not the case here and he certainly doesn't fit the bookdescription of 'tall, fair with blue eyes, and with a Grecian profile.'Now, physical appearance aside, he also lack the solemn and pioussensibility of a Christian missionary. Unconventional storyline  Moira Buffini's script tells the story inflashback mode instead of following the novel's linear storyline. Themovie starts off right as Jane is leaving Thornfield, which is rightsmack dab where the main crisis of the story begins. Now, I canunderstand that it's done to make it less tedious, yet it getsconfusing at times to figure out which part happens in the past orpresent. I think for someone not familiar with the book, the shuffledtime line might be a bit tough to follow.IN CONCLUSION, despite leaving the theater wanting more, I do thinkthis is a worthy adaptation. The production quality is top notch, withgorgeous cinematography, affecting light work and music that serve thestory well. There is even one scene of Jane and Rochester that Fukunagatook liberty with that's quite tantalizing. It caught me off guard butI must say that scene left me breathless and is an effective way toconvey how much Jane longed for her true love.But in the end, even though I adore Fassbender, he still hasn'treplaced Timothy Dalton as my favorite Rochester. Sure, the productionquality of this one is superior, but what makes a Jane Eyre story sofascinating and memorable are the heart-wrenching connection betweenthe two main protagonists and the dialog spoken between them, so inthat regard, the 1983 version is still the one to beat.
potterhead_93 10 May 2012
Beautiful adaptation
I read the reviews of this film a few days before it was released, andone critic said it was the best JE adaptation she had ever seen. Well,then. I had high expectations.WOW. It totally surpassed my expectations.I'm a huge fan of the book, so I was a bit unsure of this film (beforeI saw it, of course) because it may have altered some main details. Nottrue. Yes, some parts were altered, but not altered so much that it wasa fallacy. Not in any way were the changes a fallacy. The changes wereminor. The acting is wonderful, you can really sense the chemistry betweenWasikowska's Jane and Fassbender's Rochester. It's well written, andthe screen-writer has added in some quirky little moments that madeeveryone in my theatre laugh out loud. In other words, I loved this movie. It was a beautiful film, and it waswell worth the two hour car ride to see it. I can't wait for the DVD.5/5
10 May 2012
Beautiful score but watch the '07 version instead
It WOULD have been a beautiful movie if it would not have been cut so brutally. My husband who has never read the book or seen other Jane Eyre adaptations where confused by explanatory "details" that were missing. So at the end he felt confused and I was just left with the feeling of complete dissapointment. I had to patch up the missing information for my husband. I love Michael Fassbender and was excited to read he was to be Mr. Rochester. I was however disappointed. He did well but the whole movie does not move me as the Masterpiece Theater version did. I need to watch the Masterpiece Version again, but it seemed to be that they reused the "same" Thornfield?The scenes that were deleted, I think, are absolutely essential. It is just a shame and very unfortunate they were cut from the final movie. Such a shame!!! Such a dissappointment.However I do give the movie 3 stars but only in hope they would make an extended version with the deleted scenes. Also the music is very beautiful and reflects and extends the feelings of the characters. The music suceeded where the acting did not. The score reminds me a bit of "The Piano". It will not surprise me I will buy the soundtrack.
09 May 2012
Who hasn't described themselve as plain and little...
This review is from: Jane Eyre (DVD) ...at some time/point in their life? I know that I have many a time but that is not the point of this review. Not only does the film look appealing, but it is very refreshing to see a heroine that has been dealt a hard life, and simply trys to do the best she can with what she has. I digress, for I have only seen a couple of trailers that have been displayed via YouTube from the folks at Focus Features, where she makes her passionate speech to MisterRochester. Which begs me to think that by standards today, just how much they have changed. Imagine for a woman to admit to a man that she wants to be treated as an equal to him and not, as another reiewer put it, a co-worker throughout life in a time where women were very much seen and not heard from, as it were.Here is the thing that befuddles me...For a heroine to go from lost and lonely to content and happy, but yet not without trials and hard choices to be made along the way, but to also transcend generations for other individuals...Now that is a heroine in my book!In what little previews I have seen of the movie, the saying "if you love something, set it free" crosses my mind. which Jane inevidentably has to do, even though it breaks her heart in the process. She is simply standing up for what she believes is right, no matter the cost...Again, for someone to do that today...Imagine if your love were calling your name, beckoning you to come back to him/her, could you do it? Not sure that I could...It would take every ounce of strength just to put one foot in front of the other and resist temptation when your mind tells you to use practical judgement and beg to listen to the other side of the story (it being the explanation of your significant other).In conclusion, the most memorable scene that sticks out in my mind thus far, is where Mister R. is telling Jane that she quite transfixes him. The expressions on her face whilst she inwardly battles with herself, because for once, she has no quick wit with which to throw back at him...I do believe he rendered her quite speechless...But it is only my observation. As for the movie as a whole, it will be nice to see one where the director has made a movie to be just that, visually appealing, where he/she has decided for the emotions and facial expressions, of the lead(s), to speak volumes of words/actions more so then numerous amounts of dialog. Not to put down the higly upheld '83/'07 miniseries, but in my own opinion, I found a little bit worng with both so I hope that this will be a happy medium between both, so that on days when I just want an escape from reality, I will have the book, and on others when I simply am in the mood for the highlighted parts of the story to come to life, I can watch the movie and savor them both time and again.One more quick observation-being that I have seen the mini series, it seems that this Rochester is different then the others and not as over shadowing as they have been (IMO). He[Fassbender I believe his name is] also seems to be quiet, observant, and symphatic...possibly? But whatever the case, I amlooking forward to seeing for myself!Can't wait!
agoaliemom 04 May 2012
Very disappointed
I love Jane Eyre and have seen all of the English-speaking versions ofit, I think. So, we watched the 2011 one. It got excellent reviews here except for afew who felt the way I did. These are my opinions, and I totallyrespect the opinions of those who loved this version. Pros:--Jane looked good. Very plain.--Scenery was good.--Many of the lines were directly from the book.--Adele is played by a petite young girl (as opposed to the CiaranHinds version where Adele is almost taller than Jane).Cons:--Boring. It was my husband's first exposure to Jane Eyre, and probablyhis last. He was bored, and he usually likes British stuff, even JaneAustin or Bronte. He won't watch that genre more than one time, but atleast he'll watch it that one time. In this case, he had a problemkeeping up with this particular movie. (See my next comment.)--In the beginning, they go back and forth between her childhood andpresent day. For him, that was confusing--and it would have been for meas well if I didn't know the story backwards and forwards.--Rochester isn't "ugly" enough (Ciaran Hinds was perfect for it,Timothy Dalton wasn't -- even though his version is one of myfavorites). That's not a major issue, but I don't think he was suitablefor this movie. (I love Ciaran Hinds' looks, by the way, so I'm notknocking him!) --Not good character development. I don't know how it's possible, butthey really didn't develop the characters well. We didn't know or careabout St. John or his sisters. The most 'thorough' J.E. is the TimothyDalton one, and it's very long. But even the shorter ones still areable to develop characters. This one didn't. I found it almost a choreto watch. I didn't care all about Rochester and Jane.--They didn't include some key lines between Rochester and Jane whichwould have really helped show that Jane was strong.Ironically, I watched the deleted scenes, and probably half of themwould have made the movie better.
04 May 2012
Not Jane
Jane is supposed to be strong and we are meant to like her. The actors fail to bring the characters to life and fail to get us to even like them. I'm a huge fan for the BBC 4 hours adaptation but this one sucks.
27 April 2012
Fantastic adaptation
This review is from: Jane Eyre (Amazon Instant Video) This adaptation felt very natural, with Jane presented as a dreamy, artistic, intelligent young woman who has a fortitude brought about by a childhood that was not kind but was not also overplayed. We are allowed to view her as if the most important things are about to happen, much the way it feels when young and venturing out into the world and relying on one's own character and strengths to succeed. She is more than the summary of a grim past and I very much like that she has finally been liberated a little from the demons of her childhood so that her own great beauty and simplicity shine through. For details, there are longer, more complete adaptations-personally, I'll just read the book again and enjoy that someone caught the spirit of Jane Eyre so perfectly. Mr Rochester, for once, was a rather sweet, if tormented man, and not so overbearing as to do a great deal more than prick the spirit of the girl into quick-witted response that shows her cleverness and his delight in her.
26 April 2012
Fine Remake of Jane Eyre
Does the world need another remake of the Charlotte Bronte classic "Jane Eyre"?Well, when the actress portraying the title character does as fine a job as Mia Wasikowska does here, the answer is "yes."Really, Ms. Wasikowska is a revelation in this film, giving a performance of surpassing skill and subtlety. Like the scorned orphan she plays, she seems plain at first, but as the strength and integrity of her character become known, she grows more radiantly lovely.She is supported here by a fine cast, notably Michael Fassbender as Rochester and Judi Dench as Mrs. Fairfax.The young director Cary Fukunaga claims he was striving for a more gothic tone than in the famous 1943 version starring Orson Welles and Joan Fontaine. In this he is somewhat less than successful, given that the most "haunting" scenes were cut from the theatrical version (but are included on this DVD as deleted scenes).Nevertheless the real-light cinematography is well-done and helps convey the mood and look of the time and place.Finally I'm pleased to say that this is not a "stripped" DVD -- it has director's commentary, plus a few short making-of featurettes.At any rate, gentlemen whose ladies insist on viewing this DVD in place of the latest explosion-filled comic book adventure will find it as tolerable a "chick flic" as exists. Recommended.
Boba_Fett1138 23 April 2012
Definitely a good genre movie.
Now, I'll immediately admit that these sort of costume dramas are mostcertainly not my cup of tea. But I'll try to look past that and takethe movie for what it is and judge it for its quality.And really, this is not a movie you could be very negative about. It'ssimply too well made for that, with great visuals but some even betteracting in it.I never was too big on Mia Wasikowska as an actress but with this movieshe convinced me of her abilities. I also really liked MichaelFassbender in his role and it by now is an almost absolute certainty hewill get an Oscar, somewhere in the next 5 years. Someone who alsoreally pleasantly surprised me was Jamie Bell. Who would had known thathe was also capable of playing these more heavy and demanding sort ofroles.And like most costume dramas, it's relying heavily on its actors andtheir performance. And luckily there is very little wrong with theacting in this movie, especially also when Dame Judi Dench starts toshow up in it. But its also definitely true that they are being helpedby its fine written dialog, that gives the movie most of its pace. It'sreally never becoming a boring or overlong movie to watch, unlike manyof the other genre examples.But I still had some minor problems with this movie. Well, not problemsreally but more things that came across to me as not quite good oreffective enough at times. The drama, the tension, the mystery, theromance. It all really could had been done a tad bit better to get me abit more involved with it all. The story itself is solid and interesting enough. Perhaps it soundweird but it all reminded me of an '40's Hitchcock movie, with itsatmosphere, characters and secrets, that were playing a key role in themovie its story.It's not my sort of thing but if the Jane Austen type of movies areyour thing, you'll definitely be able to appreciate and enjoy thismovie.7/10http://bobafett1138.blogspot.com/
Neil Welch 22 April 2012
Not bad, but Jane was a bit ho-hum
For the benefit of those who are not familiar with English literatureof the 19th century, there were once four overwrought siblings inYorkshire. The three Bronte sisters - Charlotte, Emily, and Anne - eachhad one (or more) massively successful novel in their short lifetimes,their brother Bramwell, despite his alluring and unusual name (whichmade him sound a bit like an apple) was less successful. Charlotte'sbiggie was Jane Eyre.You know those "Misery Memoirs" you see in book shops? You know, theones showing a sad kid's monochrome photo on a white background, withthe title in a handwritten typeface? Well, Jane Eyre is like a 19thcentury version of one of those, crossed with a kind of soapy Gothicromance with vague horror overtones mixed in. It has been filmed abouta hundred and ninety-five times so far (I exaggerate)(but onlyslightly) and this is the most recent.And, from this version, I learned that there was practically no lightin the 19th century and, even when there was, there was no colour.Also, that there was a lot of hand-held camera-work, which seems atouch anachronistic.I'm being a little unfair. Jane's hard luck story and path to romantictriumph despite all the obstacles life places in her path stillappeals, hence the large number of adaptations. This is perhaps due tothe two main characters, both moderately original in their day(independent-minded Jane in a day when women were supposed to knowtheir place, and dark, brooding Rochester, hard man with a soft centreand a grim secret) have now become easily recognisable archetypes, andthat only happens when they resonate with the audience.This version is not bad. Fassbender is a decent Rochester, Judy Denchprovides a solid backbone as Mrs Fairfax, and Jamie Bell is a pleasingSt John Rivers (again, for the benefit of those not familiar with thevagaries of odd English names, St John is pronounced to rhyme with"injun"). Only Mia Wasikowska disappoints slightly as Jane, lacking alittle of the sense of awareness of her self-worth which liesunderneath Jane's measured exterior.And I suppose the general sense of being a touch overwrought - well,that's the Brontes for you.
hinalshahus 17 April 2012
I so wanted to give the movie a 10 out of 10
So finally Jane Eyre opens in a 'select theater' near me and this pastSaturday afternoon, I drove 50 miles (roud trip) to watch it on thesilver screen. The verdict is...I left the movie theater feeling ratherunderwhelmed. Don't get me wrong, the acting was superb. Mia's Jane issmall, plain and fierce. Fassbender's portrayal of Rochester isbrilliant, his beautiful voice and excellent delivery of dialog engagedthe audience every time he appeared on the screen.What it is then that would not make me give the movie 5 out of 5 stars?I believe the movie was several shades too subtle- to the point that (for me) it did not allow its characters to shine through as much asthey could and should have. Adele had none of the charm that is soendearing in the book and Helen dies without giving the audience anyreason to mourn her tragic end. Blanche appears on the screen and whenyou blink she is gone. Bertha was given even less screen time. Thecharacters that I mention are not fluff pieces in the novel- they arevital to the story but in the movie they just flutter though withoutleaving much impression. My two major disappointments were parts of themovie that showed when Rochester brings Jane to Bertha's lair ( aftertheir botched wedding ceremony) and the last scene when Jane comes backto her blind lover. They could have been so much more stronger!! The conventional wisdom is that 1996 movie with William Hurt andCharlotte Gainsbourg was no masterpiece but I have to say the 1996version far beat the 2011 version as far as Jane Eyre's childhood wasconcerned. On the other hand, the 1996 version completely butchered thepart of the story when the Rivers siblings make their appearance whereas in the just released version the trio is given their just due.I have to add one more thing- I believe my lack of enthusiasm for themovie also results from the experience of watching it along with 350+people in the cinema. I know that not everybody is a die heart JaneEyre fan and desires to listen to every word spoken and evry sighexhaled but I cringed every time the audience laughed. It was okay todo so when Jane made a specially witty rebuke to Rochester's teasingbut come on laughing at Mrs. Fairfax's facial expression when she seesJane and Edward kissing the night he proposed !? It was as if the moodin the theater was, dammit! it is a fine Saturday afternoon and I wantto have me some fun, I've just spent $10 on the ticket and though themovie is serious and dark I am going to get my entertainment value bycrackling at every scene that is remotely off beat.I think once I have a chance to watch it in the privacy of my home Iwill be more drawn in and will appreciate it much more.
17 April 2012
beautifully done
Beautiful adaptation. I wasn't expecting much but the acting was authentic, the scenery was beautifully captured, and characters were believable. I'd watch it again.
15 April 2012
Well Worth It
This review is from: Jane Eyre [Blu-ray] (Blu-ray) The item was well enjoyed. As a gift, its use is great to add to a collection, and it was enjoyed by all present. Definitely a good buy.
15 April 2012
Boo!
This review is from: Jane Eyre (Amazon Instant Video) What a piece of crap! This version leaves out soo many of the important details! I.E. Mrs. Rochester ripping up the Veil! How about the details involving Mr. Rochester's mistress in Paris? There was also no witty banter between the two that characterize their relationship. It is all doom and gloom in this version. They could have done so much more with a Hollywood version, which they don't typically have the financing to do with a miniseries- I mean come on could they not have at least included Rochester's horrific injuries at the end? For people who have actually read the book, this is a weak attempt at an adaptation. Save your money and watch the Masterpiece Theater version starring Ruth Wilson, and Toby Stephens. I am going to have to watch that one twice just to get the awful taste of this movie out of my mouth. In that version there is a heated chemistry between the two that is palpable, and that movie sticks to the book, perhaps not as well as the 1983 Timothy Dalton version, but at least after watching that one I felt...well not pissed off for starters.