I-ll start by saying I've read Jane Eyre maybe 5 times, the last time being about 6 months ago, so I know the tale very well, and while this movie does bring something new to the others, it's just so rushed that a lot of things were left out for me, especially something very important: the evolution of Jane and Rochester's relationship!
They jump into falling in love so quickly I barely know how it happened, they barely talked, they never seemed to spend time together, and yet: bam! magically they fell in love.
The fire scene was also a shock, that scene is supposed to be charged with tension from both sides, and the only "tension" I saw was Rochester nearly naked and him trying to kiss Jane (that didn't happen in the book), both of them were stiff and it felt so forced. And let's not even start with the Orchard scene - woah. Bad in so many levels.
Mia Wasikowska was good as Jane, except for the tree scene where she seemed like a child reciting her lines rather than feeling them. Fassbender, well Rochester is a passionate man and Fassbender was stiff and boring, the only scenes where I saw real passion was when him and Jane returned soaking wet to the house after the proposal, when he tried to choke Mason, and in the living room scene where he was "convincing" Jane to re-think her decision. Plus, since when Rochester is better looking than St. John?
The things I liked though about this movie is Jamie Bell's performance, while he didn't fit the looks, he was cold, severe and great as St John, by far the best one I've seen and now I will picture him when I re-read the book. Mary and Diana were good too (nice to see Lucrecia Borgia again!), and of course, Lady (or Dame?) Judi Dench was excellent as Mrs. Fairfax. The music was fine, the landscape wonderful, it was truly great (except for Ferndean - buried in a deep wood? I saw a nice meadow around)
This movie would have been great if it was longer and didn't leave out important parts, such as Rochester confiding in Jane about Celine and just spending time talking, the veil part, her return a bit more heart- felt. And while Michael Fassbender is a great actor, this role just wasn't meant for him.
They jump into falling in love so quickly I barely know how it happened, they barely talked, they never seemed to spend time together, and yet: bam! magically they fell in love.
The fire scene was also a shock, that scene is supposed to be charged with tension from both sides, and the only "tension" I saw was Rochester nearly naked and him trying to kiss Jane (that didn't happen in the book), both of them were stiff and it felt so forced. And let's not even start with the Orchard scene - woah. Bad in so many levels.
Mia Wasikowska was good as Jane, except for the tree scene where she seemed like a child reciting her lines rather than feeling them. Fassbender, well Rochester is a passionate man and Fassbender was stiff and boring, the only scenes where I saw real passion was when him and Jane returned soaking wet to the house after the proposal, when he tried to choke Mason, and in the living room scene where he was "convincing" Jane to re-think her decision. Plus, since when Rochester is better looking than St. John?
The things I liked though about this movie is Jamie Bell's performance, while he didn't fit the looks, he was cold, severe and great as St John, by far the best one I've seen and now I will picture him when I re-read the book. Mary and Diana were good too (nice to see Lucrecia Borgia again!), and of course, Lady (or Dame?) Judi Dench was excellent as Mrs. Fairfax. The music was fine, the landscape wonderful, it was truly great (except for Ferndean - buried in a deep wood? I saw a nice meadow around)
This movie would have been great if it was longer and didn't leave out important parts, such as Rochester confiding in Jane about Celine and just spending time talking, the veil part, her return a bit more heart- felt. And while Michael Fassbender is a great actor, this role just wasn't meant for him.