|
Join our mailing list for more great offers from Sword Killers!
| |  | DVDs | Home » » Jane Eyre | | | | | | | Description: | | When orphaned governess Jane Eyre (Mia Wasikowska) arrives at imposing Thornfield Hall, she's intrigued by her brooding wealthy employer, Rochester (Michael Fassbender). His dark moods and the strange occurrences in the house lead her to discover a terrible secret that he had hoped to hide from her forever. | | | Product Details: | | | Actors:
| Mia Wasikowska, Michael Fassbender, Jamie Bell, Su Elliot, Holliday Grainger | | Director:
| Cary Fukunaga | | Format:
| AC-3, Color, Dolby, Dubbed, DVD, Subtitled, Widescreen, NTSC | | Language:
| English | | Subtitle:
| English, French, Spanish | | Number of Discs:
| 1 | | Studio:
| Universal Studios | | Run Time:
| 120 minutes | | DVD Release Date:
| August 16, 2011 | | Average Customer Rating:
|  based on 267 reviews |
| | | | Customer Reviews: | |
Average Customer Review:
 ( 267 customer reviews )
Write an online review and share your thoughts with other customers.
Most Helpful Customer Reviews
74 of 75 found the following review helpful:
 A Mixed ReactionSep 05, 2011
By Janeite
That's what I have after watching this dvd twice: a decidedly mixed reaction. Like many other reviewers, I'm a die-hard Jane Eyre fan, having read the book too many times to count and seen at least 6 film adaptations (I think there have been at least 8). This dvd is the 5th I've added to my collection, which my children find absolutely hilarious. But anyway, I wanted to see this one at the theater but it was only in my hometown for about a week, so I ordered it as soon as Amazon had it. I guess I should just lay out my pros and cons and let the chips fall where they may.
Pros: The casting is possibly the best of any version I've seen. Mia Whatchamacallit (sorry, can't remember her name right now) was 21 when the film was shot, making her about the right age to play Jane. All the other versions I've seen cast actresses who were well past their teen years, so it was good to see a more-age-approriate Jane. She also did a nice job with the role, expressing shades of emotion in her face since her lines are frankly rather limited. Michael Fassbender is honestly too young (34) and too good-looking (he was the smokin' hot warrior Stelios in 300) but does a very good job inhabiting the character of Rochester. He's very gruff with just the right hint of humor to make Rochester the irritating but somehow intriguing guy he is. The other roles were also well-cast. Judi Dench is always amazing, and Jamie Bell (though not as handsome as St.John should be, imho) was appropriately stern. The cinematography of the movie is just lovely. I really liked the lighting. Everything at Gateshead is sunlit and colorful, belying the hellish existence Jane endures there. Lowood school is spare and colorless, and Thornfield is mostly lighted from underneath with the only light falling on the characters seeming to come from candles and fireplaces. This creates an air of mystery and confusion as the viewer can never really get a good enough view of the place to even be sure of its layout. I liked the notion of starting the story with Jane's escape from Thornfield and the rest being told in flashback, but I can't say if that would be confusing to someone unfamiliar with the story or not.
Cons: I suppose nobody could condense this huge novel into a 2 hour movie and not leave out something I thought was important, but I felt too many details were omitted. Jane's character development as well as that of the relationship between Jane and Rochester were dealt with so quickly that they lost some of the depth of emotion they should have had. The conclusion of the film occurs so abruptly that I got a bit angry. It was sort of a "You've got to be kidding!" reaction that it just suddenly ended without what I thought was adequate closure. Some scenes, such as Jane's flight over the moors, were lovely but rather long, and I found myself wishing some of those scenes had been cut to give more scenes that "fleshed out" the story.
So my mixed reaction still allows me to recommend the movie. I think it is a good and respectful adaptation of one of my favorite novels as well as a visually lovely film with a solid cast.
110 of 127 found the following review helpful:
 Favorite Jane Eyre adaptationJun 10, 2011
By K. Hofmeister
I've seen a lot of the Jane Eyre adaptations (though not all 20+ of them) and so I wasn't sure what to expect going in to this film. I was happy to discover that this is by far my favorite of all the films, television series, etc. Mia Wasikowska's Jane Eyre is luminous - my favorite of all the Janes, and Michael Fassbender's Mr. Rochester has got to be the sexiest Rochester in the entire canon. The cinematography and music are beautiful and the use of natural light and candle light lend the appropriately gloomy gothic atmosphere.
45 of 50 found the following review helpful:
Would their separation cause him to bleed inwardly? Probably not.Jul 01, 2011
By Ansley Clements
Any visual of Jane Eyre meets tough critics because everyone considers their interpretation most accurate. Filmmakers and actors have their work cut out for them.
Watching this version led me to one conclusion above any other. The believability of the two lead actors as Jane and Rochester is mostly strained. I found the proposal scene lacking. Charlotte Bronte says that a "vehemence of emotion" claimed "mastery" over Jane. In Mia's case there's mostly controlled emotion instead of a combination of so many of them at once. Where are the long overdue emotions that Jane hasn't shown yet to Rochester? That scene has a lot of potential for heavy drama, but it often becomes uncomfortable on screen. What I liked most about Mia W. is that she knows how to show character subtleties and dynamics like inner strength easily. She is never "trying too hard."
As Rochester, Michael Fassbender could use more weariness of life. Fassbender's degree of anger is sufficient, but he could've shown more passion. His increased visibility of emotion contrasts with her concealing it. His character foil to Jane adds lots of intrigue, and I didn't find it in this film. This version is dark, as in little lighting, and the dark oppresses throughout.
The movie theater posters emphasized plain, and the plain aspect bordered on overpowering. For a story with greatness achieved through dialogue, this movie has fewer lines than any other version. Filmmakers innovate by using other means to tell the story, which is very bold. It works for the most part. Maybe because the parts with dialogue make use of heavy-hitting lines.
Comparing this version with others, I know of 2 film versions I would recommend over this because the level of connection between the two leads is better.
33 of 38 found the following review helpful:
 Not a bad adaptation however could have been much betterAug 14, 2011
By Kristine Sokarda
First off, I am the biggest fan of Jane Eyre. I have seen all the adaptations, have several copies of the book and would claim it is my favorite novel of all time. That being said, I was severely disappointed with this adaptation of the novel. I felt that the characters were incredibly static and did not develop as they should. Don't get me wrong, I absolutely love Mia Wasikowska and Michael Fassbender (him especially), however I felt that their performances fell short of the actual characters they were portraying.
There was little development as the movie progressed. The character of Jane grows from this meek and timid girl into this powerhouse of a woman. However, in this adaptation, she is not afraid to state her opinion and is bold right out of the gate. The audience cannot grow and push for her as a character if she does not develop as the story progresses. Rochester is the same way. In the real story, he at first comes off as a gruff and enigmatic person. He changes though from that dark, brooding character into one who is to be pitied- he starts off strong and domineering and ends up the weaker of Jane and himself. In this version however, he is this character that is both gruff and tortured straight from the get go. He does not develop into being the weaker character.
Things just progressed at an odd pace in this film. However I will say I did like the creative use of flashbacks to tell the story and the hints of things from the book (i.e. when the tree Jane and Rochester were standing under gets struck by lightning) without actually drawing attention to them.
16 of 18 found the following review helpful:
 Why does every movie get this wrong?Aug 20, 2011
By Ashley
Okay, I was thinking this was worth 3 stars until the end. I am so sick of these movies getting Mr. Rochester's character so, so, so wrong. (Um, is this is spoiler coming up? I don't know, so I'll just say that, I guess). Where was the redemption, the apology at the end? Oh, I guess we didn't need it because he was so freakin' nice during the whole of this movie that he didn't need to be redeemed? Um, no. And he was way too nice through the vast majority of it. Where was the changeability, the moodiness? He's a manipulative jerk in the book while trying to make Jane crazy for him, but in this movie, he's usually an okay, if weak, kind of guy. The movie did the double-talk of confusing Jane about Blanche and Bertha pretty well; the character just wasn't Mr. Rochester. This movie made up a new character. For pete's sake, he's supposed to be villainous - he lies and then tries to coerce the person he loves into giving up her core self, not to mention he's tormented and half-crazy himself. He shouldn't be portrayed softly as a lover (or not exclusively so). I was already annoyed that we didn't get to see his extreme disrespectfulness from the gypsy scene, because that scene really goes a long way to showing the reader how corrupt but redeemable he is. But this ending really set me off, because it went against every reason Charlotte Bronte wrote this book. We're supposed to see how he's changed, how he, not just Jane, can be happy. All we see is that he's blind and got a crutch (nurse? girlfriend? mistress? wife? it's anybody's guess with this ending!) This isn't a romance novel or romantic comedy. You don't cut out the redemption, the significance, the lessons of the first 115 minutes. If you do, viewers might feel cheated out of their time and money. Hint hint.
Now that said, I could actually get through this interpretation, while most of the others, I can't even stand. Zeffirelli's changes things so much and is generally dry (plus I can't get past Gainsbourg's braces!). The Morton and Hinds version has Hinds chewing the scenery and playing Rochester as a one-sided meany. Clarke and Dalton I barely remember as worth anything, and I hated the portrayal of Jane. And one of these changes the part with the Rivers so much that it makes all of the themes of integrity, empowerment and redemption disappear. This version had the opportunity to carry them out because it decently portrayed the Rivers' plot (except, why wasn't it acknowledged that the Eyres and Rivers were related? Failure to read carefully?). But it failed when Jane met Edward again. The only adaptation I actually like is the BBC's 2006 version (well, of course I also like the Fontaine and Welles' version, but not for the portrayal of the novel so much as a historical film). It's obvious this story can't really be condensed into a movie-theater production.
So, what can I say that's positive? I really loved Wasikowska portrayal of Jane - it was spot-on. Fassbender did a good job with Rochester as well, with the faulty material he was given. The story, the setting, the characters, all that was good. But the screen-writing and maybe directing as well was really, really bad (that's saying something for the actors that they could do such a good job with it). My essential problem is just that the feelings and themes of the book just did not come through, and for that I'm blaming the script, even despite that it used actual dialogue from the book (which were its best moments). And also as others have said, it does rush through the content while still seeming to plod boringly at times. For that reason, it's probably inaccessible to viewers who have never read the book, but again, it doesn't stay true to the book's themes enough to satisfy those who know and love it well. Not a good dichotomy.
So that's my rant. Ugh, I'm so mad I paid $3.99 for this. But at least it saved me from buying it. I think I'll get my Kindle out so that I can wash this horrible ending from my brain and put it right, Bronte-style. Thank you, Project Gutenburg for some much needed redempmtion there. Can everyone else please, please just give up trying to adapt Bronte's vision? It ends up being one-dimensional and trite over and over again. Just stop.
See all 267 customer reviews on Amazon.com
| | |
|
