# New (2011) Jane Eyre movie



## Kristan Hoffman (Aug 6, 2009)

Has anyone seen it, and if so, did you like it? Were they fairly true to the book? I've heard mixed reviews about the chemistry between Mia and Michael (Jane and Rochester, respectively) although everyone seems to think they are both good in it individually...

I really wish I could see it for myself, but it's not playing anywhere within a 1 hr radius of me! So I've been obsessed with Googling everything I can about it, soaking in clips and interviews and hoping that a theater nearby will get it soon. Sigh...

Kristan


----------



## Grace Elliot (Mar 14, 2011)

I havent seen it I'm afraid, but movies of books make my heart sink. 
I just love imaging the characters for myself and the movie rarely lives up to the written experience. 
Hope you get to see it soon. x


----------



## Kristan Hoffman (Aug 6, 2009)

I am pretty good about separating the movies from the books. I view them as two different entities and can enjoy them as such.

That said, sometimes I enjoy bad book-movies simply because I enjoyed the books. My mind is able to fill in the gaps, you know? Or even overwrite awful scenes, LOL.

All the clips and trailers for this Jane Eyre look really good to me, though. Hopefully I won't have to do any mental filling in/overwriting.

Kristan


----------



## purplepen79 (May 6, 2010)

Kristan Hoffman said:


> Has anyone seen it, and if so, did you like it? Were they fairly true to the book? I've heard mixed reviews about the chemistry between Mia and Michael (Jane and Rochester, respectively) although everyone seems to think they are both good in it individually...
> 
> I really wish I could see it for myself, but it's not playing anywhere within a 1 hr radius of me! So I've been obsessed with Googling everything I can about it, soaking in clips and interviews and hoping that a theater nearby will get it soon. Sigh...
> 
> Kristan


Here to offer my commiserations for what they're worth. I don't think it's playing at a theater in my state yet. I went on a google rampage last weekend because I'd read a couple great reviews and really wanted to see it, and the closest showing was in Atlanta, five hours away! I couldn't find a date when it would be released nationwide--has anyone seen anything about a specific date yet?


----------



## Carol (was Dara) (Feb 19, 2011)

Ooh, I haven't seen this version yet but now I've gotta go watch it. LOL


----------



## AnnetteL (Jul 14, 2010)

It's on my "gotta see that" list. I think it opens at a theater about 1/2 hour away from me soon.


----------



## MLPMom (Nov 27, 2009)

I really want to see it, love the trailer, but it isn't playing anywhere close to me either. I am hoping it at least comes out on DVD to watch. I even did the Goodreads challenge they were having because of the new movie.


----------



## Kristan Hoffman (Aug 6, 2009)

I'm sure it will come out on DVD, it's just such a long wait. I wonder what the reasoning was for such a limited release, anyway. This list on the official website shows when it will be showing at what theaters:

http://www.focusfeatures.com/jane_eyre/theatres

Supposedly my city will have it in 1 theater start on 4/8. *crosses fingers*

Kristan


----------



## Atunah (Nov 20, 2008)

I already added it to my Netflix list. I don't go to the Movie theater, everything I watch I watch at home so I am used to waiting. 

It really looks good. I watch about any version of those kinds of movie adaptations. Whatever I can get my hands on


----------



## Kristan Hoffman (Aug 6, 2009)

> It really looks good. I watch about any version of those kinds of movie adaptations. Whatever I can get my hands on


Well I saw a clip on YouTube from the 1996 version with William Hurt, and... I'm sorry, but no. Just... no. He is not my Rochester; there was no passion there.

Now, granted, I only read Jane Eyre a couple weeks ago for the first time, when I already knew Mia Whaza-whatever was cast, but I think she's *perfect* for the role. (Great in Alice in Wonderland, great in The Kids Are All Right.) But she was the only cast member I knew. And yet still, holy cow. I could watch Michael Fassbender on repeat all day (and in fact, did just that a couple times last week... *hangs head in shame*): http://www.focusfeatures.com/jane_eyre/videos

So yeah, I have high hopes. ;P

Kristan


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

I've moved this to NQK as it's not quite about the book, is it?    I've not read Jane Eyre (hangs head) so I could see it with no preconceived notions...except I don't really find MM all that appealing....

Betsy


----------



## Vegas_Asian (Nov 2, 2008)

i live in a city of 2+million....NONE of the theaters here are showing it. so disappointed


----------



## Kristan Hoffman (Aug 6, 2009)

Wait, who's MM?

And yeah, it's not about the book -- although my original question was partially about how the two compared. Unfortunately the limited release appears to be preventing most people from actually SEEING it... *grumbles* Well hopefully I can answer my own question in a couple weeks.

In the meantime, I HIGHLY recommend Jane Eyre the book. The opening chapter about the orphanage are a bit of a slog, but then the rest is wonderful! Jane is such a compelling character, and Rochester is endearingly hot and cold (but mostly hot). They partner each other well.

I feel like a teen girl talking about Twilight, lol...

Kristan


----------



## Christopher Meeks (Aug 2, 2009)

Kristan Hoffman said:


> Wait, who's MM?
> 
> And yeah, it's not about the book -- although my original question was partially about how the two compared. Unfortunately the limited release appears to be preventing most people from actually SEEING it... *grumbles* Well hopefully I can answer my own question in a couple weeks.
> 
> ...


MM is Matthew McConaughey. Betsy wrote the same note on "The Lincoln Lawyer" thread, a film that stars MM. I seem to be the only one here who's seen the movie "Jane Eyre." Alas, I didn't read the book, but my wife did, which is why we were at the movie. I found it very interesting, but it wasn't like "Pride and Prejudice," which is what I expected. In the latter, the characters were verbal, so you could read in their subtext what was really happening. In "Jane Eyre" the film," Jane has few people to talk to, so I didn't know she was so attracted to the lord of the castle. It was a shock to me--but of course it made sense as I thought about it, yet I didn't catch her feelings, which is what I'm sure comes across in the book. Still, it's visually stunning and well acted, and gives one a lot to think about afterwards.


----------



## purplepen79 (May 6, 2010)

Thanks for the list of theaters.  The closest theater I could find is in a city 2 hours from here, which at least is better than driving to Atlanta!


----------



## Kristan Hoffman (Aug 6, 2009)

Christopher Meeks said:


> MM is Matthew McConaughey. Betsy wrote the same note on "The Lincoln Lawyer" thread, a film that stars MM. I seem to be the only one here who's seen the movie "Jane Eyre." Alas, I didn't read the book, but my wife did, which is why we were at the movie. I found it very interesting, but it wasn't like "Pride and Prejudice," which is what I expected. In the latter, the characters were verbal, so you could read in their subtext what was really happening. In "Jane Eyre" the film," Jane has few people to talk to, so I didn't know she was so attracted to the lord of the castle. It was a shock to me--but of course it made sense as I thought about it, yet I didn't catch her feelings, which is what I'm sure comes across in the book. Still, it's visually stunning and well acted, and gives one a lot to think about afterwards.


Haha, funny... because MM isn't in Jane Eyre (to my knowledge). Maybe she meant MF (Fassbender) and typed MM instead?

VEEERY interesting about the movie, thank you! I wonder if that's why people made those remarks about lack of chemistry. Because yes, in the book it's abundantly obvious that she cares for Rochester, but then again, the book is told from her first person POV (and she straight up says at certain points that she loves him).

One question, if you don't mind: Do they do the fortune telling scene? I've heard that almost no adaptations include it, but in the book it's one of my favorite (most amusing) scenes.

Thank you!
Kristan


----------



## MarieDees (Feb 14, 2011)

I haven't seen it and I'll probably wait until it's available out of the theaters. The clips look dramatic. Perhaps more dramatic than the original text envisioned. But sometimes that's not always a bad thing.

For Jane Eyre fans, there is an early British mini-series with Timothy Dalton that has always set my standard for what movie versions have to measure up against.

http://www.amazon.com/Jane-Eyre-Timothy-Dalton/dp/B000784WMW


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

Kristan Hoffman said:


> Wait, who's MM?
> 
> And yeah, it's not about the book -- although my original question was partially about how the two compared. Unfortunately the limited release appears to be preventing most people from actually SEEING it... *grumbles* Well hopefully I can answer my own question in a couple weeks.
> 
> ...


Interesting. I find the first chapter and the part about the school what I re-read. The rest makes me sigh. Maybe that's because I find Rochester imminently slappable. Although not as much so as "what's his name" she almost marries. That part I absolutely can not re-read.

Movie versions are almost always disappointing, but it does help them to look at them as something separate and apart from the novel. I don't know whether I'll get around to watching that or not. Depends on what kind of reviews it gets probably.


----------



## Kristan Hoffman (Aug 6, 2009)

JRTomlin said:


> Interesting. I find the first chapter and the part about the school what I re-read. The rest makes me sigh. Maybe that's because I find Rochester imminently slappable. Although not as much so as "what's his name" she almost marries. That part I absolutely can not re-read.


St. John is a creepy creepster! But I loved Rochester. His slappability is one of my fave traits, lol. Perhaps I'm too easily amused.

Kristan


----------



## EGranfors (Mar 18, 2011)

I won free tix on Goodreads to the premiere in Hollywood and then I couldn't go. Now I have to wait for Netflix.  wah!


----------



## Kristan Hoffman (Aug 6, 2009)

SERIOUSLY!? OMG how cool!

Did you get to give them to someone else, or did GoodReads take them back?

Kristan


----------



## geoffthomas (Feb 27, 2009)

There have been prior movie versions, many quite good:
1944: Jane Eyre, with a screenplay by John Houseman and Aldous Huxley. It features Orson Welles as Mr. Rochester, Joan Fontaine as Jane, Agnes Moorehead as Mrs. Reed, Margaret O'Brien as Adele and Elizabeth Taylor as Helen Burns.
1970: Jane Eyre, starring George C. Scott as Mr. Rochester and Susannah York as Jane. 
1996: Jane Eyre, directed by Franco Zeffirelli and starring William Hurt as Mr. Rochester, Charlotte Gainsbourg as Jane, Elle Macpherson as Blanche Ingram, Joan Plowright as Mrs. Fairfax, Anna Paquin as the young Jane, Fiona Shaw as Mrs. Reed and Geraldine Chaplin as Miss Scatcherd.

I believe that I have seen all of these and the movie Rebecca that was made from the book Rebecca that was influenced by Jane Eyre.

The new movie sounds like a good one.

Just sayin.....


----------



## Atunah (Nov 20, 2008)

MarieDees said:


> I haven't seen it and I'll probably wait until it's available out of the theaters. The clips look dramatic. Perhaps more dramatic than the original text envisioned. But sometimes that's not always a bad thing.
> 
> For Jane Eyre fans, there is an early British mini-series with Timothy Dalton that has always set my standard for what movie versions have to measure up against.
> 
> http://www.amazon.com/Jane-Eyre-Timothy-Dalton/dp/B000784WMW


For those that have Netflix, this version is on instant stream 

I also like the 1997 version with Ciaran Hinds as Rochester and Samantha Morton as Jane. 
Of course I like Hinds also in Persuasion 

There is also a 2006 Masterpiece Theater version I have in my Netflix queue and haven't watched yet.


----------



## Carol (was Dara) (Feb 19, 2011)

Kristan Hoffman said:


> I'm sure it will come out on DVD, it's just such a long wait. I wonder what the reasoning was for such a limited release, anyway. This list on the official website shows when it will be showing at what theaters:
> 
> http://www.focusfeatures.com/jane_eyre/theatres
> 
> ...


Booo! It's not even coming to my state. And it's just the sort of thing I'd like to take my mom and sister to. For that matter, all my girlfriends are into movies like this. Why do the coolest movies always bypass Muskogee, OK?


----------



## ValeriGail (Jan 21, 2010)

Why such a limited release in theaters?  I hadn't even heard of it till I saw this thread... and the movie looks awesome from the trailer.  I'd love to see it, but its gonna be a DVD wait for me.  The closest theater playing it is in Dallas or San Antonio!


----------



## Shayne Parkinson (Mar 19, 2010)

MarieDees said:


> I haven't seen it and I'll probably wait until it's available out of the theaters. The clips look dramatic. Perhaps more dramatic than the original text envisioned. But sometimes that's not always a bad thing.
> 
> For Jane Eyre fans, there is an early British mini-series with Timothy Dalton that has always set my standard for what movie versions have to measure up against.
> 
> http://www.amazon.com/Jane-Eyre-Timothy-Dalton/dp/B000784WMW


Yes! I loved that version, especially Jane and Rochester (Dalton was startlingly close to my vision of Rochester). And a mini-series had more room to follow the book's plot.


----------



## Alain Gomez (Nov 12, 2010)

I saw the latest one.  Frankly, I didn't really like it all that much compared to other versions (I've seen many of them).  It was beautifully shot but it felt like it was edited by someone who has not read the book.  There were just large gaping chunks missing that would have made it very confusing if you were not already familiar with the plot.

Plus, I did not like the guy they cast as Rochester.  He had the acting chops of a sea slug.


----------



## CJArcher (Jan 22, 2011)

I don't think the movie has made it to Australia yet but I'm hoping. It looks great and I love all adaptations of JE so far. My fave has been the BBC miniseries from a few years ago starring Toby Stephens and Ruth Wilson. http://www.bbc.co.uk/drama/janeeyre/about.shtml It was excellent. The BBC are the best at adaptations.


----------



## kansaskyle (Sep 14, 2010)

I finished reading the book Tuesday, and watched the movie late last night. My bride saw an older adaptation of the movie, but hadn't read the book. I had to explain a lot of things that weren't clear in this version of the movie.

I thought Rochester seemed a bit too good looking. I also thought St. John was a bit dorky looking compared to the handsome description of him in the book. I thought Jane looked quite plain and homely, which fit my idea of her from the book.

_Note: Spoiler below about the movie!_



Spoiler



I didn't care for the flashback way of telling the story where we started two-thirds of the way into the book and Jane's childhood and the entire Thornfield scenes were a series of flashbacks. It seemed like the Thornfield scenes took entirely too long for a flashback.

I was disappointed they depicted Lowood as all harshness, when in the book the interaction with Ms. Temple was Jane's first glimpse of love. I thought Ms. Temple played a big role in Jane's compassion and how well she turned out later in life.

I also thought the removal of nearly all aspects of God put Jane's character if a different light. Rather than doing the right thing and resisting the temptation to become Rochester's mistress because it would go against God's teaching on marriage, Jane refuses simply because she doesn't want to compromise herself. I thought her faith played a much larger role in the book -- it kept her pure and God blessed her choices with the charity of the Rivers and the inheritance. Without the faith aspect, I thought Rochester's argument about continuing their love was too compelling when he says it is just a law of men that they couldn't wed.

Finally, I thought the ending was a bit abrupt. I was disappointed they didn't explain Rochester's injuries very well, show him as disabled as he was in the book, or how he flourished after being reunited with Jane.


----------



## bobavey (Sep 14, 2010)

I've heard that it's good, but I haven't seen it.


----------



## Kristan Hoffman (Aug 6, 2009)

kansaskyle said:


> I finished reading the book Tuesday, and watched the movie late last night. My bride saw an older adaptation of the movie, but hadn't read the book. I had to explain a lot of things that weren't clear in this version of the movie.


Very interesting... Thank you for the in-depth remarks!

Yes, Michael Fassbender is a bit on the handsome side for Rochester, but not enough to bother me. If they'd cast George Clooney or something, that would have been ridiculous. 

Response to spoilery comments:



Spoiler



I could tell from the trailer that it would be told in flashbacks, so I think I'm mentally prepared for that...

Oh, Ms. Temple isn't in it?! You're right, that's a shame.

I never thought of her as being particularly religious, since she rejects much of what her friend Hannah says at the orphanage, and yet wishes she had faith. Furthermore she ends up rejecting St. John and his religious zeal, although by that point, yes, she had come around to wanting to be proper and good, both in society and in the Christian sense.

And yes, I've heard that they don't maim him properly, which is again a shame...



Seriously though, good or bad, it's great to hear from someone who's seen it. It feeds my craving in a strange way, lol. Only one more week to go before I can see it myself, I hope...

Kristan


----------



## Kristan Hoffman (Aug 6, 2009)

So. I finally saw it for myself last night!! Thoughts below, w/ some spoilers:

Honestly, it didn't disappoint, but it didn't blow my mind either.


Spoiler



I did think the editing was choppy/confusing, and I just read the book a month ago so I can't imagine how others felt. I thought Mia played Jane a little *too* reserved for the first bit, but once she and Rochester confess their love, I thought they had great chemistry. And Michael Fassbender WAS Rochester for me -- everything about him (besides being a bit handsomer than Rochester is supposed to be) was exactly as I'd imagined. His passion, his expressions, his voice. Loved loved loved his performance!

I do think some elements were lacking (like Mrs. Temple) but I didn't mind them toning St. John down to be both less religious and less creepy.

And I am replaying the scene where Rochester begs her to stay (by the fireplace) over and over in my head, because it was just so perfect and swoon-worthy. 



Just my two cents, though.

Kristan


----------



## 13500 (Apr 22, 2010)

I finally saw it this past weekend. It was okay, but there were necessary bits of the book that were left out that bothered me. It seemed to focus more on Jane's inner turmoil than the eerie, gothic "woman in the attic" storyline it is known for. 

It was beautifully shot, though.


----------

