That's what I have after watching this dvd twice: a decidedly mixed reaction. Like many other reviewers, I'm a die-hard Jane Eyre fan, having read the book too many times to count and seen at least 6 film adaptations (I think there have been at least 8). This dvd is the 5th I've added to my collection, which my children find absolutely hilarious. But anyway, I wanted to see this one at the theater but it was only in my hometown for about a week, so I ordered it as soon as Amazon had it. I guess I should just lay out my pros and cons and let the chips fall where they may.

Pros: The casting is possibly the best of any version I've seen. Mia Whatchamacallit (sorry, can't remember her name right now) was 21 when the film was shot, making her about the right age to play Jane. All the other versions I've seen cast actresses who were well past their teen years, so it was good to see a more-age-approriate Jane. She also did a nice job with the role, expressing shades of emotion in her face since her lines are frankly rather limited. Michael Fassbender is honestly too young (34) and too good-looking (he was the smokin' hot warrior Stelios in 300) but does a very good job inhabiting the character of Rochester. He's very gruff with just the right hint of humor to make Rochester the irritating but somehow intriguing guy he is. The other roles were also well-cast. Judi Dench is always amazing, and Jamie Bell (though not as handsome as St.John should be, imho) was appropriately stern. The cinematography of the movie is just lovely. I really liked the lighting. Everything at Gateshead is sunlit and colorful, belying the hellish existence Jane endures there. Lowood school is spare and colorless, and Thornfield is mostly lighted from underneath with the only light falling on the characters seeming to come from candles and fireplaces. This creates an air of mystery and confusion as the viewer can never really get a good enough view of the place to even be sure of its layout. I liked the notion of starting the story with Jane's escape from Thornfield and the rest being told in flashback, but I can't say if that would be confusing to someone unfamiliar with the story or not.

Cons: I suppose nobody could condense this huge novel into a 2 hour movie and not leave out something I thought was important, but I felt too many details were omitted. Jane's character development as well as that of the relationship between Jane and Rochester were dealt with so quickly that they lost some of the depth of emotion they should have had. The conclusion of the film occurs so abruptly that I got a bit angry. It was sort of a "You've got to be kidding!" reaction that it just suddenly ended without what I thought was adequate closure. Some scenes, such as Jane's flight over the moors, were lovely but rather long, and I found myself wishing some of those scenes had been cut to give more scenes that "fleshed out" the story.

So my mixed reaction still allows me to recommend the movie. I think it is a good and respectful adaptation of one of my favorite novels as well as a visually lovely film with a solid cast.

First off, I am the biggest fan of Jane Eyre. I have seen all the adaptations, have several copies of the book and would claim it is my favorite novel of all time. That being said, I was severely disappointed with this adaptation of the novel. I felt that the characters were incredibly static and did not develop as they should. Don't get me wrong, I absolutely love Mia Wasikowska and Michael Fassbender (him especially), however I felt that their performances fell short of the actual characters they were portraying.

There was little development as the movie progressed. The character of Jane grows from this meek and timid girl into this powerhouse of a woman. However, in this adaptation, she is not afraid to state her opinion and is bold right out of the gate. The audience cannot grow and push for her as a character if she does not develop as the story progresses. Rochester is the same way. In the real story, he at first comes off as a gruff and enigmatic person. He changes though from that dark, brooding character into one who is to be pitied- he starts off strong and domineering and ends up the weaker of Jane and himself. In this version however, he is this character that is both gruff and tortured straight from the get go. He does not develop into being the weaker character.

Things just progressed at an odd pace in this film. However I will say I did like the creative use of flashbacks to tell the story and the hints of things from the book (i.e. when the tree Jane and Rochester were standing under gets struck by lightning) without actually drawing attention to them.

I've seen a lot of the Jane Eyre adaptations (though not all 20+ of them) and so I wasn't sure what to expect going in to this film. I was happy to discover that this is by far my favorite of all the films, television series, etc. Mia Wasikowska's Jane Eyre is luminous - my favorite of all the Janes, and Michael Fassbender's Mr. Rochester has got to be the sexiest Rochester in the entire canon. The cinematography and music are beautiful and the use of natural light and candle light lend the appropriately gloomy gothic atmosphere.