JANE EYRE IS BACK AND SHE’S BETTER THAN EVER

Not another remake! Just when you think you’ve seen enough of “Jane Eyre” movies to last you a lifetime, another one comes along that is totally mesmerizing and makes you forget about the others. From the first moment, the story sweeps the viewer away and all preconceived notions are forgotten. Gorgeous photography and locations and costumes just add to the splendor. Mia Wasikowska is perfectly cast as the plain but attractive and repressed Jane, who also is smart and determined. She’s everywoman. This version of the story is by far the most passionate and sensitive and beautifully written. If you like British period movies, it won’t disappoint.

15 thoughts on “JANE EYRE IS BACK AND SHE’S BETTER THAN EVER

  1. Poor little homely thing. It looks like she is wearing another ugly frock from the Jessica Simpson clothing line.

  2. I’m going to have to go back and read the book again. I can hardly “see” this face as the heroine. Her features are too clunky looking and I can’t imagine in the least the seething passion under the surface this role calls for being played across THIS face. I’d say, bad casting AGAIN.

  3. Jesus Christ. That meat fucking ad Janet.
    British period.

  4. she was great in Alice in wonderland!
    solid actress…..

  5. Where’s the gossip? Love you Janet but when I want movie reviews I read The New Yorker.

  6. she can be a ruthless lebian.
    BUT LICKING A VAGINA THIS WAY HAS NEVER BEEN DUPLICATED SINCE………..

  7. Better than ever? No, thanks. I prefer Susannah York and Charlotte Gainsbourg among others.

  8. She was also fabulous in “In Treatment” on HBO and she’s a beautiful girl. Clearly made plain for this role.

  9. Plain, very plain! But movie paps pay well don’t they JC?

  10. Agree with Denise and Hedda. Mia can act and she surely transformed herself in this picture into a plain Jane – including the frown. Nice. She is blessed with face like canvas, she can play pretty and she can play uglies. See her other roles boys before criticizing. I know you are all used to Hollyweird crap and one sided typecasted ‘acting’, but real act is more than just diarrhea Hollyweird is serving you. Edumacate yourself dahlings…

    Jerry, the site is called JC Hollywood, I guess talking about movies falls under the category…

  11. Awesome cast, Mia Wasikowska, Michael Fassbender, and Jamie Bell. I’m totally up for this. Nods to Janet, hedda, Denise and Alpha regarding Mia.

  12. this version of Jane Eyre is far superior than the last version I paid to see in theater. (that last version starred Charlotte Gainsborough as jane Eyre -that film was a disaster).

    However, even this version of JE fails to get the story completely correct.

    this film glosses over Jane Eyre’s childhood and goes directly to the romance.

    However jane Eyre’s sad childhood shaped her to be the person who falls in love ( and is loved) with a man who is technically not in her class and significantly older than her.
    also, the novel emphatically states Mr. Rochester is NOT handsome but his attractiveness is based on his masculinity and mystery.
    IMO, Micheal Fassbender is too attractive for the role of Rochester – though his performance is good.

    This film is worth seeing but it is flawed.

  13. I was pretty pleased to discover this website. I want to to thank you ffor ohes time for this wonderfil read!!

    I definitely liked every little bit of it and I hae you saved to fav to check out new
    things in your site.

    Feel free to surf to mmy web-site Transition Management [Katrin]

  14. Not exactly!

    Plain, extremely plain! But movie paps pay well don’t they JCH?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *