Review Of The Reviews

One of my favorite movies of all time is Jane Eyre.  The movie Jane Eyre is the latest film adaptation of the book by the same title.  This book has to be my all-time favorite book that I have ever read.  I could go on and on about what the book/movie is about, but to save you some time, I will include a link to the trailer here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C8J6Cjn06kA

I thought this movie was so beautiful.  The gothic, romantic and historical themes of the movie make it very unique and memorable.  I saw this movie for the first time right when it came out in 2011, and yet I have not found another film that is anything like it.

I know that I have a very different taste in movies, so I was very interested in seeing what critics and other viewers thought of the film.  I went on Rotten Tomatoes to see what the "fresh" to "rotten" ratio this movie had.  The link to the Rotten Tomatoes page for Jane Eyre is here: http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/jane_eyre_2011/

1.  The first review that I saw was by a woman named Connie Ogle from the Miami Herald.  Connie expressed her love for the actors and actresses that were picked to be in the film.  She raves about Michael Fassbender as Mr. Rochester, and believes that there are moments in the film that stuck in her head because of the chemistry that the two actors had.

Obviously, since I love this movie, I could not agree more with Ogle.  I think that the two actors chemistry on film is more than convincing.  That chemistry was very important considering Jane Eyre is  a passionate, forbidden love story.  Here is the link to Connie's review: http://www.miami.com/jane-eyre-pg-13-article

The second review that I saw was by Rafer Guzman from Newsday.  It is safe to say that Guzman hated the film for many different reasons.  He disliked the choice of actors, the style of the film and the writing.  He believes that any normal reviewer would be put to sleep by this movie.  He even compared this adaptation to what the movie would be like if it were actually filmed in 1847 (When Charlotte Bronte's novel came out).

So say the least, I completely disagree with this critic.  I felt that I was on the edge of my seat the whole time while watching the movie.  I am very disappointed that this great film was given such a horrible review.  Here is the link to Guzman's review: http://www.newsday.com/entertainment/movies/jane-eyre-could-literally-be-a-sleeper-1.2778645  

2.  Having seen the film Jane Eyre, I agree with the quote " The actress is hardly plain, but she’ll pass muster by movie standards, and when the two square off there’s no mistaking the fact that she’s his match in every sense but experience. (Ogle 1)" entirely.  The whole point of the movie is to experience the two characters bond with each other.  We as viewers want to see how close they are and how despite their different situations, they are meant to be together (Cheesy, I know.).  The character Jane is a very plain girl in the novel, which is supposed to get the point across even further that it is so out of the ordinary that Mr. Rochester falls in love with her.  According to Ogle, this was obvious in the film.  

3.  If I were never to have seen Jane Eyre and had read both of these opinions of the movie, I think the negative review would be more convincing.  Although this genre of film is one of my favorites, I am a teenager.  I don't have the best attention span in the entire world.  I would probably pass over this movie to avoid being bored out of my mind, like Guzman said I would be.  I think the reason that Guzman's review leaves such an impression is because the fact that he says, "If the motion-picture industry had existed in 1847, the year Charlotte Brontë's novel appeared, it might have produced an adaptation much like this one".  That is such an extreme comparison.  I honestly would say that it is almost borderline shocking.  That quote doesn't get me to want to watch the movie at all! 

I think what makes a review so convincing is voice from the author and a part in the review that will stick in the readers' heads, much like Guzman's comparison.  There has to be an moment in the readers' minds like "Oh my god!" for the review to be effective. 

4.  If I were to make a review of this film, there are a couple things I would make sure that I include and some things that I would make sure to leave out.

The things that I would include in my review are simple. I would make sure I note the great casting in this movie.  Mia Wasikowska has to be the perfect actress to play Jane.  She is a plain, smaller and frail looking woman which completely fits Bronte's description in the novel.  Jane is the type of character that doesn't always say much, but when she does ti is very meaningful.  Wasikowska does a great job of this.  Michael Fassbender, the actor that plays Mr. Rochester, I think is also very fitting for his character.  He has the harsh features that the character requires, as well as the harsh personality.  I think they both do a fantastic job.  If I were to cast a couple to be in this film, I would have picked Fassbender and Wasikowska myself.  Another few things in the film that I would make sure to put into my review would be the historical accurateness, the scenery of the mansion and the mansion grounds, the fitting music and the feeling of "WOW!" after leaving the movie theatre. There really isn't anything like the passion there is in this movie. 

There is only one thing  that I would probably leave out in my review about this movie.  I would leave out the ending of the movie.  No one likes a spoiler.  I also believe that the ending of the novel/film is absolutely perfect, and should not be ruined by a little review.   I truly believe that this is an amazing film, and I do not think there is a single thing in it that I dislike- therefore, I have nothing else I would leave out of the review.  This is a very raw movie, and I think that most people would appreciate that.