I love Jane Eyre and have seen all of the English-speaking versions of it, I think.
So, we watched the 2011 one. It got excellent reviews here except for a few who felt the way I did. These are my opinions, and I totally respect the opinions of those who loved this version.
Pros:
--Jane looked good. Very plain.
--Scenery was good.
--Many of the lines were directly from the book.
--Adele is played by a petite young girl (as opposed to the Ciaran Hinds version where Adele is almost taller than Jane).
Cons:
--Boring. It was my husband's first exposure to Jane Eyre, and probably his last. He was bored, and he usually likes British stuff, even Jane Austin or Bronte. He won't watch that genre more than one time, but at least he'll watch it that one time. In this case, he had a problem keeping up with this particular movie. (See my next comment.)
--In the beginning, they go back and forth between her childhood and present day. For him, that was confusing--and it would have been for me as well if I didn't know the story backwards and forwards.
--Rochester isn't "ugly" enough (Ciaran Hinds was perfect for it, Timothy Dalton wasn't -- even though his version is one of my favorites). That's not a major issue, but I don't think he was suitable for this movie. (I love Ciaran Hinds' looks, by the way, so I'm not knocking him!)
--Not good character development. I don't know how it's possible, but they really didn't develop the characters well. We didn't know or care about St. John or his sisters. The most 'thorough' J.E. is the Timothy Dalton one, and it's very long. But even the shorter ones still are able to develop characters. This one didn't. I found it almost a chore to watch. I didn't care all about Rochester and Jane.
--They didn't include some key lines between Rochester and Jane which would have really helped show that Jane was strong.
Ironically, I watched the deleted scenes, and probably half of them would have made the movie better.
So, we watched the 2011 one. It got excellent reviews here except for a few who felt the way I did. These are my opinions, and I totally respect the opinions of those who loved this version.
Pros:
--Jane looked good. Very plain.
--Scenery was good.
--Many of the lines were directly from the book.
--Adele is played by a petite young girl (as opposed to the Ciaran Hinds version where Adele is almost taller than Jane).
Cons:
--Boring. It was my husband's first exposure to Jane Eyre, and probably his last. He was bored, and he usually likes British stuff, even Jane Austin or Bronte. He won't watch that genre more than one time, but at least he'll watch it that one time. In this case, he had a problem keeping up with this particular movie. (See my next comment.)
--In the beginning, they go back and forth between her childhood and present day. For him, that was confusing--and it would have been for me as well if I didn't know the story backwards and forwards.
--Rochester isn't "ugly" enough (Ciaran Hinds was perfect for it, Timothy Dalton wasn't -- even though his version is one of my favorites). That's not a major issue, but I don't think he was suitable for this movie. (I love Ciaran Hinds' looks, by the way, so I'm not knocking him!)
--Not good character development. I don't know how it's possible, but they really didn't develop the characters well. We didn't know or care about St. John or his sisters. The most 'thorough' J.E. is the Timothy Dalton one, and it's very long. But even the shorter ones still are able to develop characters. This one didn't. I found it almost a chore to watch. I didn't care all about Rochester and Jane.
--They didn't include some key lines between Rochester and Jane which would have really helped show that Jane was strong.
Ironically, I watched the deleted scenes, and probably half of them would have made the movie better.