FACEBOOK
INSTAGRAM
TWITTER
Genre
Drama | Romance
Director
Cary Joji Fukunaga
Country
UK | USA
Cast
Mia Wasikowska, Michael Fassbender, Jamie Bell, Judi Dench, Sally Hawkins, Holliday Grainger, Tamzin Merchant, Simon McBurney, Imogen Poots, Sophie Ward, Su Elliot, Jayne Wisener, Amelia Clarkson, Romy Settbon, Freya Parks, Harry Lloyd, Valentina Cervi, Craig Roberts
Everyone knows the plot to this - the orphan girl who falls in love with her master - and it's always fascinating to watch or read, and this adaptation makes no difference. However, the film moves along too quick - at least some parts do -, and with such a complex and compelling story an extra half-hour would have definitely granted the viewer a better experience as the characters would have had the time to develop authentic connections.
Other than that, director Cary Fukunaga does a quite good job, even because it's not easy to fit such a novel in a two-hour film. He makes terrific use of the locations, his decision to use natural light for most of the film creates the right dark and gloomy atmospheres that matches Mr. Rochester's temperament, and he makes a pretty good use of hand-held camera.
Visually, the film is quite stunning. The cinematography is beautiful so are the costumes. And the score is also quite good.
The most important element though are the actors that really makes the film worth watching. Mia Wasikowska gives a compelling performance as Jane Eyre, and her subtle expressions of love and despair are spot on. Michael Fassbender does a wonderful job as always, and even with a quite short screen time, he is able to make us care for Rochester. The chemistry between Wasikowska and Fassbender is also quite beautiful. Worth of a mention is Judi Dench's performance as Mrs. Fairfax. She doesn't even need to speak, her expressions say it all.
Storyline
After a bleak childhood, Jane Eyre (Mia Wasikowska) 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 (Michael Fassbender). Jane and her employer grow close in friendship and she soon finds herself falling in love with him.Opinion
Even though I am not an avid fan, I quite like Charlotte Brontë's novel and I've seen a few of its tons of adaptations. The one I remember the most is Zeffirelli's because I've seen it several times in my school days, but it'll now be replaced by Fukunaga's "Jane Eyre", a quite good adaptation that amazes mostly because of its leading actors, Mia Wasikowska and Michael Fassbender.
Everyone knows the plot to this - the orphan girl who falls in love with her master - and it's always fascinating to watch or read, and this adaptation makes no difference. However, the film moves along too quick - at least some parts do -, and with such a complex and compelling story an extra half-hour would have definitely granted the viewer a better experience as the characters would have had the time to develop authentic connections.Other than that, director Cary Fukunaga does a quite good job, even because it's not easy to fit such a novel in a two-hour film. He makes terrific use of the locations, his decision to use natural light for most of the film creates the right dark and gloomy atmospheres that matches Mr. Rochester's temperament, and he makes a pretty good use of hand-held camera.
Visually, the film is quite stunning. The cinematography is beautiful so are the costumes. And the score is also quite good.
The most important element though are the actors that really makes the film worth watching. Mia Wasikowska gives a compelling performance as Jane Eyre, and her subtle expressions of love and despair are spot on. Michael Fassbender does a wonderful job as always, and even with a quite short screen time, he is able to make us care for Rochester. The chemistry between Wasikowska and Fassbender is also quite beautiful. Worth of a mention is Judi Dench's performance as Mrs. Fairfax. She doesn't even need to speak, her expressions say it all.
I need to see as many versions as I can. This does sound like a good one. I still have to see the version with Orson Welles but i did see one from 1933 which was ok
ReplyDelete