Jane Eyre 2011 enters into its second weekend (II)

Lots of Jane Eyre reviews today, as the film opens in Chicago, San Diego, San Francisco,Washington D.C., Atlanta, Dallas or Seattle (among others).The film also opens in Canada and Estonia and Latvia.

Positive

Film.com gives it an A-:

Fassbender and Wasikowska breathe life into their breathless passion, Brontë's exquisite dialogue and her character's socially enslaved soul searching for freedom. Judi Dench is dependably amusing as the gossipy yet kindhearted housekeeper who prefers Jane's high-born company because she doesn't feel she can speak to other servants like equals. Fukunaga and his cinematographer Adriano Goldman and artistic crew breathe supernatural life into everything else--from the terrifyingly sudden and eerie flutter of a bird or billow of chimney smoke, to a dream of Rochester suspended in a doorway of night and silently falling snow. Fukunaga's Jane Eyre is profoundly stirring -- everything a Jane Eyre movie should be, and more. (Christine Champ)

The Globe and Mail (3 out of four stars):

[M]ajor, exceptional talent is rare by definition, and, being rare, is easy to spot but hard to describe. Still, to see it is to realize instantly how few have it. Mia Wasikowska has it in abundance.(...)
Typically, though, it’s the casting of Rochester – Orson Welles, George C. Scott and William Hurt have each had a turn – that makes or breaks any rendition of Jane Eyre. But this isn’t typical. In fact, in my perhaps conventional view, Michael Fassbender seems miscast here, simply because he can’t escape his good looks. (...)
No matter. The female half is like nothing seen in any previous adaptation. First, Wasikowska plays Jane at her correct age – a mere 19. More important, she embodies that passion/repression battle in her body language, in her every gesture and nuance – open and honest one moment, clenched and timid the next, impelled by her nature to be defiant, compelled by society to be compliant.(...)
What’s more remarkable, she does this too: Given the autobiographical threads in the novel, Wasikowska seems to be playing not just Jane Eyre but also Charlotte Brontë, that other woman who struggled to find a balance between the prototypical feminist and the eminent Victorian. Yes, thanks to the actor, we actually catch a distinct glimpse of the creator within her creation. But surely that’s fitting – two such rare talents deserve each other. (Rick Groen)

The Boston Herald gives it a B+:

Fukunaga’s adaptation is often superficial and overwrought, fussy about costumes and pre-Raphaelite compositions. But his cast is fabulous for the most part, especially the leads. (James Verniere)

Gapers Block:

I was so greatly impressed with this version of Jane Eyre that I couldn't wait for characters who leave the screen for a time to return. The screenplay by Moira Buffini is sharp, clear, and emphasizes the strong qualities in each of its characters. The direction is strong and confident, the acting is superb, and the reworked story remains perfection. There are a lot of strong movies out this week, but this might be the best out there. (Steve Prokopy)

CBC News gives it 'four bonnets out of five':

Still, it's when the story returns to Jane facing off against the cantankerous Rochester that the film blooms. Much of the pleasure comes from their verbal sparring matches, with Rochester stunned to find someone who doesn't cower before him. Fassbender (who did some stunning work of his own in the amazing movie Hunger) makes a fine Victorian idol. With his jutting chin and high forehead, he resists the temptation to succumb too soon to Jane's charms.
As the supposedly plain Jane, Mia Wasokowska is a far cry from the polished heroine of Alice in Wonderland. The steeliness in her gaze both distinguishes her and draws Fassbender's poor Rochester in.
Compared to other versions of Jane Eyre, Fukunaga draws out the suspense and keeps the couple glowering at each other until that moment in a sun-drenched meadow when everything changes.
Credit also goes to the playwright Moira Buffini, who managed to condense Brontë's novel but retain much of the original's baroque language. (Eli Glasner)

The Toronto Sun:

Readers, I loved it. (Liz Braun)

The Gwinnett Daily Post gives it 3 1/2 stars:

Even with her two impressive breakthrough 2010 performances (“Alice in Wonderland” and “The Kids Are All Right”) Mia Wasikowska (pronounced vah-shee-kof-ska) is an unlikely choice for Jane. Usually played by older brunettes, Wasikowska — with her severely pinned-back, dishwater-dull, mousy blonde hair and flattened, grayish porcelain complexion — is a perfect fit. With two required exceptions, Wasikowska voices no emotion for the duration yet is able to deftly display the silent strength, unwavering resolve and put upon nature of the character Brontë so elegantly imparted to the printed page. (Michael Clark)

The Seattle Times gives it 3 1/2 stars out of 4:

And yes, Janeites will miss much that has been trimmed; an argument could be made that a screen "Jane Eyre" is better suited to television, where the story can be told in a more leisurely fashion. (The recent four-hour BBC version, starring Ruth Wilson, is a lovely one.) But every key scene is here, glowing in beautifully rendered candlelight and shadows and mist, celebrating Brontë's poetic language and Wasikowska's soft-spoken fire. Look at how Jane fingers a piece of lace, or gazes at the first room that's ever seemed to welcome her — touches of beauty, in a life relentlessly plain, for a heroine who somehow knows that she deserves joy. (Moira Macdonald)

The Boston Globe also gives it 3 1/2 stars out of 4:

The new “Jane Eyre’’ apparently stars Mia Wasikowska in the title role. If you’re looking for the long, blond, post-adolescent gazelle of “Alice in Wonderland’’ and “The Kids Are All Right,’’ you’ll search in vain. This Jane has dull brown hair and a hard, level gaze; she suggests nothing so much as a lethal mouse. How does an actress make herself appear shorter? I have no idea, but I do know this is one of the better Jane Eyres I’ve seen onscreen, a conception that forsakes movie-groomed glamour for a plainer, less compromised beauty. [...]
Instead of the usual Miramax trappings — the clip-clop of enameled horse-drawn carriages, the topiary vanishing into morning mist, the dresses, the estates — “Jane Eyre’’ avails itself of stark Derbyshire locations and rough-hewn people and props. Fukunaga and his cameraman, Adriano Goldman, use shallow focus to isolate Jane from the luxuriant backgrounds and to lend the story the indeterminacy of a dream. The sound design pays great care to the creak of the trees. Don’t come to this hoping to get your period-movie freak on.
Instead, the drama is where it should be, in Jane’s growing certainty and in the recognition of same by her employer. “Jane Eyre’’ is really about a woman carving a moral and psychological place in an uncaring world — how this “creeping creature,’’ in the words of one upper-class character, is actually a “rare, unearthly thing’’ to herself and anyone else astute enough to notice.
Wasikowska’s portrayal is so flinty yet so finely calibrated it seems freshly felt. [...]
Those shock waves carry over to the audience. For all its period details, the movie feels perched momentously on the threshold of a sense of self-worth that feels strikingly modern. Fukunaga may have made the first “Jane Eyre’’ to draw the connection between gothic and Goth. (Ty Burr)

The National Post's Ampersand gives it 3 stars:

“I will show you a heroine as plain and as small as myself,” Brontë told her writerly sister at the time of writing, and nearly 150 years later, Mia Wasikowska (Alice in Wonderland) has finally shown us Brontë’s perfect heroine. As the exceedingly plain Jane, Wasikowska is, quite simply, sublime. A revelation. She manages to be simultaneously mousy and luminous, offering a well-timed smirk and a terse riposte to Rochester’s interrogations that balances respect with subtle insolence.
I often find the leads in these unevenly matched, but thanks to Cary Fukunaga (Sin Nombre), my inner incurable romantic can now die happy. The hipster director, 33, manages to move convincingly from the Gothic things that go bump in the night to “you transfix me, quite.” [...]
Enter Michael Fassbender (Centurion, Hunger), who registers a 9.8 on the Rochester swooniness scale. He smolders convincingly, and matter-of-factly enough. [...]
There’s only so much wiggle room from the source material (it’s often scene-for-scene of previous screen Eyres) but thanks to fine chemistry between the leads, familiar passages and scenes feel fresh and ring truest. Interpreting the poetry of Brontë’s prose, cinematographer Adriano Goldman makes the most of natural light — the muted cold shades and flat light of the exteriors contrast with warm chiaroscuro interiors. These are often moodily bathed in the Rembrandt-like amber of flickering candlelight or flames. (Nathalie Atkinson)

Willie Waffle from The CWDC gives it 3 1/2 waffles out of 4:

Luckily, Wasikowska and Fassbender deliver the fight, the dialogue and the melodramatic plot twists. Fassbender is saddled with a character who, to put it bluntly, is a big jerk. He starts off at such an extreme, the audience has to wonder how he can make the brusque man into a romantic lead, but Fassbender takes us there small step by small step without over doing it. He shows us how Rochester can have a rough side and a lovey dovey side.
Meanwhile, Wasikowska shows some guts not many in Hollywood have. She takes on a role where her character is called plain, ugly, and worse for almost 2 hours, which is just fine here, since she brings out Jane's fierce and determined personality traits in the face of people who couldn't care less about her feelings.
Plus, I love the way Fukunaga captures the vast loneliness and isolation the characters experience.

Willie Waffle has also interviewed Cary Fukunaga, Mia Wasikowska and Michael Fassbender on video.

Mark Reviews Movies gives it 3 stars out of 4:

This version, adapted by Moira Buffini and directed by Cary Fukunaga, is, above all, a handsome production. It plays the novel's beats with a special kind of dexterity, shifting from the Gothic horror of those sounds and murmurs and laughs in the dark night of Thornfield Hall to the evolving relationship between the heroine and her employer, and if the condensing of the source material to incorporate as much as possible within it means a certain lack of overarching focus, it is not for a lack of understanding or atmospheric interpretation. This Jane Eyre knows its characters and how the bumps in the night become very real bumps in Jane's road to happiness. (Mark Dujsik)

It's Just Movies:

The settings in “Jane Eyre” are beautiful, but one major problem with the movie is the lack of light. Almost every single scene is lit by a few candles and although this may be to help set the somber and mysterious mood of the film, I found others complaining that certain scenes were hard for them to see what was going on. However, I thought the way it was lit and shot gave it the feeling of a thriller at times and helped during slower times in the story. I enjoyed and was taken aback at the emotionality in the story when it seemed to start off so cold and desolate. There are a few scenes where the two leads just explode with heart-wrenching emotions as they discuss their feelings for each other and their possible future together. (Adam Poynter)

Reel Film News gives it a B:

I really enjoyed Mia Wasikowska’s performance in this film. She did a very good job and impresses me as a young actress. She did a very good job in Alice in Wonderland and continues to impress me here. Michael Fassbender also does a very good job in this film. The two of them have excellent chemistry in this film. I genuinely felt as though there was a connection between the two of them. (Bill Ayres)

D Magazine:

Wasikowska shows a great sensitivity for her character, bringing to it a balance of tight-hearted reserve and a burning streak of muzzled ferociousness. She is reminiscent of a young Oliva Hussey, who could capture in a quiet gaze that volatile mix of burgeoning intellectual energy and clumsy sexuality — cloaked in a subdued beauty — that makes a type of young woman mind-numbingly irresistible to a certain kind of man.
Michael Fassbender’s Rochester is that man. Fassbender is a born action hero, virile and uncommonly in control even when he pushes himself to display emotional vulnerability. His Rochester succeeds best when he struggles to keep the character’s inner turmoil under wraps, bumbling and blundering his way through romantic profusions. Despite this movie’s gothic coloring and dramatic verbosity, adaptations of Jane Eyre succeed and fail based on the viability of this central relationship. In this latest version, it sizzles. (Peter Simek)

Mostly positive

The San Francisco Examiner gives it 3 stars:

If there’s a frustration about the film, it is that Fukunaga, for all his focus on Brontë’s gothic elements, keeps the tone of the melodrama too mild for such material, which includes, in addition to the attic horror, a mysterious conflagration. The love story, while engaging, is low on passion.
Still, if this isn’t the ultimate Jane, it is an intelligent, entertaining big-screen movie featuring a compelling heroine, literary credentials and a winning story that should satisfy “Jane Eyre” devotees and newcomers alike.
It’s also a chance to meet a terrific new Jane in the form of Wasikowska. Splendidly unglamorous and radiating acuity and decency, she’s ideal for this character. Her exchanges with Fassbender’s formidable Rochester are among the film’s highlights. (Anita Katz)

The San Francisco Chronicle prefers Zeffirelli's take after all:

[Mia Wasikowska] has a piercing, all-seeing look that seems to suggest a whole moral universe, a lifetime of deprivation and loss, spent at the mercy of people at their most vicious and perverse. But when she turns away, the spell breaks; and in emotional moments ... she's good, she's perfectly acceptable, but there's an extra something, a depth of soul or an understanding that's lacking.
In a similar way, this latest adaptation of the Charlotte Brontë novel is careful, respectful and even enjoyable, and yet dry, singularly humorless and played without the lavishness of spirit that makes sense of Gothic melodrama. The essence of the Gothic, after all, is in its suggestion of the nightmare, the primitive and the Id, and of pent-up, bottled-up sexuality. These are hinted at in architecture but usually expressed more fully and dramatically by the sky and the elements. (Mick LaSalle)

The Denton Record-Chronicle gives it 3 stars:

The story needs only a few rural settings, none of them as elaborate as those found in the pomp and dress balls of Pride and Prejudice. The film stays in a sort of sepia-toned haze, as if color would ruin the mood. Even when spring sports green grasses and blooming trees, the color remains dull and hardly noticeable.
Wasikowska is a fine young actress, and she makes a plausible Jane, although she might not fit some people’s idea of what Jane would look like. But who could? As Rochester, Fassbender, whatever his age, adequately conveys the sense of mystery and despair that his character demands. (Boo Allen)

The Arizona Republic gives it 3 1/2 stars:

On the other hand, the constraints of time - the relative brevity of even a leisurely paced film, and the ever-growing distance between the Victorian setting and contemporary audiences - inevitably do violence to the story.
On the page, "Jane Eyre" is a full life, chronicling the title character's upbringing in a hostile home and an oppressive boarding school before settling into the Gothic romance. Fukunaga and screenwriter Moira Buffini ("Tamara Drewe") condense the material into a frame-story structure, with flashbacks to young Jane (Amelia Clarkson, excellent) deftly defining the stakes for an orphan girl clinging to her position on the bottom rung of high society.
Wasikowska ("The Kids Are All Right") proves her chops in her first genuinely challenging role, solving the puzzle of how to suggest the depth of feeling that hides underneath her proverbial stiff upper lip. It's a fine performance despite the giggle factor every time someone repeats that her character is a plain Jane; dour costumes and makeup hardly disguise the elfin beauty that earned the actress her breakout role in Tim Burton's "Alice in Wonderland." (Kerry Lengel)

The Washington Post gives it 2 1/2 stars out of 4:

Still, if Jane and Rochester’s encounters never quite achieve the passionate flames of mutual comprehension that Charlotte Brontë so famously celebrated in her 1847 novel, that doesn’t detract too much from “Jane Eyre’s” illustrative pleasures. Fukunaga, who made an astonishing debut in 2009 with “Sin Nombre,” proves just as adept at evoking the Derbyshire landscape as Mexican gangland, setting Jane in an arrestingly windswept, rain-drenched moor.
Inside Thornfield Hall, his attention to detail never flags; no movie in recent memory has exploited 19th-century lighting implements with as much rich, lambent luster.
“Jane Eyre” purists will applaud Fukunaga’s decision to allow Jane the time to set up housekeeping with St. John Rivers (Jamie Bell) and his sisters, an interlude that serves as a sort of bloodless mirror image to her time at Thornfield with Rochester, his ward Adele (Romy Settbon Moore), their faithful housekeeper, Mrs. Fairfax (Judi Dench), and — sorry, what was that sound in the hall? As alert to “Jane Eyre’s” classic Gothic elements as to its heaving romance, Fukunaga infuses his heroine’s world with mysterious spirits and puffs of smoke, so that when Thornfield’s apparition finally appears in the flesh, the scene is of a piece with a darkly enchanted world.
Only one sequence, late in the movie, threatens to jar fans of the book by taking artistic liberties, but that’s the only visible sign that Fukunaga has compromised in acquitting “Jane Eyre’s” chief duty, which is to capi­tal­ize on the popularity of the “Twilight” franchise. With its air of gloom and glower, eroticism of desire and restraint and whiff of mortal danger, “Jane Eyre” could be read as the foundational text for all ’tween-oriented vamp-and-wolf narratives that came after it. If this “Jane Eyre” turns out to be the Brontë gateway for girls who came of age with Bella Swan and her moodily difficult love interest, that’s all to the good: Ladies, welcome to the original Team Edward. (Ann Hornaday)

Metro Canada:

Of the films based on Charlotte Brontë’s beloved 19th-century novel of madness on the moors, this may be the most realistic. It’s bleak, slow and grim, like life in those forbidding stone piles where Jane has spent her sad life. The deadly artifice of society threatens her as much as her escapes into the harsh natural world outside. Wasikowska isn’t up to playing the steel-willed literary heroine and seems mismatched with Fassbender’s dark magnetism. Sally Hawkins, who brutalises Jane as her smirking, sadistic aunt, gets under the skin more than the fog and rot and mistrust. (Anne Brodie)

Sobering Conclusion gives the film 3 1/2 stars out of 5:

I had gone into the film most excited about the direction of Cary Joji Fukunaga, who helmed the excellent “Sin Nombre“. While I knocked him for seeming to stretch that film too much, it’s easier to see why “Jane Eyre” runs nearly two hours, netting the film a 3.5 out of 5. And although this too can feel a bit slow at times, and the disjointed storytelling at the beginning seems self-indulgent, the acting, cinematography and production design should allow most into period piece films or with a particular affinity for the novel to get what they want out of this experience.(Ian Forbes)

Past the Popcorn:

What makes this movie, however, are the performances. The movie is by far at its best in the dialogue scenes between Jane and Mr. Rochester, played by Mia Wasikowska and Michael Fassbender, two actors who are definitely on the rise. (Jeff Walls)

Toronto Film Scene:

Although the performances are consistently rich and hypnotic, there are a few things in this movie that aren’t so well done. The biggest overarching problem is the film’s inability to stick to a certain mode, which made the pace rather uneven. It’s as if the director couldn’t quite decide what vibe to go for with this adaptation; how to strike a balance between sticking to the eerie and disturbing plot points and making the characters relatable. (Dasha Kotova)

FanBolt:

It's a fantastic story though, and the casting was superb. Michael Fassbender was able to be creepy... yet incredibly sexy and tempting at the same time. Mia Wasikowska managed to come across as a plain Jane - which in real life she is anything but. Hair and makeup certainly helped here, but Wasikowska managed to retain an innocence throughout the film that translated to the audience feeling just as unexperienced as she was.
My only complaint was that it felt too edited, especially in the beginning. I think if the story had been told in order, it would have had a much greater effect on the emotions of the audience - especially those of us who are new to the world of Jane Eyre.  (Emma)

torontoist (4 out of 5 stars):

Like J.J. Abrams’ 2009 Star Trek reimagining, Cary Fukunaga’s Jane Eyre takes a well-worn story and strips it down to its most essential elements. As Abrams narrowed in on the relationship between Kirk and Spock, ditching most of the hard sci-fi techie argot, Fukunaga sheds the dusty period piece upholstery that you’d expect to hang heavy over a film like this, instead developing the stifled romance between the strong-willed governess Jane Eyre (Mia Wasikowska) and master of the house Edward Rochester (Michael Fassbender). (...)
Fukunaga’s Eyre may be dull, but it’s pleasantly dull—slow-moving but consistently captivating. With its pitch-perfect casting and lively script, this Jane Eyre may well appeal to an audience beyond the twelfth-grade English student trying to pass a quiz on Brontë’s novel by hurriedly watching the film version the night before.

Mostly negative

Despite its 3 stars, The Chicago Tribune says,

The screenwriter Moira Buffini has restructured Brontë's narrative so that the story begins near the end, and then flashes back. This works well. What is lacking? I hesitate to use the most hackneyed two words in English, but: character development. The 1944 Robert Stevenson version of "Jane Eyre," a wild-eyed, visually striking black-and-white affair starring Joan Fontaine (post-"Rebecca") and Orson Welles (more effective in his uncredited design contributions than in his performance), has many flaws but its screenplay manages a gradual and convincing coming-together of the main characters. This latest version radically condenses the process. Here, it's one scene and bam: love, hard and fast. Brontë wrote of the "cord of communion" between Jane and Rochester, pulling them toward one another almost against their will. The movie gives that cord a strong yank early on — too strong, I think. (Michael Phillips)

Pegasus News:

But the structure of the film mostly serves to blunt any emotions that might have built up had the story been told chronologically. Jane gains strength and independence as she grows older despite the many obstacles put in her way. By employing flashbacks and flashforwards, there's never a “present” for the audience to grasp on to (even during the long stretch Jane spends as a governess), so any relationships she builds feel fleeting at best, inconsequential at worst. The ending of Jane Eyre all but requires the audience to be truly invested in the proceedings, and the filmmakers somehow lost track of that goal along the way.
The acting in the film ranges from serviceable to quite good. (Alex Bentley)

Negative

Dustin Putman gives it 2 stars out of 4:

There is no doubt that "Jane Eyre" has been an influential work in the annals of fiction, Charlotte Bronte's novels holding the same lingering, centuries-long impact as William Shakespeare's plays. For this latest cinematic treatment, however, a handsome production with elegant cinematography, art direction and costume design can only go so far in a subjectively meager period piece. Largely bereft of creativity or even a speck of courage to deviate off the path of the norm, this "Jane Eyre" feels strikingly unnecessary. Why watch the same tale spun for a tenth time when you could be watching one of the previous nine?

Mia Wasikowska and Cary Fukunaga speak to several media outlets:

The Chicago Tribune:

Despite their drained (if entirely pleasant) demeanor during our conversation, the energy in the room improved when Wasikowska and Fukunaga spoke about some of the specifics of the filming itself. "I'm constantly surrounded by women on this film," Fukunaga said.
"Even in the development phase, I had a lot of women commenting on my interpretation of it. And there was this scene where originally Jane and Rochester have a moment of hugging and kissing. The girls wanted this bodice-busting moment where he literally picks her up off the ground and puts her on the saddle. And I was like, 'That's terrible, that's cheesy.' I wanted to do something more original where she hugs his leg, which is interesting."
Wasikowska gave him a not-so-convinced look. "You guys all react that way, but it's in the movie!" (Nina Metz)

The Boston Phoenix:

You are the plainest Jane Eyre I have ever seen on screen. But you're not plain at all in real life. How did you manage that.
Wasikowska: The reality of the situation is that Jane wouldn't have had access to make-up. And she had to wear her hair in a particular way, and there just wasn't realistically any reason why she would have had make-up.
That didn't stop your Jane Eyre predecessors from looking made-up. Wasikowska: Well, I got no-make-up make-up. I love make-up that changes your appearance in ways so people don't go, "Oh, she's wearing eyeliner!"
Fukunaga: Daniel Phillips [Jane Eyre's make-up and hair designer] and I had a lot of conversations about the hair and the style of hair. We had to pick a time period to set the film in, along with the production designer and the costume designer, and we picked 1843. Which would have been about five years after Brontë really wanted to set the story, or four years, because the book was written in 1847, and it seems like it takes place 10 years before. Except that the clothing style of the '30s was just awful. Every woman looked like a wedding cake. I was not interested in doing that. There were a few characters that had that, in the sense that by 1843 not everyone had updated their style. But since Jane would have been making her own dresses, and her school, I felt she could have kept it somewhat contemporary.
Likewise for the hairstyles, we were looking for - oftentimes they were very tight to the head? We loosened it just ever so slightly? Sometimes people loosen it lot more because it's actually more pleasing, but in this case we didn't necessarily want it to be more pleasing, so we kept it down, sort of mousy, looped under the ear. There was one time when we gave her sort of ornate hair, and that was for the wedding. So that's the hair she had when she escaped. It's a bit more romantic. So that was a choice as well.
I was struck by the absence of artificial light at Thornfield. How did you manage that?
Fukunaga: We did use artificial light, but it was all very minimal, obviously, we were shooting at a very low f-stop. When you shoot anamorphic, and oftentimes period and epic films are shot anamorphic, you get a beautiful separation, because you can shoot what you want to focus on and everything else goes out of focus. We shot spherical, and in order to achieve a similar play with the focus, we wanted to shoot fairly open, so we shot at f/1.4 almost all the time, even during daylight, and it creates a very interesting effect. So, that's what we were doing, like using candlelight and pushing the stops. (Jeffrey Gantz)

GateHouse News Service:

“If you take away the period settings and the costumes, at the core, it’s a story about a young woman who is trying to find a connection and find love in a very isolated world. And I think that is very relatable,” said Wasikowska, adding that finding the heart of Jane Eyre wasn’t nearly as difficult as finding room to breathe –– literally.
“The things that they wore (in the Victorian era) were so uncomfortable. You can’t bend down very far; you can’t lift your arm very high. I know everybody says (the costumes) are painful, but I didn’t really understand how painful until I did the movie.” (Al Alexander)

The Chicago Sun-Times has also spoken to both of them. Hollywood Outbreak has an audio fragment where Mia talks about her admiration for Jane Eyre.The National Post's The Ampersand tries to find the swooniest of all Jane Eyre adaptations. The Chic Spy lists five reasons why Jane Eyre should be an Oscar contender. The Vancouver Sun and Time Out Chicago have also talked to Mia. USA Today has a couple of suggestions on travelling to 'Yorkshire in search of Jane Eyre'.The Baltimore Sun announces a pre-screening for this weekend (the film opens in Baltimore in April 1):

Baltimore audiences won't have to wait too long for "Jane Eyre," after all. Not only is it slated to open April 1 at the Senator, but it will also be this weekend's entry in Cinema Sundays at the Charles.
Series host Jon Palevksy cautions that only series subscribers are guaranteed a seat, leaving "about 100 tickets that can be sold Sunday morning." So follow his advice, get there early, and enjoy the pre-film coffee, bagels, schmears -- and schmoozing.
he box-office opens at 9:45 a.m. Showtime: 10:30 a.m. Loyola University's Mark Osteen will introduce the film and lead the after-screening discussion. (Michael Sragow)

An Associated Content user, The Singing Critic and Punch Drunk Critics have given Jane Eyre 2011 3 1/2 stars. WBEZ91.5 publishes a podcast reviewing the film. JayFlix, L.A.Melbox, Kulturblog and Three Cheers for Darkened Years! post about the movie too.

The McClutchy Newspapers get the nomination to the blunder of the week. This is the problem when the journalist tries to seem too witty:

I know what you're thinking: Man, we haven't had a new Jane Eyre adaptation in at least a week! Director Cary Fukunaga ("Sin Nombre") comes to the rescue with his take on Emily Brontë's (sic) enduring novel. (Rene Rodriguez)

Finally, another Jane Eyre contest. This one hosted by iVillage Book Club and Focus Features:

From cherished classics to the hottest beach novels, we want to hear what you’re reading. Join us to discuss this month’s recommended reading, Jane Eyre. Chime in each week with your thoughts, then head to your local theatre to experience a bold new vision of the film starring Mia Wasikowska and Michael Fassbender, in select theatres now.
Each comment to our special weekly question will be counted as an entry for your chance to win a Kindle or a Book Club Kit including DVDs of our favorite books to film from Focus Features! So get reading and join in on the discussion now!
Message Board sponsored by Jane Eyre, now playing in select theatres. Join in the discussion for your chance to win!

Categories: Jane Eyre, Movies-DVD-TV