I admit this story will make the heart of anyone who watches melt. The way Jane Eyre tells the story of a woman who lived in misery all her life and how Rochester is portrayed as a cold but intimidating man, looking rude but caring. If you are looking for sadness in this movie, YOU WILL NOT GET IT. But when you are looking for a classic romance story wrapped with a real problem of a poor woman with a rich man then you are in the right place.The very right story is spent in my spare time or holiday, I really do not regret my day by watching this. Their way of their gazing and the way they express feelings will take you through time, how Jane who craves happiness, turns up in an unexpected time. Always full of what Rochester is thinking.Unfortunately, I did not get too much emotion of grief from Mia Wasikowka, her way of portraying the sadness of lessening my feelings when I saw her

Imagine a story where a young lady, fresh out of school, having endured a terrible childhood; experiences true love for the first time. Then, not only will you see her conquer her past by forgiving her enemies, but also be strong enough to walk away from her love; soul mate and equal and still remain true to her character. Despite her poverty, she is benevolent. She is not bitter nor an atheist; she has faith in God and believes He has a plan for her. She is willing to endure her hardships with a thankful heart, and in the end, she is given a family with the man she loves and who love her in return. This is the story of Jane Eyre.Now this is the movie, which I am convinced, just coincidentally had the same name. The story is about a young girl, abused as a child and unable to get past it, is sexually uninformed about herself and is afraid of never seeing the world or being able to talk to a man. Being so naïve and weak, she takes up a job as a governess only to fall victim to her employer's advances. This mister Rochester, whom has taken an unhealthy interest in her body, toys with her emotions and breaks her down to the point where she sees herself in love with him. After she discovers he is already married to a lady he drove to madness, she tries to break free and run away, only to find herself walking back to him a few years later and you yourself are uncertain if this reunion was a happy ending or a tragedy. Not once is God mentioned in the film and the whole thing was like a pointless experience where the message was, 'your childhood was bad, so your whole life will be bad.'Oh my gosh, what is this crap? The whole film had this Goth look the director was going for. Even the characters lost their sense of humanity just so they can fit into this atmosphere. There was no growth of relationship or character, in fact the beautiful love story of two equals; Edward and Jane, was turned into this unrealistic tale where Edward just wants Jane as his 'next edition'. At one point even, get this; he puts his hands aggressively around Jane's neck because she wanted to leave. Mr. Rochester 'chokes' Jane; that should never have been a sentence! And lets not forget the scene where he flashed her; something that's 'also' not in the book.I'm not even going to consider this as an adaptation it was just disgusting. It was so off and sexually hyped; and to my abhorrence even riddled with perverted undertones that were placed there by the director himself; it sounds strange but here's one example. At the beginning Jane finds herself wandering the moor as an amnesiac until she is taken in by a kind family who wishes to help her. While staying with them, she regains her memories and you see her drawing pictures of two key points in her life; the first being her life at school which was hard and cold and the only good thing about it was her only friend, a girl named Helen Burns whom you see Jane drawing. What disturbs me about this is that in that same scene, you also see her drawing a picture of a man who I think was Mister Rochester, her love interest in the story. I'm confused as to why she would draw an old childhood friend alongside a man she thinks she loves as if she was comparing the two and pinning for the other. I found all her scenes with Helen even, to have a weird almost sexual feel, which both shocked and disturbed me, because I never got that with the other adaptations of Jane Eyre. I got this sense that the director was saying Jane was having regrets from her relationship with Edward and was contemplating the 'other' option. Not only that, but I felt that all the scenes that featured little girls; portrayed them in a way which made me want to barf. Not only did the young girls in the film share uncanny similarities in facial appearance as if purposely selected that way out of 'preference' but the shots the director choose to show them in, seemed wrong; like why would I see child Jane getting her dress removed? Or Adele pretending to bite Jane's neck and later sitting like a pet next to Mr. Rochester? It just felt sick.Well whatever this horrible atrocity was at least it's not Jane Eyre and even as its own movie, it was vacant. It was just this cinematic display of hopelessness, there was nothing redeemable about this film. The only thing about it that I liked was that I can watch the 2006 adaptation after it ends. Seeing Ruth and Toby kiss lovingly on screen as Jane and Edward, is the only thing I'm looking forward to right now.My rating. -5 out of 10. I came to watch a good film and honestly feel so attacked right now.

I was enraptured from the moment Edward Rochester fell from his horse. Truly, there is no movie to match this adaptation of 'Jane Eyre'- the grouchiness and depth is so true to the book that I could not help but feel the temptation to run across the moors with the measly little governess as Rochester cried 'JAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAANE!". Secondhand embarrassment washed over me like rain as the couple wed in the dreary church, the priest smiling weakly and attempting to join the hands that were destined to touch. I say this to try and convey how realistic each scene is to the viewer. As for the cast, Rochester may not be as passionate as he was in the novel, but he certainly is dark and grumpy enough to pull off the 'Byronic hero vibe'.If you want to feel the essence of Rochester shine from within, I highly recommend this delicate and accurate portrayal of 'Jane Eyre'.

OK so I watched this movie in English and it didn't make any sense, the story is really boring I mean every minute is another 60 seconds of monotony. I know a lot of you arrogant English scholars and pretentious hipsters aren't going to like this but this was just awful, the story is too confusing, she starts off as a kid and then is taken to some priests house and then there's a time skip. at this point it gets really boring and confusing, she becomes a teacher but then she quits or something like that, then she is working at Micheal Fassbenders house and its all good, then there's a fire (with NO explanation to why there is a fire I might add) and then Fassbender is about to marry the main character but it turns out he already has a wife, and his wife appears in the movie for about 2 minutes and is never heard from again. then they are in a field and there's a character called St David (not the saint of wales) is calling for her and she runs off, then the house is destroyed and a maid's ghost is there then Fassbender is blind and she looks at him and the movie cuts to black. That plot made no sense whatsoever. Everyone in my class agreed it was terrible. This film made it to the top 5000 how did it do that? The story is terrible, the acting is bland, the dialogue switches from 18th century English to 21st century English way to much. There are too many time-skips, half the events are just filler, the only fun I had watching this movie was making fun of it with my friends about how bad it was. Do not watch it