2 August 2018 I thought this would compare to other films from the era, in particular the adaptations of the Jane Austen books, but was sorely disappointed. The actor who played Jane I found particularly unattractive - when trying for high drama she simply came across as petulant and walked through the part wooden-faced for the most part. I didn't watch to the end. Not up to snuff!

Film Review: "Jane Eyre" (2011)After an impressive first feature "Sin Nombre" directed by Cary Fukunaga releasing on Sundance Film Festival in January 2009, comes this following up picture based on several-times adapted content of Charlotte Brontë novel "Jane Eyre" from 1847 on the story of an handmaiden, falling for a man of property, who she works for; beautifully shot by cinematographer Adriano Goldman from sunny to stormy on-location countrysides in England, setting the mood for atmospheric classic drama led by actress Mia Masikowska, who portrays the character of Jane Eyre with dignity, but is unable to find a break-out scene of desperation, in which she might have been shown her dramatic qualities at an early age of twenty-one. Nevertheless the supporting cast, including Dame Judi Dench as Mrs. Fairfax, Michael Fassbender as Rochester and further Sally Hawkins as Mrs. Reed, Jamie Bell as John Rivers roundup well-designed sets, transcending mystery and desire with an elegantly editorial by Melanie Oliver, which keeps its pace over 110 Minutes to non-surprise feel good ending.© 2017 Felix Alexander Dausend (Cinemajesty Entertainments LLC)

Just saw the best film since I saw "It's a Wonderful Life". I feel as if a spirit has lifted my soul and I can hardly breathe. The tears I feel are not only cased in anguish, but filled by joy. Though the empathy I feel for the character, and yet the writer burdens me so. Hope has burdened me so, and there is no limit to it's burden. The pain that this film has caused me, is worth another day of life. For I believe that the juice is worth the squeeze. If you see one film this year...Let it be "Jane Eyre".The anxiety and depression displayed is so human, that I feel worth being.

Jane Eyre is a story that is very near and dear to my heart. The first time I ever experienced JE, I watched the 2006 Toby Stephens version with my mother, when I was around 12/13. I was dazzled by that version. The scenery was beautiful, it had a kind of spooky feeling, the story was intriguing, but what got me hooked on Jane Eyre was the relationship between Jane and Edward.In the 2006 version, Stephens and Wilson are passionate, and they convey so much through their exchange of glances and subtle expressions. The delivery of the lines is fantastic, and so much feeling. Wilson does a perfect job of displaying Jane's passionate and romantic nature, while also showing her inner strength and clear sightedness. Toby Stephens was an excellent Rochester. You could see how tortured he was, and he was amazing at going from charming and pleasant one second, to brooding and rude the next.After the 2006 version, I read JE, and got wrapped up in the book too! After years of loving the book and the 2006 version, I decided to expand my horizons and watch other adaptations. I watched the 1983 version with Timothy Dalton and Zelah Clarke, and I loved that one too. It comes in close second to the 2006 version. Timothy Dalton was excellent, and Zelah Clarke was pretty good. In my humble opinion not as good as Ruth Wilson, but still. when I watched both the 1983 version and the 2006, I felt I was watching the book come to life before my eyes, like I was really seeing Jane and Rochester as they were meant to be seen.With 2011 version, I was so let down. A few points of the movie were okay, mostly I didn't like it. The scenery was fine. I've read some reviews saying how much they loved the "Gothic" feeling of the movie, but I have to disagree. Visually, the film looked Gothic, but it didn't have that same creepy FEELING that I got watching 2006. JE is supposed to be sort of Gothic, but it's also very colourful and vibrant at points. This film seemed like it was trying too hard to be creepy and haunting, and instead ended up feeling very dull. I thought Fassbender's Rochester was interesting. He was good at being brooding, and not bad to look at. Many people complain that he was too good looking for Rochester, which is true, but whenever you get an adaptation of Jane Eyre, especially a more modern one, it's pretty much a given that Rochester is going to be too handsome. I thought there were some moments where Fassbender did well, and I think if he had had a better script, his Rochester could've turned out better.Things I felt were wrong...:Rushed storyline. The whole plot of the movie felt like a project done by an English student who didn't read the book, and just read the cliff-notes. Important scenes were cut, and dialog was choppy, and I found myself muttering lines that should've been included. AND THE ENDING. It felt like Pride and Prejudice 2005 all over again. The epilogue, that's the best part, with some of the most emotional scenes!! They completely butchered it, trying to go for a dramatic ending that fell flat. They really screwed Jane and Edward's relationship. JE is first and foremost, a story about love, passion, and equality. Wasikowska and Fassbender failed to deliver the passion and emotion that was needed in their characters. I feel this wasn't entirely their fault. The script was lacking, and they didn't have much to work with. Also think the director, or whoever was telling them how to act in each scene didn't know what they were doing. There were moments during the movie, where we saw a little bit of passion. The scene after the "wedding" where Rochester is pleading with Jane to stay, they did alright in that scene. You could see what could've been, if the script had been longer and better.I also felt that with the rushed storyline, the love between Jane and Rochester didn't seem real. With the proposal scene, it felt like the movie was saying, "Yep! He loves her now. This makes sense!" It wasn't authentic. In other versions of JE, Rochester is fascinated by Jane. You see them develop friendship, and you see them fall in love. SLOWLY. The reason Rochester has the house party with Blanche at Thornfield is to try and make Jane jealous. At this point he is already in love with her, and is sure he wants to be with her. He is trying to see if Jane wants him back. The 2011 version feels like by the point Blanche arrives, Edward and Jane don't really know each other.They cut out Jane being related to St. John, Diana and Mary, which was an important part of the story. The whole reason Jane gave them all some inheritance was because she didn't want the money as much she wanted family. And also, she felt they were entitled to it as they were related to the uncle as well. THE FORTUNE TELLER SCENE. I was upset about that being cut out.Grace Poole is just completely out of the picture??I was also very mad about the bed fire scene. This is supposed to be a frantic scene. Jane and Rochester were too calm trying to put out the flames. They were just like "Oh no, a fire. We'd better put that out. Wow."I have more things I didn't enjoy, but this is too long. To finish, if you want a good quality adaptation of Jane Eyre, watch the 1983 version, or the 2006 version. I would recommend the 2006 version first, because it's my favourite, but the 1983 version was great too. Or you could watch them both!