Talk

Advanced search

Jane Eyre - is it out have you seen it?

(19 Posts)
mixedmamameansbusiness Mon 05-Sep-11 13:10:30

What did you think?

lucysnowe Mon 05-Sep-11 13:12:00

I've seen it, it's very cute and nice looking. A bit...slight, maybe? I think it will reward further viewings.

PersonalClown Mon 05-Sep-11 13:17:01

Jane Eyre is my favourite book ever.
I'm debating this version though. I loved the last BBC adaptation and I'm afraid this one won't live up to my expectations!

mixedmamameansbusiness Tue 06-Sep-11 13:58:15

I have just started reading it. At the moment just not sure, I really dislike first person storytelling, but am only at the beginning so will get with it. Sure I will love it by the end.

mycatsaysach Tue 06-Sep-11 21:28:44

out in uk in sept i believe - saw trailer today.i thought it looked v scary and a bit dark.
the actress playing jane had a definite eastern european accent.

PersonalClown Tue 06-Sep-11 21:31:19

'Jane' is Mia Walka-wotsit... her that played Alice in Tim Burton's Alice in Wonderland.

We're going at the weekend, I think. I liked the trailer a lot. I also really enjoyed the BBC version of a couple of years ago, so will be interested in how this compares.

Re the novel, I hate the first half and hate the bit with the silly man with the silly name I can never remember - but I love the Rochester bits! smile

SansaLannister Tue 06-Sep-11 21:38:08

Edward Rochester is supposed to be ugly. Not tall, ill-proportioned, with a large-ish head and dark hair and eyes.

Yes, he's supposed to be a bit of a gnome. BUT Jane is supposed to be plain too and the actress in this is lovely. The one in the BBC one was probably better cast, looks-wise.

mycatsaysach Tue 06-Sep-11 21:43:39

grin doh just realised we are in sept already

SansaLannister Wed 07-Sep-11 01:43:42

'BUT Jane is supposed to be plain too and the actress in this is lovely.'

Not really. She is young, which was the point of Jane, even. She has the look of Jane, mouse brown hair, short, pale, slender build and green-eyed. Most girls that age fitting such a description are lovely in that they have a freshness about them which is utterly irresistable, especially if they are of good nature, which she was. They have skin to die for, British girls that age, like cream. Jane also had a lack of self-assurance that is like flies to honey for men like Rochester, even now.

The innkeeper at the end said it best, 'Mr Edward was about forty, and this girl not yet twenty, and when gentlemen of his age fall for girls, they are often as if bewitched.'

Her youth is what is lovely.

But Edward is supposed to be assymetrical, disproportionate (barrel-chested, with legs shorter in relation) and not that tall.

Michael Fassbender is very, very beautiful. He is tall, with startling blue eyes and you could draw a line down the middle of his face and see the same on either side. BUT, he is also a very good actor, so perhaps he pulls it off.

CheerfulYank Wed 07-Sep-11 01:51:29

Michael Fassbender is beautiful, but he isn't pretty IYSWIM. I can see him as Rochester.

bruffin Sat 10-Sep-11 12:03:19

I hated the last bbc version, it was dreadful, they missed out most of the childhood and tried to make Jane by given her bushy eyebrows.

One of the best versions was on the bbc in 73 with Sorcha Cussack and Michael Jayston. he was very dark and broody. I also like the old black and white version with Orsan Welles as Rochester.
Will have to go away and read it again for the umpteenth time
I have been umming and arring about going to see the current one and nearly did last night but went to see One Day instead.

nineyearoldsarerude Sat 10-Sep-11 19:16:09

I have just seen it and loved it. The end seemed to be a bit too abrupt though-I wanted to savour that bit!
I am in love with Michael Fassbender.

belledechocchipcookie Sat 10-Sep-11 19:21:13

I've no intention of watching it. How many movies of this book do people need? I must have seen 4 different adaptations. Can't they think of another book to turn into a movie?

nineyearoldsarerude Sat 10-Sep-11 19:35:24

I know what you mean-it can be annoying when they do so many different (yet similar) versions. However in my case I hadn't see the film before (and only saw the odd part of the tv adaptation) so was very glad to get the chance to see this one. And he was perfect!

echt Thu 15-Sep-11 11:15:27

I went see this about 4 weeks ago with some students - a supporting text for another novel they're studying. They sat around in the cinema for at least 20 minutes, vigorously debating its merits.

They loved it. Especially the bleak English landscape.

GrimmaTheNome Thu 15-Sep-11 11:24:49

Bruffin - the 73 version was my introduction (and allegro for strings, anachronistic but fab title music grin) to JE, and indeed to proper literature I started watching, then got the book of the shelf and read it before the series ended.
I've not seen the film but heard positive review on R4 - the woman reviewer commented that you had to be faithful to your first Rochester - Michael Jayston for her too. He was broody but still way too good looking!

Curiousmama Tue 20-Sep-11 21:33:49

I loved it but also love the Orson Welles version.1944 shock

I missed the fact that Miss Temple isn't in it. Also think Mr R is better looking than the book but even so loved the simmering passion.

And of course the landscape. Anyone know where it was shot?

I hadn't seen MF before, or had I?

Join the discussion

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now