VOD (1)

Plots(1)

Charlotte Bronte's classic romance is revived once again with this Ruby Films production directed by Cary Fukunaga and adapted by screenwriter Moira Buffini. A critically-acclaimed adaptation which remains true to the book. A dramatic and exciting story of the life of a strong passionate and principled young woman Jane Eyre (Mia Wasikowska) who survives a wretched childhood to become a governess and falls madly in love with her troubled but compelling employer Mr. Rochester (Michael Fassbender). (Universal Sony Pictures Home Entertainment)

(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. ()

DaViD´82 

all reviews of this user

English 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. ()

Ads

NinadeL 

all reviews of this user

English Jane Eyre’s life was no bed of roses. She raised herself from an orphan thanks to a good education to a person who can handle her own explosiveness and, as if by design, her first job also gave her the love of her life. But the path to love was not without its issues. Jane had to go through renunciation, the test of condemning shallow characters and had to deal with lies and rejection. And, as chance would have it, the heroine, tested by life, ended her story by finding security and was married to the right man. But lest hearts should weep, mighty fate intervened so that Rochester had to pay with his own sight for his first false marriage. ()

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...!". ()

J*A*S*M 

all reviews of this user

English 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. ()

Gallery (133)